Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

I may well be wrong but I do not think this is correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, if you accelerate the particles in linear accelerator, after they have reached their velocity, if you stop accelerating them, they will remain with the same energy and not slow down.

And btw, SR is perfectly capable to deal with accelerating particles.
If a particle has as equation of motion x = x(t) in one inertial frame, then in another inertial frame it will have as equation of motion x'= x'(t') where x' and t' are related to x and t by Lorentz transformation. SR does not claim that x(t) is necassarily constant velocity motion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please explain what you mean by that

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only reality aknowledged by physics is exactly the set of observable phenomenon. It follows that your unobservable "true" tick rate is not part of physical reality. That said, it ought to suffice to point out that all of the clocks in question run at the exact same "true" rate when measured in their own reference frames. There is no reason to expect observers in different frames to agree on measurements of distance and time; in any case it has been experimentally confirmed countless times that they will not agree. If your internal understanding of reality can't cope with that... well, then you can forget about understanding modern physics. But realize that it isn't physics that's wrong, it's you.

 

Any theory that has not been proved completly by scientific facts is up for debate as to its merits as a good or bad theory. As more and more evidance is learned theories change to fit the new data. It could be that the theory is correct but has flaws within it which in time will be discovered and a newer theory is worked out. Then it too will be scrutinized to see if it can stand up to scientific evaluation to see if it is correct.

 

Well, well, well, another know it all. FYI: Nobody has said that a clock in motion doesn't tick slower. They do. However, SRT is fatally flawed because SRT claims both clocks tick slower than the other since they dispute absolute motion and believe everything is simply relative. That is physical nonsense and has not been observered even once in one hundred years of relativity.

If you claim otherwise please post just one case of demonstrated or recorded reciprocity.

Further lets see you justify spatial contraction without ignoring the moving clocks reduced tick rate. That is you cannot cliam that both time dilation and spatial contraction are physical realities. Since time dilation is a matter of recorded data then spatial contraction does not exist.

The only reason to claim spatial contraction is by ignoring that the clock being used to time the trip is ticking slower. If you think not then please demonstrate that mathematically and/or supply just one case of emperically demonstrated spatial contraction due to relative velocity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Pot, this is kettle, I just thought I'd inform you that you're black.

Special relativity works fine for inertial reference frames. It is, however, pretty difficult to compare clock times in two relatively moving reference frames.

However, as PhysicsMonkey has said several times, there is plenty of indirect experimental evidence for special relativity working. The success of quantum field theory is one great example. The fact that it's a special case of general relativity (a very well confirmed theory) gives it support.

Everyone keeps attacking special relativity as if it just sorta floats apart from the rest of physics. If special relativity is wrong, then classical electromagnetism is wrong, quantum field theory is wrong, general relativity is wrong, etc. etc.

 

We notice that this does not supply the requested examples of reciprocity nor spatial contraction.

Not until you supply the requested examples of reciproicty and spatial contraction.

Nice dodge but we are talking about actual time (clock) dilation recorded such that upon comparison of the clocks subsequent to relative motion only ONE clock is dilated. If SRT were valid and reciprocity correct then both would have dilated equally and no such recorded dilation could ever have been emperically detected. The fact that time dilation has been demonstrated in fact invalidates SRT and proves a form of absolute motion and gamma.

Please show us any emperical data which demonstrates anything but a one way gamma function.

First you have jumped from SRT to GRT. Second GRT and QM are not compatiable.

Good then it is time to start over and get your heads out of the mist you have it in. Nobody has denied any emperical findings. It is simply that they (and apparently you) lack good judgement in interpreting such data.

When a clock dilates you say "Ah Ha - relativity is proven." When the fact is such recorded dilation violates the inherent reciprocity in the theory and as the theory is advocated.

What the recorded dilation actually proves is that clock tick rate is affects by motion, not relative motion. If you were to actually stop preaching the text books and think you would have realized that it is always the clock that accelerates that becomes dilated.

Hence the relative velocity view is invalid and what is happening is a function of some absolute energy change due to acceleration.

 

The reciprocity you speak of is not valid if one reference frame accelerates because then you have a preferred reference frame. You won't see the reciprocity that you think is so precious. It can't happen if one reference frame suddenly stops because, hey, it's accelerating, and special relativity only applies to inertial reference frames. Apparently you don't seem to understand this fairly critical distinction.

 

Don't get silly. We all know I am talking about inertial frames (relative velocity) but to get relative velocity if only one accelerates then that one is the only one that dilates.

Now stickwith the physics issues and stop attempting to make it appear I am not talking about inertial frames. I am.

Now given clocks A and B are at relative rest and B accelerates to 0.866c and then goes inertial for 10 hours according to A. When B decellerates and returns to A in a common rest frame which clock has recorded less time.?


B of course. Yet SRT claims that it is the inertial relative velocity that causes time dilation and while inertial that each can assume to be at rest and the other has motion and that in each case it is the other clock that is dilated.

That is simply not born out by emperical data nor any logic or physical possibilities. The fact that B becomes dilated disproves the relative velocity view point and favors absolute motion view point.

 

SRT is not applicable in this scenario. Why? Because of the accelerating reference frame. It breaks the reciprocity. What you're doing is like trying to apply classical mechanics to the hydrogen atom, it's just not applicable. You seem to not understand this, and this is where your confusion is coming from.

 

What is your qualifications?. Either you have none or you deliberately ignore what has been said and create your own arguments.

Damn it. You cannot have relative velocity unless one or both somethings have acclerated in the past. I clearly stated that the clock went inertial after having accelerated. That SRT claims inertial relative velocity (which you now have) causes time dilation of both clocks.

Emperically it does not. It causes only dilation of the clock that did accelerate. Now address this issue. While inertial according to SRT both clocks dilate due to their respective relative velocity. They do not. HINT: SRT is false. Only the one clock dilates and it is always the one that under went the most acceleration and then became inertial.

 

Notice the word "decelerate", the neccessary deceleration to compare times at the same point again breaks the reciprocity. Even if the clock "went inertial" as the two passed, it must go "non-inertial" again if you want to bring them together again.

 

This discussion is pointless and (to my immense sadness) one of the fundamental problems with standard scientific education; but I digress.

All Equations, Formulas, Theroies are only approximations of what is really going on. That's why we refer to them as models. They will not work in one hundred percent of cases, period. This is the probable nature of reality. We use these models to understand psychical phenomenon that occurs around us by approximating its existence. If you question this line of reasoning then let's start at the atom. Is it the classical model of an atom (balls orbiting other balls)? How about the Quantum Model, a fuzzy electron cloud of probable positions?

Both of these Models are correct in their own context. They describe scientifically verifiable data. And each model is an underlying model of a much larger truth.

Relativity is a model to describe what might happen in a situation. Quantum physics is a model which has another set of rules for the same situation.

So please don't fight about why this is right or wrong. Try to understand the mathematical underlying structure of the model and where it might be flawed.

Take your ideas on why relativity might be fatally flawed and find ways to prove them with out the personal feelings associated with it. Remember Einstein was wrong sometimes too. But he never defended a theory until he could destroy even the most ardent protractors disagreement.

Furthermore on the other side stop defending the Theory of relativity it may very well have a fatal flaw that is hindering the advancement of human thought. A well conceived pure theory needs no defending, it is indisputable, ask Galileo.

I fear if we do not take this fundamental shift in thought science will become a dogma and not a tool.

Carpe deem.

 

chrisv25,

Any description of a nature is necessarily approximate, but that doesn't mean the description is useless. As far as special relativity is concerned, it has been found to be adequate in its domain of validity. In other words, as long as gravity isn't important and accelerations aren't too great, special relativity (and quantum theory, electrodynamics, etc) is all that we've needed thus far. I won't deny the possibility that some experiment may someday be incompatible with SR even within its supposed domain of validity, but the fact of the matter is that it has worked beautifully. This is what we are defending.

If special relativity may be called a dogma, it is only because it has successfully described the results of experiments within its domain of validity. Both the transitions SR -> GR and SR -> QFT were made because of experimental necessity and the inadequacies of SR.

I won't disagree that science education is lacking, but I'm not sure the issue you raise is part of the problem. After all, nature is dogmatic.

 

MacM thinks "yes" even for SRT. He is so persuded by his "reciprocity" argument that some time ago created thread "Is Time Universal? NO (math proof)" and as usual, even thought the most detailed post had paragraphs numbered so he could tell where in the math proof an error was made, He ignored all that and just continued to proclaim from his "throne of authority" (common sense based I think) that SRT was obviously wrong as "reciprocity" for both frames is "impossible" He does not understand that comparing time intervals between two events in different frame is complex, not simple.

He thinks it "obvious" that both twins can not see the other as younger. I arrange for them to have foster mothers using frozen embryos and be born at the instant they were side-by-side in their respective frames, but moving for all their lives steadly further apart. MacM thinks the reciprocity of SRT which predict both are younger than the other is rediculus because he ignore many things that must be consider which permit both on their 15th birthday to state that the other is only 10, for example. The train example of resurrected thread "Is Time Universal? NO (math proof)" was designed to avoid any signal propagation delays and any need to return one "brother" (they ceased to be twin just after the monemt of their birth) to visit with the other.

I resurrected that thread to show how useless even math is for showing MacM he is wrong. He will not change his common sense based opinion. It is a waste of time to try.

 

Pardon my blutness but Bullshit. Your attempt to mask the truth by confusing the issue with GR doesn't cut it. Once again I ask you provide ONE case of demonstrated reciprocity according to relativity or ONE case of demonstrated relative velocity spatial contraction or mathematically show spatial contraction without ignoring the dilated tick rate of the clock timing the trip distance.

Further I ask that you qualify or justify the fact that one clock (the one that accelerates) actually does lose time. If reciprocity were a fact then the clocks would read the same. You can't have it both ways.

Either relative velocity (No GR affect) causes both clocks to run slower than the other or SRT is false.

Claiming the time reduction is due to GR affects doesn't cut it. One can accellerate to 0.866c and coast inertial for 10 years and then decellerate and the clock will have lost 5 years time. He can accelerate the same rate and coast for 1 year and then decellerate the same as before and the clock will have lost only 6 months time.

GR has no input into this situation. Sorry you don't seem to have any analytical capabilities.

Now to put you to the real test.

Spaceships "A" and "B" are at inertial rest. Their clocks are synchronized and calibrated to tick synchronously.

"B" acclerates away to 0.866c. We both agree that "B" will be ticking at 1/2 the rate of "A". But we do not agree that "A" is ticking at 1/2 the rate of "B" (which is 1/4 the proper tick rate of "A") as advocated by SRT.

Question for any relativist: "B " now launches a shuttle craft "C" which accelerates to 0.866c relative to "B". Once again we agree that "C" will be ticking at 1/2 the rate of "B"; which MUST be 1/4 the tick rate of "A" proper tick rate. We do not agree that "B" ticks slower than "C" nor do we agree that "A" is ticking slower than "C".

Here is the kicker. Relativity claims the "Velocity Addition Formula" such that the velocity between "A" and "C" is not 1.732c but is only 0.9897c.

At 0.9897c the tick rate of "C" is 0.14309 times the proper tick rate (1 / 6.9883) of "A". Further for "A" to have reciprocity (as advocated by SRT) it too MUST be ticking at 0.02047 (1 / 48.838) it's proper tick rate at the same time to be ticking slower than "C".

Clock "C" cannot physically have two tick rates during the same concurrent test period. Which it must be simultaneous if it is relative.

SRT demands that clock "C" tick both at 1/4 the tick rate and 1/6.9883 times the proper tick rate of "A" at the same time.!

Further "A" must be ticking at its proper rate, 1/4, 1/2 and 1/6.9883,1/48.838 it's proper tick rate simultaneously to fit all views advocated by SRT.

All emperical evidence denies any such reciprocity and all data showing physical time dilation is consistant with time dilation being a function of absolute velocities, not relative velocity.

Now try to double talk yourself out of these facts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are rejecting the relativity of simultaneity with this logic. Show why the relativity of simultaneity is false and your argument would at least have a footing to stand on.

 

Your post is well intended. However, my point would be that SRT has not been ONCE demonstrated. The only thing demonstrated has been a one way gamma function which infers actual motion due to accelertion vs relative motion (where one has not accelerated) is causing the dilation.

It has already become dogma.

 

If this were true you would immediately post data demonstrating reciprocity and spatial contraction in absence of a dilated clock timing the trip distance traveled.