Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Nov 29, 2004.

?

Complaints are valid

  1. Yes

    2 vote(s)
    22.2%

  2. No

    7 vote(s)
    77.8%
Page 7 of 7
  1. Quantum Quack

    Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just a quote from an article published at
    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/blunder.html
    by the University of Manchester 2001
     
    Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2004
    #121

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM

    MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Correct.
     
    MacM, Dec 3, 2004
    #122

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack

    Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Well MacM I didn't think we would agree, but it appears we do.

    If SRT followers would like to express their concerns maybe they would find a way to agree as well.

    It is unfortunate that the use of LR in SR leads to a fatal contradiction in the philosophy and logic of SR.

    But it would be even more unfortunate if this contradiction wasn't found.
     
    Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2004
    #123

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM

    MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    MacM, Dec 3, 2004
    #124
  8. Yuriy

    Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    For all readers, who by some reason did not opened it:
    The link cited by QQ starts as following

    "Einstein's Greatest Blunder
    The Cosmological Constant
    Much later, when I was discussing cosmological problems with Einstein, he remarked that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life.
    -- George Gamow, My World Line, 1970 [1]
    Einstein's remark has become part of the folklore of physics, but was he right? etc..."

    George Gamov, the Nobel Prize laureate for theory of alpha-decay, the first "father" of Big-Bang model of Universe (the second one was also Russian scientist Jacob Zeldovich) was the biggest worshipper and propagandist of Einstein's Theories.
     
    Yuriy, Dec 3, 2004
    #125
  9. Quantum Quack

    Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Yuriy, I think the reader can make their own assessment of whta and why I posted that link.
    It was not to discredit Einstien but to put my arguement about SRT reasoning into perspective.

    I don't think any one of reasonable mind would accept just one persons view on Einstiens work and philosophies any way.

    The main reason I quoted that site was that it shows that conventional physicists [Manchester University] are not all convinced of the veracity of special relativity. That the uniform conscensus that you claim, is not valid.
    There is much discussion and disagreement even amongst the most reputable, even Einstien kept an open mind on his own work. If you read the article you will see that he is always struggling with the big questions and he never says that He and only He has the answer.

    A humility that Yuriy you could draw inspiration from.
     
    Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2004
    #126
  10. Yuriy

    Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    QQ,
    1. If you really believe that
    “the reader can make their own assessment of whta and why I posted that link.”
    why you worry about my post?
    2. J.P.Leahy’s words that you cited
    “Knowing that his analysis has made it virtually impossible for most physicists to conceive of a realistic interpretation of the laws of nature, as we now understand them, would not Einstein have been forced to admit that the special theory of relativity, the springboard for his career, his escape ticket from the patent office, the foundation for so much of his achievement, was the biggest blunder of his life? ”
    have nothing to do with any doubts about SRT which gives us the laws of Nature “as we now understand them”. It simply sets a question: Would Einstein changed his position under pressure of fact that “most physicists” of his time (in the beginning of SRT) will be unable “to conceive of a realistic interpretation” or would not? I guess, he would not, somebody can think he would, so what?
    3. The remarkable was to underline that Einstein had no doubts in SRT, but always about that “the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life. That is it…
    4. Where from you got “..it shows that conventional physicists [Manchester University] are not all convinced of the veracity of special relativity” it is your problem, not J.P.Leavy’s, nor mine …
    5. “…the uniform conscensus that you claim,…” is only in your mind, not in my words…
    6. You said: “There is much discussion and disagreement even amongst the most reputable, even Einstien kept an open mind on his own work. If you read the article you will see that he is always struggling with the big questions and he never says that He and only He has the answer.” Yes, but he never straggled about SRT…
    And I do not see any reason to discuss this episode further. You posted what you wanted, I posted what I wanted, end of story. And dont warry about where from I "could draw inspiration from."…
     
    Yuriy, Dec 3, 2004
    #127
  11. everneo

    everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Thats true, if both are inertial frames.

    I think i just did explain in my reply by an example.

    B is applying the throttle in that example and his frame is not inertial when he accelerates. He could measure the acceleration and its duration and calculate the increase in velocity, he does not need any other source during this non-inertial phase to know the increase in velocity. Even he is alone in the universe it is possible to know the increase in velocity and this has nothing to do with 'absolute motion'.

    So if the increase in velocity is relativistic B would under go time dilation.
    A keeps his current inertial state through out. Relativitic effect of time dilation affects only B not A.

    If both reunite then it is posible to see the effect and know that it is B who has undergone time dilation. Not A.
     
    everneo, Dec 3, 2004
    #128
  12. Quantum Quack

    Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    From what I understand this is not SR but LR.

    If you apply SR to both A and B both can be deemed to have dilation effects by the other frame.

    And by doing so niether frame will record dilation effects.
     
    Quantum Quack, Dec 3, 2004
    #129
  13. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    synergy:

    The scenario under discussion was carried over from another thread by MacM, and he has not given a full description of it here. Therefore, you are missing the parts which make the situation non-symmetrical. Briefly, here is the situation. I would be interested in your assessment of the outcome.

    1. Clock B moves at 0.9c towards clock A.
    2. When clock B is exactly 9 lhr from A, as measured by A, both clocks are started. i.e. they are started from zero simultaneously according to A.
    3. At the instant when clock B passes clock A, both clocks are stopped, and their elapsed times are compared.

    What time does clock A read after both clocks have stopped?
    What time does clock B read?
     
    James R, Dec 3, 2004
    #130
  14. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    MacM:

    Most of your latest response to me consists of unsupported assertions and appeals to your own personal version of "common sense" or "logic" or whatever. As such, your response is worthless. Let's see what we get if we break your post down into its constituent parts.

    Errors in your description of the theory of relativity

    Relativity never redefines any of its terms.

    This is just wrong. Errors include:

    * Relativity doesn't say time dilation is an illusion.
    * Physics in one frame is not defined by other frames according to relativity.

    Again, a total falsehood. Grandfather clocks are affected in exactly the same way as all other clocks by time dilation effects.

    Do the calculation yourself. You'll need to take into account gravitational time dilation, and also the difference in gravitational field strength at the higher altitude. Show me your working, and I'll tell you if you are right. It will be a good exercise for you to get to grips with some basic physics.


    Attempts to import MacM concepts into relativity

    If your "reciprocity" was simply a description of symmetry between frames, this would be true, but you import your own invalid concepts into that term. We have covered that before.

    This is the worng kind of "reciprocity" which I just referred to. This is MacM reciprocity, and is no part of the real theory of relativity.


    Errors in your claims about SR analysis of the two-clock scenario

    As my initial response shows, both observers take their own velocity as zero, for convience in their analysis. Certainly they cannot measure their absolute velocity, since such a thing is a fiction.

    This situation is not symmetrical, as I have previously pointed out. Sr is not applied equally to each observer.

    This is false, as my initial analysis clearly shows. B analyses the problem assuming B is at rest and A is in motion. A's view does not enter the picture. B makes his own measurements as required.


    Attempts to establish that you are correct by making ad hominem comments

    As we all know, playing the man rather than the ball adds nothing to the strength of an argument, and just makes the poster look petty.


    Attempts to establish that you are correct by making useless "fiat declarations"

    All of the statements below are offered by fiat only. You expect people to accept them based solely on your authority. On the contrary, all of these statements require support, which you have not provided.

    Contradictory statements

    Here you assert that I haven't applied SRT properly. But a little later we get this:

    and this:

    So, one minute, you argue that my SR analysis is wrong (see many other quotes in this post, too), and in the next minute you say I've applied SR properly, even if it isn't true. You need to decide what you're arguing.

    This contradicts your entire argument. Your premiss is that you are showing that applying SR leads to absurd conclusions, and therefore SR must be wrong. But now you're saying that SR is self-consistent. Which is it?


    Off topic comments

    There is a separate thread in which the GPS system is being discussed, and your incorrect claims about it are being refuted.

    Please see the GPS thread, where this statement has been refuted.


    Misrepresentation of my position / Straw men

    It is not my position that you must accept SR to refute it.

    This is plainly another straw man, and isn't worth a response either.


    Arguments and mathematics backing up your assertions

    I looked, but couldn't find any of these in your post.
    -------

    So endeth the crap. What are we left with from your post? Not a lot.

    Answers to your questions

    I can't answer this unless you specify when the measurement is made, and by whom.

    B can measure his velocity relative to A (the only other object in the problem). If he wishes, B can consider himself to be at rest, and assume it is only A who is moving.


    Substantive points requiring a response

    You have never posted the LR description of this problem, or explained why it is "physically acceptable" when SR is not.

    B makes his own measurements. His physics is not dictated in any way by A, except that the specification of the test is that clocks A and B are started simultaneously according to A.

    I only declare B to be in motion relative to A. B is at rest from his own point of view. Your "therefore" does not follow as written.

    And he does not. B sees what B sees. A has to calculate what B sees.

    Then B is lying, according to the way this test is set up. (Maybe B is MacM in disguise?)

    First phrase: correct. Second phrase: The Lorentz tranformations are not arbitrary.

    I was right, though, wasn't I? You make this comment, without quoting any post of mine where I mixed frames, then you go off on the following tangent:

    From A's point of view, B is in motion - yes.

    No. I use B's measurement.

    Unsupported declaration.

    I have already quoted B's physical view in my analysis. B's view is no illusion.

    Again, I challenge you to quote any post of mine in which I have mixed calculations in different frames inappropriately. Put up or shut up.

    Read this last quote from yourself very careful, and start taking your own advice. Practice what you preach for a change.
     
    James R, Dec 3, 2004
    #131
  15. synergy

    synergy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    143
    James R,
    Thank you for requesting my input, and for the information.
    Yuriy, I read your post. You seem to be assuming that acceleration plays less of a role than it actually does. Question: If the clock in motion is stopped during acceleration periods and restarted during inertial periods, and the stationary clock is also stopped at the same times, and they are brought back together, what will the two clocks show?


    Don't forget: "Simultaneously" stopping the two clocks is an obscure concept.

    as for this stuff:"
    1. Clock B moves at 0.9c towards clock A.
    2. When clock B is exactly 9 lhr from A, as measured by A, both clocks are started. i.e. they are started from zero simultaneously according to A.
    3. At the instant when clock B passes clock A, both clocks are stopped, and their elapsed times are compared.

    What time does clock A read after both clocks have stopped?
    What time does clock B read?
    "
    Suppose there is a reference frame C that is moving with the same velocity relative to both A and B i.e. C's velocity is the average of both. Then if the two clocks are stopped simultaneously FROM C's PERSPECTIVE, then both clocks will show the same time. This, of course, assumes they are stopped before B decelerates.
    Just my opinion.
    Aaron

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    synergy, Dec 3, 2004
    #132
  16. contrarian

    contrarian Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    I think we may be talking past each other here. I was only trying to make the point that if one does not know who "puts the throttle on" ie who is accelerating and who isn't, how does one go about deciding which one is.

    The only way I can see to do that is to refer to other objects in the universe to establish how the distances to A & B are changing.

    Cheers,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    contrarian, Dec 3, 2004
    #133
  17. synergy

    synergy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    143
    We just posted simultaneously! Oops, I could be wrong, how fast are you travelling?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    synergy, Dec 3, 2004
    #134
  18. MacM

    MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You have the issue of inertia and F = ma which purportedly produces a simular GR affect due to the equivelence principle.

    That is only the accelerating observer feels such force.
     
    MacM, Dec 3, 2004
    #135
  19. MacM

    MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    READERS:

    I am hereby terminate my participation in this thread in that other threads are addressing this same issue.

    My response may be found in the thread "Einstein's Mutatis Mutandis SR" which I believe is better supported and more efficient to debate.

    [thread=42979]Here[/thread]
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2004
    MacM, Dec 3, 2004
    #136
Page 7 of 7

Share This Page