The Death of Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    This thread is intended for James, Billy T, Tom2, Janus58 and everyone else who still support Relativity.

    After all this time on sciforums, MacM has definitely proven that relativity is invalid using only a simple thought experiment. In his thread, MacM explains what I call the triplet paradox:

    In MacM's thought experiment, there are three observers (triplets) on Earth. Let's call them observer A, B, and C, and each observer has an atomic clock that is in sync with the other observer's clocks.

    The three observers then start their clocks. Observer A stays on Earth, while observer B and C travel at relativistic speeds away from each other (and observer A). After observer B and C both travel one light year from observer A, they stop their clocks and send a light signal to observer A. When observer A gets the signals, he stops his clock and subtracts one year from his clock. Finally, observers B and C head back to Earth, and they compare their times on their clocks with the time on observer A's clock.

    Question: If ta, tb, and tc are the times on observer A's, B's, and C's clocks, which of the values (ta, tb, or tc) will be the largest, and which will be the smallest?

    James has stated, in another thread, that tb and tc would be equal, while ta would be larger. This would imply that time dilated for observer B and C relative to observer A, which is exactly what relativity dictates. However relative to observer B, time should have dilated for observer A and C, and for observer C, time should have dilated for observer A and B. In other words, relativity dictates that:

    In A's frame of reference ta>tb=tc

    In B's frame of reference tb>ta>tc

    in C's frame of reference tc>ta>tb

    The problem is that each of the clocks can only display ONE TIME. They CANNOT display multiple times. At most, only one of the three results listed above can be true, and therefore, at least two of the results have to be false. Because of this, Special Relativity cannot be valid, and there must therefore be one or more preferred reference frames.

    If someone has a answer to the triplet paradox that is consistent with SR, please share.
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Reports of the Death of Relativity are very much exagerated and premature.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I assume the clocks are synchronised on Earth, before they start moving.

    I assume the one light year is measured by observer A, and not B or C. I assume the clocks are stopped at the same time in A's frame. If that is true, they stop at different times in B and C's frames.


    Given the above assumptions, tb and tc will be equal, and both smaller than ta.


    No. The conditions of the test are assumed to be that A controls the action - when the clocks start and stop, how far they travel, etc. In B or C's frame, clocks B and C do not stop simultaneously. For example, according to B, B stops his clock at a certain time, and then continues to watch C's clock run until it reaches the same displayed time as B's clock, at which time it stops.

    That's true, when you stick to working in one frame.

    Right. According to the conditions of the test, the solution I gave above is true, and the other two are false.

    Wrong. I suppose you didn't follow the discussion when I went through this problem with MacM, explaining to him in immense detail exactly why his conclusion was wrong.

    I hope I don't have to go through the same process again with you.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    Are you claiming that relative to observer A, observer B's and C's clock are in sync during the entire journey, but relative to B and C they are not?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    This is where it appears that we're in disagreement. I believe that since observers B and C reach their one light year marker in the same moment in observer A's frame of reference, they reach their one light year marker in all frames of reference (including B's and C's).

    I realize that relativity states that if two events occur at the same moment in one frame of reference, it doesn't mean that they occur at the same moment in a different frame of reference. However, there is no reason for me to assume that this is true in the example I illustrated, or in any other situation.

    Is there any experimental evidence to suggest that two events that happen at the same moment in one frame they do not happen happen at the same moment in another frame, or is this concept just used to fudge SR in order to make it consistent? If I were to prove that if two events happen at one moment in one frame of reference, they happen at the same moment in all frames of reference would you then accept that SR is invalid?
  8. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    What you believe is irrelevant.
    In this thought experiment, yes you do. When analyzing a given theory for inconsistancies, you can not just throw out a fundamental part of that Theory. To do so would be to artificially introduce an inconsistancy.
    It is a natural consequence of the two postulates. If it were a "fudge", it would have to be introduced as a third postulate.
    Prove it how? by experimental Evidence, or another thought experiment that from the get go assumes that some fundamental aspect of SR is wrong?
  9. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Trapped in a newtonian universe. Pity.
  10. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    What if when observer B reaches his one light year marker he sends a light pulse to observer C. Observer C then subtracts, from his time, the time it takes the light to reach him from observer B, and compares that to when he actually reaches his one light year marker.

    Are you sure that the two times in the above example would be different? If so, which would be larger?
  11. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    Better than being trapped in the fantasy land of relativity.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member



    Well, if that's what you believe, you should set about gathering real-world evidence which supports your view. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any.

    All the evidence which supports the fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames also supports the concept of relativity of simultaneity. The two are inseparable. Start with one, and the other is inevitable.

    If you can find evidence that the speed of light is dependent on the speed of the source, for example, then you will have disproved the relativity of simultaneity, too.

    Good luck.

  13. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    In your experiment you may calculate the rate of clocks as a function of anticipated velocity of each of the frames and supply a calibrated clock that is programmed to run on earth frame clock rates. Then you may shut off (preprogramme) all clocks at the same time. Or you may programme any number of experiments that requires time coordination between frames moving at different speeds.

    Similalrly, you may have the different frames programmed to send a continuoius signal that contains the output values for clock rate, number ticks, etc with the frame time stamp included in the downlinks signals of all moving frames. In fact could not you have an embedded table for all predicted clock rates etc that SRT predicts the other frames in the experiment will indicate at any instant of time simultaneous in all frames. Likewise as all sighnals are time tagged to the frame emitting information and all data is eventuially accessible to other frames in the experiment. having just said this you will still get no sanity from the SRTist for the simple reason the cloks rate experiment is probably impossible to conduct. however one may put all the clocks in a laboratory, each programemd to run at predicted rates, and view the results.The fact that all frames may have an earth frame calibrated clocks as well as clocks that are predicted to be the same as other frames on the experiments.
    I see no problem with synchronization with the exception that data may not be shared instantaneously for the simple reason that data transfer from A to B takes a certain amount of tume t > 0.

    Listen for the SRT magic words: "The moving observers perspective" or "what a moving observer sees". Check these statements very closely and you will discover that the SRT observer has powers of perception that exceed that of the common mortal. FOr instance I read one descrioption that a moving observer "sees the lights arriving sinmultaneously at A and B" where A and B are at opposite ends of a moving frame. Here the observer, although moving, considered his frame at rest wrt the embankment

    Patience in data analysis process will solve all the probelms. To argue what SRT will or not do is a waste of time. Arguing theory between the parties is of very limited value, zero actually. Usually the winner is the one witht the most viscious and intensly insulting tone of typing. In this scenario the SRT always get the most points for the reason that they will continue argue their silliness no matter what information they have to cinsider one tells them, argument, logic (a dirty word in SRT, ask Superluminal if you don't believe me.) are all for naught. Hypothetical examples are a predictable waste of time as the SRTist doesn't know what hypotyheticals are all about. Constructing hypothetical examples requires a certain degree of mind opening. I have observed that the casual SRTist fears that if opening their mind that their brains may fall out, which is probably true as witnessed by the level of their scientific ability.

    Unless the readers of the debate are considered the target of information and that they are most properly informed, arguing with an SRTist is one of the most valuless scientific forms of activity you can consider. The responses are predictable depending on the responder. Each seems to have their own form of quirky buillshit. Like Superluminal's arrogant definition of postulates that are satisfactory to what is acceptable to him. Superluminal doesn't realize that SRT is a pure postulational structure where experimental evidence is pre-measured by theory, and in some conditions excluded, like the motion of inertial frames that are effectively set to zero velocity when measuring the speed of light with respect to that moving frame. No wonder the claim that speed of light relative to a moving frame is always c when the frame is assumed at rest wrt the motion of the light.

    These people aren't going to alter one single brain cell activity no matter what kind of information they are considering, that is if they have a brain cell to begin with. You can't even ask the single brain celled SRTist how many brain cells they have and expect a truthful answer as none of them are able to count that high.
    Geistkiesel ​
  14. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Then he will determine that observer B didn't reach his marker point until he himself had already past his own.
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member


    Don't let these fools waffle you into a confused state.

    Insertion of claims jof simultaneity and frames, etc is nothing but a dodge. It is only the accumulated time on clocks that is the ultimate concern.

    In a case where A and B accelerate in oposite directions at equal rates away from C for equal periods, their clocks should remain synchronized and each can have prior instructions to stop their clocks after those clocks have recorded a set amount of time.

    I've done this before. That is showing that precalculated times using SR proves the failure of SR. Of course they object saying stopping the clocks insures the readings. They are right but what they refuse to recognize is that I too am right and those readings are consistant with predictions jof SRT and also prove other jpredictions jof SRT to be invalid. SRT cannot have it both (or multiple) ways.

    Now to reduce the arguement about my method we will further assume that the rockets are under auto pilot computer control and that once their clocks shut down their craft is placed into an auto return trajectory using symmetrical paths between A and B.

    Low and behold lA and B both retun at the precise moment (simultaneously) proving the synchronization of clocks during the test.

    What this test jproves is that A and B have ran slow according to the base clock C but that A and B read jprecisely the same and NO time dilation occured between A and B even though they had periods of inertial veloicty at 0.866c.

    That is NO time dilation even with relative velocity. Hmmmmm.
  16. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Quote from James:

    Quote from geistkiesel:

    Quote from MacM:

    All of you are forgetting one important thing: this is a thought experiment. There is no need to set up markers, set start and stop times, or even to view the values that are displayed on the clocks. When clock A displays a certain time, clock B and C will also display a certain time simply because they exist. It doesn't matter if A can't see clocks B or C, this isn't quantum uncertainty where clocks B and C don't display any time until they are observered.

    So now that I've emphasized the fact that all three clocks will display a specific time at any specific moment, we can get to the nitty-gritty. If clock B at any moment through its inertial journey is displaying a time that is larger then the time that is displayed on clock C, then at that moment, clock C cannot display a time that is larger than the displayed time on clock B. It's as simple as that. It's actually so simple, I don't know why I had to explain it.
  17. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Per inertial Frame, But different inertial frame will not agree as what those times are.
    You are assuming absolute time. You cannot argue against SR using a thought experiment that assumes absolute time, as SR does not assume absolute time. All this does is show that SR is imcompatable with absolute time and that is already known and accepted.

    Let's try a little analogy to try and explain the differrence.

    Assume you have a number of people standing on the equator. They all are facing West. You ask them to point North. They will all point to their right, and they will all be pointing in the same direction. Now have them facing in different directions, and Again ask them to point North, they will all again point in the same direction, though each will point in a different direction relative to how they are facing. If you ask any one of them how far North or South an object is of them, they will all give the same answer. This represents absolute time.

    Now same situation, except now you ask them to point right. In the first scenerio they still all point in the same direction. In the second case, they will all point in different directions. If you ask them how far to the right or to the left an object is of them, they will all give you different answers. This is relative time. If fact if two of these people are facing right with relative to each Other, each can say that the other is to the right of himself.

    Relativity adopts the second model for time, in which time operates left-right. In this, it makes certain predictions as what will happen in given situations.

    Absolute time also makes predictions as to what will happen in the same situations.

    The only way to discover which model fits our universe is to perform actual experiments and determine which set of predictions come true. In every physical test to date, the answer points to the fact that we live in a universe in which time operates Left-Right and not North-South.
  18. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    Exactly...this whole arguement is flawed because you are saying from the point of view of A, B, or C. but that is not what you mean. The whole arguement is based upon an impossible frame of reference in which the observer is not at A,B, nor C...but Z which occurs at all frames at order to have this, yes, you require a universe in which time is absolute and cannot observe a system from three different vantage points 2 ly seperate. Hell, I cannot even watch my dog while watching my children in the same house...Anyway, information can only travel in our universe at the speed of light. If you send a clock away from you at the speed of light, then the system that is the clock will not change because then you would have information moving at greater then the speed of light (the speed of the system as well as any change in the system which is an addition of information from the POV of the observer). At the speed of light there would be no change in the systems moving relative to a stationary observer...realize that B and C are not moving at c+c to equal 2c. They cannot possibly move away from each other at greater than c (relative to each other) this fact in itself is proof that time slows at you near c. You know what...I think everyone should avoid fights long enough to just list...never mind, I will create a new thread...

    - KitNyx
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Yes. The question is: do they display the same time?

    The problem here is that a "specific moment" varies depending on your reference frame. What is a "specific moment" in one reference frame is two different moments in another frame, provided the spatial locations where the moments are being experienced are different.

    No, it's not that simple, and that's exactly what all you anti-relativity people keep missing, or refuse to learn.

    The term "at that moment" has completely different meanings for observers travelling with clock B, as opposed to observers travelling with clock C. This is the relativity of simultaneity at work.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    "Insertion" of these claims is totally consistent with what we know of the world. Leaving them out is a dodge, and also incorrect.

    ...according to C, but not to A or B.

    You couldn't calculate yourself out of a wet paper bag.
  21. KitNyx Registered Senior Member

    No, no, James...their calculations and logic work perfectly - look:

    All three clocks start with time 0:00 01012005.

    A runs for one year - time on clock 0:00 01012006

    Clock B&C meanwhile reach destination 1c distant - time on clock 0:00 01012006

    Is this your logic? Simple...
    James, what do you think, I am sure it is great to be able to see the world so clearly...I am almost envious, how about you?

    Do all of you honestly believe that the infinite amount of energy that you had to feed into the delivery systems of clock B & C had no effect on the clocks? Do you believe in the statement E=mc^2? If so then you know what happens when you have an infinite amount of energy or mass in one effect on the clocks? Advocates of Ockham's razor at their best...let me give you Einsteins answer to that..."Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." ~Albert Einstein (ya, that guy again)

    - KitNyx
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    We are in total agreement. If you have followed any of my threads and post you should have noted I have stated the same thing.
  23. sciguy1945 Registered Member

    To answer the question, he is basically saying light is affected by somethings velocity, so that's how something is made to seem to be distorted. But in reality, if you know precisely what happened in the situation, having 3 different viewpoints, a, b, and c have the same number on their clocks.

Share This Page