have heard many times that "all there needs to be is ONE experiment that contradicts relativity ... " what is this? That one experiment must be accurate and the results must be reproducable by different scientists in different facilities at different times. You can't make one observation one time and claim it disproves a theory. oh and observations are not "reproduced", they are confirmed and it seems to me that New scientist is a good and reliable magazine, i have NO reason to believe that it is a wrong observation Did you hear about the scientists that reported finding element number 116? The find was documented in several key scientific magazines, and they were respected scientists. As it turns out they made an oops and couldn't reproduce the results, so they withdrew their claim. Can I expect the same here? if this is your answer, then consider it poor I'm sorry, I believe you will soon find out that insulting people's arguements will get you nowhere. the rest of what you say speaks for itself (and address the specific issues that i have raised) How so? i think i have said more than that Yes, I'm sorry, you did provide one piece of evidence to support your arguements. However, the validity of this evidence is doubtful at best until the experiment is repeated several times by several different scientific facilities and found to conform to the original claim.
I'd just like to point something out briefly. Many people mention the discrepancies in GP Satellites as proof of time distortion or whatever. Maybe it is, I don't know. But just in case you don't know, those satellites vary in their orbits; that's why there are discrepancies and adjustments.
Good point Adam Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There have still been seperate experiments done using extremely accurate clocks and they also showed a differance in time when travelling at different speeds and at different distances from Earth.
Those clocks work on atomic decay. An electromagnetic phenomenon. EM phenomena interact with each other. Rates of decay may vary between Earth's surface and in space. Or maybe not. I think thee has not yet been enough space-based research into that question. That alone may be responsible for discrepancies between atomic clocks on the ground and the mirror clocls sent into space. Different EM fields and interactions. Or it may not. Either way, I would like to see that researched more fully before people arbitrarily declare it is time travel or some such.
for the clocks: When atoms are accelerated, the increase of kinetic energy increases the electron mass, which makes the Bohr radius larger and well this increase of radius produces a shift in the atomic energy levels and also an increase of the physical size of matter. Consequently, a moving atomic clock now runs at a different rate. another experimental proof against relativity is the Sagnac's experiment Sagnac effect was published in 1914 in which it has been shown experimentally that light takes a longer time to go around the world Eastward than Westward. The Sagnac effect is well known and It has been added in the Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine time and coordinates on Earth. The Sagnac effect is also used in optical gyroscopes. It is very well extablished. the effect shouldn't be there according to relativity prinicple another paper you might want to look for is this one: Héctor Múnera. 1998. Michelson-Morley Experiment Revisited: Systematic Errors, Consistency Among Different Experiments and Compatibility with Absolute Space. Apeiron 5, 37-54 He shows that the analysis of these data reveals that, contrary to a general belief, the Michelson-Morley experiment does not give a null result.
lenght contraction can also be caused by gravity these are all REAL natural effects it has nothing to do with slowing down of time etc. makes it less exciting, but that's science relativity contradicts even reality in this: Einstein's length contraction implies that the Bohr atom gets smaller however, quantum mechanics shows that such a contraction of the Bohr radius should increase the atomic energy levels. This consequence of Einstein's predictions is contrary to observational facts which show that at high velocity, the atomic energy levels become smaller and the atomic clocks get slower!! besides, who ever said that clocks measure time? you gotta be an idiot to think that!
I can't believe how everyone is still claiming that time slows down as objects approach light speed. As I mentioned in a previous post, is it possible that time is constant and the reactions slow down? As I indicated before, catalysts speed up chemical reactions. If Einstein was observing that chemical reaction with a catalyst, would he say that the catalyst is speeding up time? It's funny that every day we can observe hundreds of reactions that speed up and slow down, and all these reactions can be explained using classical physics. Where would mankind be if instead of trying to find out why those reactions speed up or slow down, we were to say that time speeds up or slows down? Unfortunately, no one has answered my black hole problem. First, let me say that super black holes are no longer theoretical. It has been found that the stars close to the center of the galaxy are moving so quickly, that the object they are orbiting around is so massive it qualifies as a blackhole. So I will ask again, If you have an object, like a planet, about 100 billion miles away from a super blackhole, wouldn't the blackhole accelerate the planet to c before the planet enters the blackhole's event horizon? Tom
"If people want to dismiss Einsteins Relativity they have to first start with disproving the equivalence principle (gravity and acceleration are the same) then the rest of the argument." the priniciple is wrong consider a mass standing on the surface of the Earth After one year, the mass submitted to gravitational acceleration is always standing there, without changing its energy or velocity. Another identical mass is submitted to an inertial acceleration of one G in outer space by a rocket. After one year, the energy given to the mass is such that its velocity has reached an important fraction of the velocity of light. An enormous amount of energy has to be given up to the accelerated mass in order to produce such a continuous acceleration. When that last mass falls on Earth its energy would produce a gigantic crater on the impact. einstein's theory claims that these two phenomena are equivalent and undistinguishable. The difference can be seen very easily. In order to convince people, Einstein adds that there is no difference for the observer located in the moving frame of reference. The principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass which ignores that the energy has been given up to the mass is bad science!
C'est Moi: Would that Sagnac difference not be due simply to the fact that the point of transmission/reception has moved? If I tell someone standing beside me on the athletics track to run around the field until he reaches me again, but I move forward ten metres along the track, it will take longer to reach me than if I had remained where I was. The Earth revolves. The point of transmission/reception moves. The signal does not share a common velocity with Earth, thus it is like the athlete running around trying to catch up. I'm not saying that's what it is. Just asking if that's what it might be.
what you say is correct, and that's just the point: That difference of time for light taken between each direction depends directly on the velocity of the Earth moving around itself. BUT Einstein's Theory claims that there is no possible way to detect the ABSOLUTE velocity of the Earth. The very use of the expression RELATIVITY comes from Einstein's hypothesis that parameters, like VELOCITY, are relative so that any absolute motion (like absolute velocity) is meaningless. However the velocity of Earth is responsible for the change of time light takes to go around the Earth. From a fixed location on Earth, we can detect the Earth's motion. Therefore, contrary to Einstein principle of relativity, the velocity of light is not relative to the observer. One must conclude that the Sagnac effect contradicts Einstein's hypothesis of General Relativity.
wouldn't the blackhole accelerate the planet to c before the planet enters the blackhole's event horizon? Once again, no. That would require an infinite amount of energy, which is the same reason why particles can be accelerated to 99.99% of c in an accelerator but never quite over it.
Xelios, Again I ask you: If an object is moving at 99.99 percent of c towards a blackhole, can the balckhole accelerate the object to 99.999 of c? And if the object is moving towards a blackhole at 99.999 of c, won't the blackhole accelerate it to 99.9999 of c? I hope you understand my point. Regardless of how fast the object is moving or the current "relativistic" mass of the object, the blackhole will continue to pull. And if the gravitational field of the object increases with it's mass(which you deny), won't the increased gravitational force compensate for the increased mass of the object? Tom
Joeblow, "... gravitational field of the object increases with it's mass(which you deny), won't the increased gravitational force compensate for the increased mass of the object? " he denies this because the principle of equivalence of einstein refutes this but as I have showed, the principle is not correct acceleration by gravity is not the same as acceleration per inertia there is an increase in mass the principle of mass-energy conservation is ALWAYS valid
c'est moi, To pick two examples at random: First: <i>Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney proved Einstein wrong...</i> Has this work been independently verified? If so, reference please. If not, why not? Second: The Sagnac effect does not contradict relativity, to my knowledge. There is much literature on geometrical or Berry phases which you may want to look at.
"To pick two examples at random:" thank you very much .. "Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney proved Einstein wrong.. Has this work been independently verified? If so, reference please. If not, why not?" maybe you want to look that up, i have no idea, you can look up the article or try to contact the two scientists no? "Second: The Sagnac effect does not contradict relativity, to my knowledge. There is much literature on geometrical or Berry phases which you may want to look at." on the contrary, it does as i have already explained (unlike you, you just say it doesn't and period)
Joeblow, I fail to see your point. If the object is accelerated to 99.99% the speed of light it will continue to travel toward the black hole no matter what it's relativistic mass. This is called inertia. Indeed as soon as the object falls into the black hole's curvature it will continue moving toward it until something interferes externally. As the curvature gets steeper (nearer the black hole's center) the object travels ever faster toward it. Hope that answeres your question. I would stay longer, but I've caught a bad flu this weekend so I'm going to bed (even had to cancel my ski trip to the Rockies Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ).
Rest mass is the mass an object has when it's not moving. For example, when you step on a scale that is your rest weight (which is just mass * 9.81) (well, almost rest mass, you are still moving along with the Earth). Relative mass is the aparent mass an object has when it's moving. The faster the object moves, the more mass it has. This is why photons can travel at light speed, they have no rest mass, but they do have relative mass. If a photon were to stop (which doesn't happen), it would simply disappear because it would no longer have any mass. Xelios, get well soon! Thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The teachers here are going on strike for as long as 7 weeks starting Monday, plenty of time to get well I guess Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bad thing is I have a diploma exam in Math 30 Pure this semester, 7 weeks of missed school could really screw that up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
