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
    Please don't assume to know what I think and don't distort what I have said nor the validity of what you have said. You have posted nothing which demonstrates reciprocity nor spatial contraction without ignoring the dilated clock used to time the trip distance traveled.

    I repeat once again that I have not argued against what one "Sees". I am, and have always, insisted that the only time dilation being considered is the physical dilation demonstrated by clocks on subsequent comparison to some relative velocity having been generated.

    Perception of an observer in motion is not at issue here. (Although that is another arguement which should be tackled).

    Your example proved nothing which is why it is ignored. Now adddress the issue I presented [post=878738]Here[/post] and stop trying to dodge the issue by writting your own gendankins and making different claims.

    Do not alter my gendankin. Just answer it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Screaming and yelling won't help, MacM. As far as I can tell, a number of people on this board have already given good examples of reciprocity and explained the concept in detail. I don't really feel the need to continue to justify special relativity (because of the vast wealth of experimental evidence in support of the theory).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Surely you jest. Not one damn person (with any sense) will agree with you that accelerating an object to some velocity then renders SRT inapplicable.

    That is how one gets relative velocity; unless you can enlighten us how you propose to change velocity without accelerating/decellerating. :bugeye:

    I truely hope you recognize just how silly your posts are becoming.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    A FUCKING LIE. NOW LINK JUST ONE CASE OF PROVEN OR DEMONSTRATED RECIPROCITY POSTED IN THESE FORUMS.
     
  8. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    MacM,

    I wish to engage in this discussion slightly.
    While I think that the argument you hold is valid in a certain mindset, it has less to do with SR and more to do with the measurement problem.

    If you wish to remove spatial distortions and time dilations that are innate to the relativistic model; then you must remove yourself from that Model. The concept of the model being invalid or wrong is a superficial argument. Of course it is invalid or it would be the TOE. However it is a useful model for understanding the nature of matter (at least on a very large scale) better than before it was created.

    Could you describe to me the framework of thought in which you arrive at your theory (I fear to write this, Please it is not meant to be inflammatory) not the conclusions of your theory but the fundamental thoughts of why relativity must be wrong. Is there any physical experiment which you (or anyone else) could perform to prove your postulation?
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I seek not to remove anything but merely point out the inconsidtancies in statements about SRT having been proven correct numerous times. I full well recognize its usefulness in our day to day jphysics. However, such tests have yet to demonstrate SRT as it is advocated. It is only halft ass supported.

    That is the only thing demonstrated has been a one way gamma function which is not exclusive property of SRT but is also encompassed in absolute velocity views.

    Further I point out the inconsistancies mathematically in the results of SRT if followed to their conclusion as described in SRT. All relativists want to claim that a clock being flown around in an air plane or that GPS proves SRT.

    The truth is just the opposite. Actual recording of time dilation violates the proposition in SRT that relative veloicty is the cause because SRT claims the affects between such observers is mutual. If they were then no deviation between clocks could be possible.

    I disagree. If reciprocity cannot be tested then SRT is not a valid theory. Theories are only valid if they are testable. No reciprocity has ever been demonstrated and no relativist can tell you how it would be possible to test.

    It is not superficial to point out that to claim spatial contraction SRT requires that you disregard the fact that the clock being used to time the travel distance is ticking at a dilated rate.

    It is precisely the same as claiming I am in a car driving at 60 Mph for one half hour by my watch and claiming I went 30 miles. When in fact I traveled between cites that were known to be 60 miles apart, simply because the batteries in my timex were low.

    No disagreement. It is the philosophical baggage attached to SRT regarding reciprocity, velocity addition and no FTL that is it's down fall. If they limit it to computing gamma function based on an accelerated object (not relative velocity but velocity of the accelerated object), then I would not object.


    I would not consider this my theory but an asstute observation not clouded by dogma and preconcieved conclusions by assuming something valid when it has not been properly tested.

    Actually all test prove my statements. None support a relative velocity view but suggest an absolute velocity view. GPS is in fact such a case. It does not use SRT but uses a series of locally preferred rest frames. That is if you take the velocity of a clock at the equator and the velocity of an orbiting GPS clock, the relative velocity gamma calculations results in an incorrect time dilation of -5.8us/day due to relative4 velocity.

    They use the orbit velocity relative to the center of the earth which results in -7.2us/day and is consistant with emperical findings. The veloicty of the surface clock results in less than 0.1 us/day dilation and doesn't alter the operations of GPS.

    Also a recent study showed that "G" varies as a function of orientation of instruments relative to distance galaxies. That is inconsistant with Newton and GR but is consistant with my own views.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Correction. It is your interjection of the Relativity of Simultaneity that is a false arguement.

    I am well aware of the TRS but it deals only with perception of a moving or displaced observer to the events. It has nothing to do with the reality of such events in an actual universal sense.

    Before you state that SRT doesn't recognize any universal absolutes let me emphasize that I full well understand that but then that is it's failing.

    If you disagree then perhaps you can answer this:

    If universal absolutes do not exist then how can you claim "Relative Velocity" unless such motion is "Concurrent" (Simultaneous)?.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It cannot be relative if it is not simultaneous.
     
  11. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    See, you are rejecting it.. Your correction has been corrected.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We note that your response fails to support your arguement. You merely assume it some how solves the contridictions I have presented to you. It does not. Try another approach this one is dead.

    Since you chose to avoid the question I will repeat it:

    If universal absolutes do not exist then how can you claim "Relative Velocity" unless such motion is "Concurrent" (Simultaneous)?.

    It cannot be relative if it is not simultaneous.
     
  13. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    I did not claim that the relativity of simultaneity is valid. I only said that your argument is rejecting the validity of the relativity of simultaneity.

    Your own words prove what I said.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Which further proves your introduction of that arguement was baseless.

    Are you going to anser my question or not?

    If universal absolutes do not exist then how can you claim "Relative Velocity" unless such motion is "Concurrent" (Simultaneous)?.

    It cannot be relative if it is not simultaneous.
     
  15. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    No it proves my "introduction" (I assume that is my original post?) was correct.

    What question? Chances are if I didn't quote something, I didn't read it.

    "Relative velocity" just means something is moving with a velocity relative to something. In most cases, you the something is whatever you are considering to be at rest. With the relativity of simultaneity, the term "concurrent" doesn't mean anything. I've demonstrated what happens according to the relativity of simultaneity in various threads, specifically the "SR Problem" thread. I didn't claim that the relativity of simultaneity is valid there and I am not claiming it is valid here. I merely pointed out that your argument is rejecting the validity of the simultaneity of relativitiy.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    False.

    You would of course also be talking about the theory. You haven't read it either. The question has been posted three times.

    Here is the fourth:

    *****************************************************
    If universal absolutes do not exist then how can you claim "Relative Velocity" unless such motion is "Concurrent" (Simultaneous)?.

    It cannot be relative if it is not simultaneous.
    ******************************************************


    It is a shame you make such statements after having been given the correct information. Answer the question.

    No. You are pointing out your mis-interpretation of what I am saying. I do not reject the Relativity of Simultaneity. Moving or dislocated observers do not see the same simultaneity. That is valid. But that is perception.

    I reject your and others claim that TRS resolves the contridictions obvious in SRT.

    My questions addresses the actual issue and that is the question of "Universal Absolutes" which are wrongfully rejected by SRT.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    MacM:

    As usual, you completely ignore the fact that both clocks tick "slower than the other" in different reference frames.

    It's a simple concept. Why can't you understand it, after 3 years of careful and patient explanation?
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Gargbage answer. Only one clock ever records dilation. That is the issue not what SRT claims. The physical reality is ONE clock ever dilates.

    Frames be damned. There are pilots in both frames and both pilots clocks do not ever run slower than the other. Only one runs slower. that is the physical evidence. The rest is unsupported rhetoric and nonsense.

    Being a physicist why can you not grasp something so simple.
     
  19. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    MacM,

    I wonder how that ol' coot Einstein managed to fool so many physicists. I mean the list of people who believed his crazy lies is pretty impressive. Feynman, Gell-Mann, Dirac, Schwinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Fermi, Weinberg, 't Hooft, Wilczek, etc etc. The list could go on forever and I've only been listing theoretical physicists thus far (though some of these guys did both). I would note that every single person on this list won a Nobel Prize in physics. But ol' Einstein got em! Take Schwinger for instance, I would ordinarily think he could humble you in the blink of an eye with his powerful intellect, but ol' Einstein got him too. He even wrote a book on electrodynamics that talks about relativity, he goes through everything step by step while insisting that we question every assumption, and yet he is still fooled.

    I guess what I would like to know is, how did you see the elementary mistake that slipped by all the great minds? You claim to have disproven relativity with a ten line argument, so how did everyone else miss that? I guess probably you won't tell me your secret, great one. But maybe you'll have a workshop I can attend so some of your greatness will rub off on me.
     
  20. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,250
    False. What I said is True.



    I already answered this stupid question. The answer goes back to your rejection of the relativity of simultaneity.
     
  21. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    False. Relative constant speed is Lorentz invariant, and so has nothing to with simultaneity.
     
  22. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    My guess is that maybe they understood relativity
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We note that your response appealing to authority is the equivelent of praising God for which there is also no evidence or logic. It is BS.

    It does not address the question posed.

    Good question. But that doesn't answer the question. Why are you resisting giving us the secret.

    Scarchasim doesn't answer the question either. I see nothing great about applying common sense. I stupidity in the advocation and defense of something so clearly out of line with observed reality, such as parts of SRT, is nothing more than small minds afraid to not agree with the "Great Ones".

    Never mind that Einstien made other blunders. But the fact that part of his idea seems to be supported people have jumped on the band wagon and are afraid to appear stupid if they claim it isn't all real.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page