Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Nov 2, 2004.

?

Is Relativity Shown Fatally Flawed?

  1. Yes

    16 vote(s)
    26.2%
  2. Mostly Convienced

    2 vote(s)
    3.3%
  3. No Opinion

    1 vote(s)
    1.6%
  4. Mostly UnConvienced

    7 vote(s)
    11.5%
  5. No

    35 vote(s)
    57.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    The following is the culmination of two years endeavor to point out what I see as a fatal flaw with the Theory of Relativity.

    As can be anticipated that effort has been met with less than welcome fan fair. It has resulted in lengthy flame wars and abusive name calling and personal attacks which had nothing to do with the issue.

    This is an important issue and I feel it is appropriate to place this at the top of a thread so as to not have it buried deep in such diatraibes as described above.

    I leave the readers conclusion unto himself. Whatever vile comments this may generate just keep in mind they must properly address the issue or it stands.

    Due to the high readership of this topic in several threads I am making this a vote thread. Hopefully the many readers which have not joined in the verbal debate will post an opinion.

    For those voting "No" it would be advantageous if you give a bonafide response explaining why not. Note "Bonafide". Off topic personal attacks WILL NOT BE RESPONDED TO.

    The issue has to do with the physical reality of claims in Relativity. It is my time dilation test case being answered by James R. A well respected member here quite knowledgeable in the issues of Relativity.

    ******************** Case and Response *********************



    Some posts later James R responded to one of my replies to another member with the following:

    What follows is my response to James R

    ****************** MacM Response *********************

    [post=703574]Both Frames[/post]

    ****************** Extract from James R Post ******************
    At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.
    ***********************************************

    You stood by that statement [post=704076]Here[/post] when asked specifically about reciprocity in both frames.

    **********Extract from James R Post ***********************

    With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.
    *****************************************************

    You tried your double talk [post=704113]Here[/post] by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that B clock accumulates less time because "A" traveled less distance. Your response goes to "Illusion" not "Reality". That is the issue, not if an observer can be fooled by an illusion of motion..

    ********************* Extract from James R Post ****************

    No. It's simply a matter of which frame you choose to look at the problem in.

    From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

    From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.
    ********************************************************


    You try again [post=704638]Here[/post] to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. There can be only one cause, which is it. If spatial dimension is valid as you calculated the clock display is satisfied by the lesser distance traveled in that view and the display is only correct if the clock's tick rate remains unchanged by relative motion.

    ************** Extract from James R Post ********************
    They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.
    *******************************************************

    You repeat and compound your error [post=704921]Here[/post] by showing the time dilation calculation produces the same result.

    ***************Extract from James R Post ******************
    t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

    Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

    There you go. Time dilation!
    *******************************************************

    You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result.

    I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. It violates the clock displays in reality to assume both are physically real functions that must coexist simultaneously during relative motion.

    SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.

    IFSPATIAL CONTRACTION IS PHYSICALLY REAL THEN THE TIMES ON THE CLOCK DISPLAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY DISTANCE TRAVELED BY THE MOVING CLOCK, D = VT AND CLOCK TICK RATES MUST REMAIN CONSTANT AND THE TWIN PARADOX IS A FRAUD AND HOAX. IT BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN ME DRIVING 10 MILES OR 4.356 MILES AT THE SAME VELOCITY IN WHICH CASE MY AGE HAS NOT CHANGED DUE TO THE SHORTER TRAVEL TIME.

    IF
    CLOCK TICK RATE IS DECLARED PHYSICALLY REAL THEN TIME DILATION COULD BE REAL AND THE TWIN PARADOX COULD EXIST BUT SPATIAL DIMENSIONAL CONTRACTION CANNOT.


    CONSIDERING THAT THE TWIN PARADOX CREATES TEMPORAL COMPLICATIONS IF "EITHER" RELAVISTIC FUNCTION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED REALITY; WHICH IS NOW SUTIABLY DRAWN INTO QUESTION, THEN O'CAMS RAZOR WOULD FAVOR LORENTZ CONTRACTION AND NOT TIME DILATION AS BEING THE ONLY PHYSICAL REALITY.

    Note: Amended to clarify.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    MacM,

    Your conclusions are incorrect. The reason is that you are mixing up different reference frames. Before I go into detail, here is a brief summary:

    A's reference frame

    A is stationary. B is moving at 0.9c
    Initial distance between A and B = 9 light hours.
    Time taken for B to travel the distance = 10 hours.
    Final reading on A's clock = 10 hours.
    A's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

    The final reading on B's clock is 4.35 hours.

    A explains this reading by saying that B only measured 4.35 hours when he should have measured 10 hours. Therefore, B's clock has run slower than A's clock.

    B's reference frame

    B is stationary. A is moving at 0.9c
    Initial distance between A and B = 3.92 light hours.
    Time taken for A to travel the distance = 4.35 hours.
    Final reading on B's clock = 4.35 hours.
    B's clock time is not in any way dilated in this frame.

    The final reading on A's clock is 10 hours.

    B explains this reading by saying that although A was running slower than B, the clocks did not start ticking simultaneously in B's reference frame. In fact, clock A started ticking a long time before B started ticking.

    Summary

    In each frame, each observer sees the other observer's clock as undergoing time dilation. From A's point of view, B runs slow. From B's point of view, A runs slow. No clock experiences time dilation in its own frame.

    Your post

    Here are the errors in your post:

    This is not double talk. This is what happened.

    You're mixing frames. In A's frame, for example, B ran slow because of time dilation. In B's frame, B did not run slow - A ran slow.

    Each clock displays one and only one time at any given time, in either reference frame. The claimed "duality" doesn't exist.

    Here, you have a basic misconception about when the above equation applies. It applies in a situation where t1 is measured by a clock stationary in one frame (in this case frame A - i.e. A's clock), and t2 is measured by a different clock stationary in a different frame (in this case frame B - i.e. B's clock). This equation tells you how time dilates between different frames.

    It has nothing to do with distance. Both clocks are stationary in their respective frames. If they weren't, we'd have to use the general Lorentz transformations.

    Time dilation and length contraction are the two most well known effects of special relativity. You can't pick and choose which parts of relativity you like and which ones you don't like. If you accept the reality of length contraction, you must accept time dilation, too. They go together, and are both logically derived from the postulates of Special Relativity.

    If length contraction is a real effect, as you seem to be claiming here, then time dilation MUST be equally real.

    Once again, you had completely failed to understand the concepts you are supposedly debunking.

    You make yourself look very foolish.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R,

    While I believe I can show that your post is fundlemental incorrect, I don't have time this evening but will return to it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I've said enough on this topic.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ditto.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,504
    I have voted yes to the question, in that I believe that relativity is fundementaly flawed. I say this with no pleasure or delight and understand that whilst it is flawed it has advanced our understanding of mathematics and most importantly the nature of time and how if not absolute we would understand it.

    I believe at thi spoint that the fundemental nature of light and gravity will eventually irrevocably change our view to a more simpler and yet more sophisticated view of the universe and time.

    It is in some ways saddennig to see so much work go on in areas that have failed to be premised properly and it is here thatthe challenge remains and that is to premise our theories in more fundementally correct ways.

    Areas of fundemental concern are:

    1) Light acceleration and deacceleration from source to reflector.
    2) Proving that light actually has velocity formally and completely.
    3) Learning how we have built an industry to support a theory in ways that have made the theory so complex that falsification is virtually impossible.
    4) Einstiens inspiration about light has been adapted to existing thougth and adpated further on with lorentzian math etc, to make that adaptation complete.[even Einstien was guilty of this bastardisation of his own inspiration]
    5) Our inability to accept that light may very well be a gravitational pheno.
    60 our inability to grasp the absolute nature of the Now [present] adn allow dilation due to velocity to co-exist.
    6) by dis-allowing a common inertial frame and depending only a lopsided 'single frame at rest' perpective.
    7) Inability to deal with fundemental errors in our observations, such as electron jumping and casmir effects on energy and force.
    8) Not understanding or even allowing for fundemental insight into magnetic force and gravity that come into dispute with SR.

    The sheer strength in the attempt to justify Sr means that we have closed our minds to alternatives and shut the door on any forward post GR SR era.

    if Sr and GR can't work in any area of physics then the laws of physics do nopt apply equally to all frames of referrence thus the theory is flawed becasue this is one of it's primary postulates.

    The laws of physics apply always to all frames of reference........this is a fundemental logic yes?

    well even JamesR has admitted that SR breaks down at quantum levels and extreme distances...so this alone invalidates this theory by it's own postulate.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,504
    I am sorry if I have mixed up Sr and Gr but all the same.........the theory stands invalid by it's own postulate.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    READERS and James R,

    While it is not true that I am mixing frames, I can see where he makes that arguement. I have left things to be understood from a pragmatic level and didn't tie them down explicit enough. It doesn't alter the conclusion but has left the door open to his claim and that is bad.

    CLARIFICATION:

    When I said that "B" accumulates 4.35 hours due to d = vt, that does not mean that "B" is in motion. In that view it is "A" that is in motion but the accumulated time is based on d = vt until collison of the clocks.

    It matters not which clock is in motion the accumulated time is the same but to keep Relativists happy when "B" accumulates this time it is "A" that is moving.

    The case was drafted as collison of the clocks to stop the arguement about simultaneous stopping of the clocks.

    Clearly no clock continues to run in any frames view.

    Lets see some votes by the silent majority of readers here. Take a position be you professionaly qualified or not.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2004
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Mac, no matter how many votes are cast, I suspect that you will always cling to the belief that there is some "silent majority" out there who believe in you...


    Do you have any real reason to suspect that this is the case?
    Do you consider it possible or probable that no such silent majority exists?
     
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    I think it's sad that this is there are 2 or 3 polls that MacM stated to see if 'people believe he is right'. There's a reason they never turn out in your favor.

    You post tons of stuff out of context... JamesR and others correct you in detail... you claim they are wrong and start to pout....a few come in and make fun of you to at least make the thread entertaining since it isn't educational.

    And you still can't figure out reference frames.... just give up pretending you know what the theory is actually about.

    To draw a parallel, this is sort of like the election happening today. You have the far left, the far right, and the rest. MacM falls into the far X category. No matter how much things are explained he will never change his mind. He will completely ignore opposing facts... or will twist them to say what he thinks they should mean. Debate is pointles; all you can do is point and laugh.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think you missed the point. It is not a matter of believing in me. It is a matter of trying to get all those readers that haven't participated in posts to cast a vote.

    Possible but not probable. Readership is to high vs posts. Also the vote will have no affect on my position either way. The facts are absolutely clear and I could be the only person left on earth to say so and it would not change the facts, hence nor my position.

    It really is high time that other address the facts and stop reciting the theory.
     
  15. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    The number of times a thread has been viewed has nothing to do with the number of people who are viewing it. There really is no contigent of devoted yet silent MacM supporters here. Much like your arguments on relativity's flaws, it's all in your overactive imagination.

    - Warren
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    As I said to Pete it is not a matter of seeing if I am beleived right but to see what generally people believe.

    It is undrstood that most of the poster here will disagree because you are all Relativists. I want to see a general concensus, not just Relativists views expressed .

    Perhaps if these people realized that they vote annonomous and do not need to post they will vote.

    False.

    False.

    False.

    False. You post BS because you cannot actually address the issue.

    False.

    Pretending would be to say anything you have said has any merit. Don't you EVER tell the truth? Do you always just make shit up?

    And you can remain in your cacoon blissed by ignorance.
     
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Seems your memory has faded again.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Third time. NOTE: This is not about MacM supporters. And it is about physical realities and not mumbo-jumbo physically impossible realities which you seem willing to accept and laughsaying "Gee it is so counter intuative"..

    "Impossible is not the same as Counter-Intuative". Nothing posted by any one of you here has physically resovled the issue I raise. All the dancing around the issue simply shows you have no valid answer.

    Do I expect to see any one of you ever agree. Hell no. But I do expect that those many readers are at least being given information they would not otherwise be given by Relativists.

    However, I just realized that the readership can't post. The list currently shows 20 members and 240+ guests. Guests can't vote and that is a 12/1 ratio. Come on "Join and vote damn it."

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So the only voters here seem to be Relativists in a majority, so the results of such a poll shouldn't be surprising since Relativists refuse to acknowledge physical realities and choose to play "Find the Token".
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2004
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not at all. Yours was a borderline post. I actually thought about just letting you blow off your mouth.
     
  20. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Well my response just then was nowhere near borderline.

    You'll also note that why you've addressed the personal attacks, you've left JamesR's explaination of your errors completely untouched.

    Seems your memory has faded.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Don't you ever consider telling the truth?

    [post=706659]Truth[/post]
     
  22. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    And to think I was about to ask the same thing...
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    MacM:

    You're mixing frames, as I said. A clock's "tick rate" never changes in its own reference frame. It does, however, change in other frames. In this case, B's tick rate slows in A's frame, and A's tick rate slows in B's frame.

    You are relying on the fact that B's tick rate doesn't change in B's frame to deduce that it doesn't change in A's frame. Unfortunately for you, you can't draw that conclusion from that reasoning.

    This is false. Please review the explanation already given. In A's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation alone. In B's frame, the final time difference results from time dilation plus the fact that clock A started running before clock B.

    This is a MacM fantasyland concept which has no meaning in the real world.

    Every clock in existence reads "one time then another".

    Which do you assume is real?

    It is strange that you, the great detractor of relativity, are suddenly agreeing that length contraction exists.

    Have you half-converted to the Church of Relativity?

    Or is this merely another argument of convenience for you? When can we expect the next bait and switch?

    Not in this scenario.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page