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. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    We note that your continual use of the word "we" is amusing.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thank you. I have actually been waiting for somebody to pick on that usage. But the fact is there are many who agree with me and what I am saying.


    FYI: Some are in fact highly educated and recognized physicists and mathematicians.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    869
    MacM,

    Does your personal arrogance know any bounds? Are you honestly going to continue to claim that special relativity is fundamentally flawed when so many physicists who are so much smarter than you disagree? Each of the physicists I named studied relativity in school, they thought about it, and then they accepted it. Many even went on to teach the subject or to write reviews and books on it. Bear in mind we aren't talking about some debated topic on the cutting edge of research, but an accepted and tested idea that has held strong for a hundred years. So let me ask one more time. Are you seriously going to tell me that you've outsmarted Feynman, Gell-Mann, Dirac, Schwinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Fermi, Weinberg, 't Hooft, Wilczek, and most everyone else with your little nonsense claims?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Ahh I understand your problem with Relativity. It’s nonsense. No really. The theory of Special Relativity is not a theory that everything thing is relative. It’s a theory that appearances are relative.

    “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.”

    That is precisely what relativity claims. Well assuming that your watch was the only working clock and that the universe that you were in evolved in strict accordance with the laws of dynamical motion. Yes time it’s self is a man made notion that is simply a division of motion and has no real experimental value (save the one we assign to it).

    This is logically a very poor strategy to attack SR. It’s too solid and you’re also attacking Galileo (classical mechanics) and Descartes (co-ordinate systems). I think that I would follow more along the line of attacking the Michelson-Morley experiment. Now there’s a weak link in the theory. Given that Quantum field theory resurrects a new kind of ether, e.g., particles are excited states of the featureless ground state of the field (the vacuum state). The vacuum state is so featureless and has such high symmetry that we can’t assign a velocity to it experimentally.
    Michelson-Morley had no way of detecting that state given the current theories and equipment of the time.
    Then you would have your “inertial” or “absolute” frame of reference.

    Just my thoughts.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    And not very clearly expressed I would say. - who is the you of "your problem" (first sentence)?

    Also you don't apprear to know what relativity states, when you claim it is all about "appearances" For example, in their own rest frame (e.g. stopped in the lab that createded them there half life is very short (I forget the number) and in a half life interval, even if traveling at the fastest speed possible, half would decay before traveling a few hundred meters.

    At least, 50 years ago, baloon born high high altitude experiments the number of cosmic ray muons as function of altitude was measured (and models of production etc. were developed and tested.) It is clear that for most of them time is dilated as Special Relativity predicts. Most travel down to the Earth surface (not an "appearance" but a fact) many 100s of times farther than they could trvel if time were not dilated. Just one of many possible demonstrations that SR is not about "appearances" but real truth about how things are.

    PS I am not as well versed a Physics Monkey, but when an obviously wrong, easily refuted, claim is made, I like to spare him the trouble of replying - his time is too valuable for the simple stuff I can handle.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    What you call arrogance is not arrogance. It is common sense.

    Absolutely. However, it is even more important to note here that I do not stand alone and that many physicist smarter than yourself also do not agree with relativity and many even agree with me as to why. It is not MacM against the world. It is MacM against unwavering relativist that hide behind dogma, appeal to authority, innuendo, slander, etc., rather than addressing the issues I have raised.

    You forgot to make the proper exceptions to your testing results.

    1 - No recorded reciprocity.

    2 - No physics explanation of how such reciprocity is possible.

    3 - No explanation for spatial contraction unless the dilated tick rate of the clock being used to measure the distance travel time is ignored.

    4 - No bonafied justification for the velocity addition formula and the fact that it causes physical clocks be required to dilated at multiple rates.

    A physical impossibility.

    I don't see it as a matter of out smarting anybody. I see it as a matter of sticking to bonafide physics and not being swept along with the crowd like just another sheep.

    None of your astitute physicists above have ever addressed these issues. They only apply the mathematics as presented and erroneously take partial supporting emperical data as being proof of all claims. They ARE NOT.

    Why is it that you fail to realize that my view does not violate any test data to date?

    Why is it that you resist addressing the issues I raised?

    Unless these issues are properly addressed SRT stands invalidated.

    Available data better supports the absolute view not the relative view. In the absolute view reciprocity is prohibited which bears well since it has never been demonstrated in 100 years.

    There are other issues which are better explained in an absolute view than the relative view.
     
  10. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    So you do "bonafide physics" while all the physicists who publish in peer reviewed physics journals and who get Nobel Prizes for physics don't. Well that pretty much clears things up. You are completely insane.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    That's not true.

    A while ago, you were supposedly writing a paper with a bunch of physicists. What came of that? Nothing. They dropped it, obviously.

    "Reciprocity" is the only viable explanation for many SR results.

    SR is a physics explanation. If SR isn't physics, what is? SR is in all the physics books. Therefore, it must be physics, right?

    You're mixing reference frames, which is why you misunderstand length contraction.

    The VAF is derived in a straightforward manner from the Lorentz transformations, which is about as bona fide as you can get.

    Your "multiple rates" straw man is very boring, after all this time. Try something new.

    Because your view has no empirical content. It predicts nothing. It is just whatever suits you at the time, and it changes almost daily.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    And you are failing to contribute any physics rebuttals and are relying on innuendo, slander, appeal to authority, fiat, dogma and sarcastic remarks.

    Until you provide answers to the questions posed I stand by my statements.
     
  13. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Well spoken Billy T; I'm sorry; the comment was directed at MacM. See the reasons I speak of "appearances" is due to co-ordinate systems (or frames of reference), they seem shorter or longer or the same depending upon which coordinate system you use. However when you solve the equation, they are always the same. So it only "appears" shorter (or longer) depending on which coordinate system that you chose to use and therefore never violates any physical laws of dynamical motion, or any law of special or general relativity. Which it seems to me to be the barrier that MacM has to fully understanding Relativity.

    When we enter into Relativistic theory the "real truth" is completely arbitrary
    (And I might add the whole point of the work).
    According to the special theory of relativity, a moving object appears to contract in the direction of its motion as its velocity increases.
    James Terrell , a physicist, has demonstrated mathematically that this phenomenon is something like a visual illusion, an is in fact analogous to a projection of the real world onto the wall of Plato’s cave. (J. Terrell, physical review, 116, 1959, 1041.)
    So the simple deduction from the above to; time is a measure of motion. Then one must deduce logically that time also is an illusion.

    Clarification. This test was actually conducted numerous time over the last 50 years and for reference cosmic radiation produced muons only live 7 times longer than muons generated in a laboratory. They still live the same amount of time from their frame of reference (even at 99 percent of the speed of light) they only "appear" to live longer in an outside time frame.


    P.S. for future reference I am a supporter of special relativity, general relativity, but am interested in an open discussion in was to poke holes in the theory. It is in the footsteps of the great thinkers to "question everything" and I am truly interested in a discussion in which we can poke a hole in a previously proven law, not to tear it down but not to make science better. To do so would allow us to build upon the genius of Einstein himself.

    P.P.S. The reference for the atomic clocks flown around the world is J.C Hafele and R.E. Keating, Science, vol. 177, 1972, p. 168ff.

    Thanks for taking care of me.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Put into simple language that most can understand. That is a fucking lie.

    Ditto.

    Name one. And justify such reciprocity with data.

    Certainly but it is not correct in all its advocated form. It is only partially correct and the adherance to those parts that have not been demonstrated and are physical impossibilites must be corrected. The only correction which matches actual emperical data is an absolute view.

    False. You are vilating physics to ignore the dilated clock used to time the distance travel time. You are using the accumulated clock ticks as actual time when on comparison all you are showing is that the clock ticked slower during the travel. Further as I have pointed out those results could suggest that the moving observer views his velocity as being faster than claimed, not exclusively that distance contracted.

    Sorry to disappoint you but "Emmision Theory" gets comperable results using classical physics. Emission Theory is far more sensible physics and is devoid all relativity's undemonstrated/unsupported BS.

    Try instead of giving a bonafide physics response.

    Another fucking lie. You can do better. You should try.
     
  15. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    By the way, the (J. Terrell, physical review, 116, 1959, 1041.) answers questions numbers 2, 3, and 4 of MacM post. The first one would be correct, and we could not exclude it on a purely "this is crazy" approach to do so would make us the same as the clergy that had Galileo tried.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Since you are relatively new here let me clarify my position. You seem to have the wrong impression.

    I have repeatedly said that I am not argueing the "Perceptions" or "Illusions" of motion. I am attacking those here that have repeatedly claimed that what we percieve is physical reality.

    I have also posted a direct translation of Einstien's work which shows that he actually said "appears".

    So my arguements are against the fact that physically only one clock dilates and reciprocity is hence invalidated as a physical principle.

    Correct it is called Terrell Roatation. I have written about it.

    However this is not the same thing as the claim for spatial contraction. Where SRT ignores the dilated tick rate of a moving clock when measuring a distance travel time when switching frame views. What is actually physics is the clock records less time because it is ticking slower. Not that its time is more real than the other frames proper time.

    Excellent. We are in agreement. I have stated that the illusion of time flow is a property of an energetic space or change, not an dimesnion enity mixed within space-time.

    Dilated clock, no change in real time. Particle decay is subject to externaly applied energy changes and stresses, etc.

    Well said. I do what I do because it is the appropriate thing to do if you want to be scientific. this roll over and play dead and praise the Lord Einstien is totally unscientific.

    Caution quoting the H&K data.

    ************** Extract from following Link ********************

    http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm

    "Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
    gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
    difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."

    - Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.

    Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
    Act.
    **********************************************************

    http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

    http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/quest.htm

    *******************************************************

    I also want to commend you for our attitude and postings. Many here can learn a lot from you.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2005
  17. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Here is a paper that addresses the "physical reality" reality problem that Einstein was concerned about himself. Perhaps it is in the best interest of scientific discussion that everyone here as to at least read it. It is from a very reliable source the Nobel prize website and was lectured by Einstein himself. The link is http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I went to your link and I have Acrobat Reader installed but the lecture would not load?

    I have also in the past posted what Einstein actually said about aether:

    **********************
    Ether and the Theory of Relativity
    Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden

    ******************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech*************

    More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

    Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

    According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
    ******************************************************

    This is in such stark contrast to the statements made here by relativists that it is simply unbelievable. :bugeye:
     
  19. Physics Monkey Snow Monkey and Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Sorry MacM, I guess I went too far by poking fun at your comical usage of "we" in referring to yourself and calling you insanse when you actually insisted that you were doing better physics than several generations of Nobel Prize winning physicists.

    I suppose I should just stick to telling people that they "fucking lie" and that their explanations are "horseshit". That seems ever so much more civil to me. Thanks for the correction. Once again you have proven yourself the paragon of virtue and intelligence.

    I'm reminded of one of my favorite songs whenever I read your posts, MacM. It ends something like this:

    The three words that best describe you are as follows,
    and I quote,
    "Stink, stank, stunk!"
     
  20. c20H25N3o Shiny Heart of a Shiny Child Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    Are there any practical uses for getting to the truth of this or is it just an intellectual playground? If someone gave you 50 million dollars to do further research what would the net result be to the world if you could prove it either way? Why is it important?

    Thanks

    c20
     
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    That sentence is the classic hallmark of somebody who has completely missed the boat on relativity theory. It's practically a big, blinking neon sign that reads "Don't bother trying to have a useful conversation with me!"

    If you really wanted to understand the issues you keep blathering about, you'd spend five minutes asking a physics professor about them. Chances are good that he'll have heard every crackpot theory on SR, and have a concise explanation at hand to remedy your misaprehension. Obviously, though, you're more interesting in posting nonsense here in some kind of effort to look smart. I would encourage the various people who have taken you seriously in this matter to commence ignoring you immediately. Remember people: "never argue with an idiot; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with his years of experience."

    At least you have the nuts to do it in the physics forum, though, unlike EmptyMindofChi...
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    MacM:

    Frankly, you're just boring me now, so I won't bother replying to you again.

    You just repeat the same things over and over again. You stopped thinking long ago, and you're no longer willing to discuss your point of view. You're just dogmatic and repetitive and boring.

    I'm finished with you.
     
  23. chrisv25 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    I will post it and hope it remians so that everyone may read it. It raises very intereasting issues Einstein himself had with elucidian geometry and inertial states.
    "He began his official duties on October 27, 1920, with an inaugural lecture on "Ether and Relativity Theory" (where "ether" refers to the gravitational field, not the abandonded concept of the electromagnetic ether). "
    http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/einstein/einstein.html

    And the whole lecture can be found at :http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page