# The Death of Relativity

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

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Man I can't blelieve you screwed this up this bad you have generally seemed to at least be able do basic math.

1 - Where k = comparative tick rate. v = k* (d / t). You can see that d can never change if you retain the known and calculated physical affect of time dilation on the clock making the trip.

2 - What biased velocity? You are dreaming.

3 - Why would anybody want to attempt to do that is is not required and has not been claimed.

4 - Ditto.

3. ### 2inquisitiveThe Devil is in the detailsRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
3,181
Why do you think this would present a problem, James R? All you have to do is choose
a realistic reference frame, one that really works in physics. A global frame, a heliocentric frame, the solar system version of an ICRF frame. (1) of course.
(2) clock M will beat at half the rate of clock E. Obvously, clock M is running slower than clock E.

Edit: I was responding to these questions by James R. I failed to refresh.

by James R:

"Now, suppose the planet Mars, at some particular time, is moving directly towards Earth at 0.866c (i.e. Mars is moving in the same direction as clock A, and opposite to clock B). I will call a clock on Mars clock M.

Some questions before I go on:

1. Obviously Mars was not launched from Earth, so is it possible to compare clock M with clock E?
2. If the answer to (1) is "yes", then what are the relative rates of clock M and clock E? Which one is running slow, and which one is fast?"

Last edited: Jul 27, 2005

5. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471

Prosoothus, Let me see if I understand your basic point.

The B and C frames moving uniformly opposite to each other at the same speed relative to each other. You want the B frame to mark the time the B frame has been in motion for 1 year, using the B frames clock. You want the C frame clock to also note the time when it has traveled one year measured from the C frame clock. You want the A clock to mark the time after one year has passed on earth.

I cannot understand why James R and Janus58 cannot simply state that the numbers on the clocks in the B and C frames indicate the same instant of time.

Whether moving away from each other, parallel to each other or at any angle using the center of earth as the axis of the two projected (paired)trajectories, the results would be the same.

They have to discard the concept of absolute time they say and as such the time on both moving frames are completely independent of each other. I do notice that they have not given you a number that will appear on each clock as each determines the passage of one year. James may have said the B and C clocks were slower but I don’t recall if he claimed the number were the same.

MacM made it abundantly clear to me months ago that the B and C clocks cannot both be slower than the other as each claim. In fact I thought this was just a minor point that got mixed up in terminology differences, but no, this is the central point of the debate.

Here it is as I see it: special relativity either allows, or demands, that each frame considers itself at rest wrt the other (a physically impossible condition considering the simultaneous launches). OK so let SRT have it theoretical way here. We have placed two mechanical switches at equal distances from earth such that the two frames moving at a constant and equal speed each arrives at a switch simultaneous with the other (though neither is aware of the switch). Immediately each clock prints out the current time on a piece of paper, then the clocks are shut down and the frames return to earth where the observes on each frame hand the pieces of paper to the ground controller. There is one number on each piece of paper and that number is identical to the other. Now, as I understand Janus58 and James, each number is higher than the other number as each had assumed as per SRT instructions that each must conclude so (remember they have discarded absolute time). The fact the numbers were the same must be pure insignificant statistical rarity. Likewise, the other 20,000 pairs of space ships performing the same test also have the identical numbers printed on their printouts.

But no, this is not a case of coincidental statistical rarity. In fact all the 20,001 pairs of printed numbers were identical, but this must just be another “counter intuitive” SRT truism proving the postulates of SRT as correct once again.

So you see Prosoothus you are in error, as you must be. Your problem is your obvious inability to see the significance of coincidence. Yes, the significance of coincidence, for if the numbers were in fact different it would be most difficult to argue that each number was in fact higher than the other. Maybe half would be, perhaps? No, we must get away from what appears as “observed” by assuming the observed as true. This is just foolishness carried to extremes.

So you see now I trust that your confusion or why you felt you even had to explain the situation was merely your ignorance of physical law.

You see Prosoothus the phrase "events at any specific time", imply that as this very moment there are events occuring simultaneosulsy on the otherside of the universe, how foolish. How could a star be twinkling now, even though we see the twinkle that occurred in someone elses reality millions of years past when it happened "now" to them, but of course they were seeing the twinklwe that occured years before also, absolutely?

Personally, I think SRT was designed to confuse all and to keep us, us dissidents, occupied trying to defeat it instead of engaging ourselves in serious physics research.

Geistkiesel

7. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Because the very concept is meaningless: Time makes no sense without space. Nobody disagrees that both the A, B and C clock will read exactly one year. But none of them will agree that at those times, as viewed from the respective frames, the others' clocks were reading one year as well, because that means absolute time.
And it is your central failing. You're still caught in a primitive view of the universe in which a comparison of the two clocks as "at the same time seeing the other dilate" makes sense. However, the apparent paradox is easily, oh, so easily dispatched because there's relativity to simultaneity as well. Time simply doesn't make sense without a frame, so there's no concept of an "instant" in which the clocks "at the same time are slower than the other". Absolute time simply doesn't exist.

You, and MacM, are simply denying a very central piece of argumentation in relativity, and arguing for the denial by using an absolute frame, something that is disallowed by the theory, and something that would be so easily dispelled if you were to sit down and actually draw some space diagrams (2-dimensional Minkowski spaces).
This is, of course, nonsense. Str claims no such thing, and believing that it does shows your flimsy grip of the concepts involved. Perhaps you need glasses to see things better? Anyway, with such major flaws apparent, the rest of your post can be safely ignored...

8. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
KitNyx,

You are confusing two subjects here. Just because You aren't on Betelguese at this instant doen'y mean thagt events aren't ocuring there, at this instant. There is a fundamental difference between what is measured and what is real. The fact that a clock may dilate, for any reason, does not mean that the discrepency of times on clocks in different frames defines the exactenss of when an event occurred.

Those souls, on Betelguese at this very second (which will be later than 'this second' to me now) when you read about it, but my time now, your time now, your time later and my time later, activities are occuring on Betelguese now whenever you utter the word, now. Or even if you don't utter the words, now.

Do you really consider that Mother Nature would ever put the control of 'time' into the hands of the Bulova Watch Company? No way! Rollex, maybe, but certainly not Bulova.
Of course you are also aware of why Mother Nature included time in her beauitiful creation aren't you?

So everything wouldn't happen 'all at once'.

Do you dig it KitNyx?

Here try this out, if you dare, this could change our lives simultaneously, if you know what I mean.
Geistkiesel

9. ### AltSciRegistered Member

Messages:
4
On Relativity Death

The experiment with observers A, B, and C, each of them with atomic clock. Most convenient to be described in the coordinates where A is at rest. The results of this description (ta,tb,tc) will be universal. The reason for that is that only A is an observer in Einstein's sense (Inertial Frame). The B and C are not observers (there are no IF connected to them).

10. ### KlippymitchThinkerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
699
I am almost certain the guy with the clock experiment is wrong due to not fully understanding relativity. I'm too sleepy to read this whole thread.

11. ### ReikuBannedBanned

Messages:
11,238
My heads to dizzy reading all of this too... so i won't bother.

12. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Why do SR theorists limp?

Note: Even SL should be able to follow this one.

James R,
Here is a start of your "evidence" from the mouth of Al Einstein himself. In his book, "relativity" published 1915 AE uses the thought experiment starting with a man walking on a train. Relative to an observer on the embankment the speed of the man relative to the train is,

Vme = Vte + Vmt

or that the velocity of the man relative to the embankment ( Vme) is the sum of the speed of the train relative to the embankment, (Vte), plus the speed of the man relative to the train (Vmt).

Now AE directly substitutes the light motion for the man walking on the train. I will use l substituted for m, hence

Vle = Vte + Vlt

Here AE errs by substituting l for the man as the speed of light, relative to the observer on the embankment, is not dependent on the speed of the train. An observer on the embankment sees the emitted light on the train moving with the same speed as the light emitted in the embankment.

Anyway, AE then does a simple algebraic move,

Vle - Vte = Vlt

But here moans AE, Vlt < c and we had said earlier (in his book) that the laws of physics regulating the motion of light on all inertial frames should all be the same. OK, a duck's speed measured relative to one frame may be different than that speed measured by another frame moving with a different relative speed. Bit AE, pulls his first leg here by stating that if the equivalence of the laws of physics is true, as it is for the ducks where the laws do not insist that all measurements from all inertial frame result in the same measured speed. The laws are applied the same is the rule, not that the results all have the same number.

Using the expression Vle - Vte = Vlt < c, AE says but here Vlt < c contradicts our rule that the laws governing light motion must result in the same measured speed as when measured in the vacua.

Two SR errors here are seen. First AE contradicts the independence of light motion rule by substituting l for m (light for the man walking) then he garbles the statement re the laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames, by including flying ducks being potentially measured with different results, yet demanding that the equivalence of the laws of light motion insist that the speed be measured the same as when measured relative tio the vacua! This latter claim was in the same chapater as that where he discussed the independence of light motion.

Another flaw, that is rarely observed by SR obsessives, is that AE when writing,
Vle = Vte + Vlt, and then gets

Vle - Vte = Vlt and then claims that Vlt should be the same even when measured relative to the train. The expressions Vle and Vte are meaured relatrive to the embankment, yet AE duscusses the train the expression Vle - Vte = Vlt as if now all measurements are relative to the train. AE did a frame switch.

To correct Professor Einstein we recognize that in the man's case, the speed relative to the train, Vmt , where the man assumes the speed of the train is irrelevant as to his motion relative to the train, hence the man essentially assumes Vte = 0. The light, however, requires a different approach. The speed of light relative to the train, Vlt, must equal V'le - Vte, or that we must subtract out the spped of the traion reloatiove to the embankment, Vte. I inserted the prime to distinguish this light emtted on the train from the light speed Vle. Now,

Vle = Vte + Vlt = Vte + V'le - Vte, or as the Vte terms cancel, we are left with,

Vle = V'le

which is the corrected expression using the independence postulate.

Geistkiesel

Answer to the title question, Why do all SR theorists limp?: Because Einstein pulled their legs out of joint with SR theory:shrug:.​

13. ### MontecRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
248
Hello all

The rate of time experienced by any frame of reference is dependent on the frame chosen. You cannot mix and match time rates and frames of reference.

14. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Prove what you say.

:shrug:

15. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Prove the middle paragraph.:shrug:

16. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
As Einstein was well aware, this equation is incorrect when any of the speeds is the speed of light. But it appears he goes on to explain himself...

One of Einsteins postulates is that the speed of light is the same in all frames, so his requiring that is a simple restatement of his hypothesis. Also, he is quite correct that quantities measured in different frames need not have the same values, as long as the laws relating them take the same forms. That is the second postulate of special relativity.

In summary, all Einstein has done is to restate his postulates.

The frames are clearly specified. Vlt, for example, is by definition the speed of light relative to the train. I mean, the notation is right there in front of you. What don't you understand about it?

No. The man can measure his speed relative to the train without ever looking out the window. He doesn't need to know anything about Vte to measure Vmt. That's the whole point.

17. ### ThiussatRegistered Member

Messages:
29
There is a reason Sir Arthur Eddington said that he and Einstein and one other man were the only three alive to understand relativity -- and that was GENERAL relativity. However, even SR has proven to be too difficult for most people to grasp. This appears to be the case with the SR "debunkers" here. They either don't understand SR or refuse to accept the theory because of their inherent notions of how the universe "should" work. At least these guys admit time exists. Many people I see on science forums who try to debunk SR usually do it based on the assumption that time doesn't exist and is a fabricated "human" concept. When I ask these people "if time doesn't exist then how would you explain that everything does not happen at once," they simply scratch their head in befuddlement. The problem is their notion of time is corrupted by their own "perception" and "intuition." They think of time in the sense of absolute earth-like terms. They often use arguments like "if it is 12:00 on earth there is no reason to think it is 12:00 in the andromeda galaxy, therefore time does not exist and is a human construct." Little do they know that this argument actually debunks their notion that time doesn't exist!

Now, geitskeisel, your argument above is flawed because it is not a scientific argument but a philosophical "intuitive" argument. If you want to debunk a scientific theory, then do it on scientific grounds. In science, when trying to understand space/time one doesn't need to introduce such flawed concepts as "right now." In science we do experiments that are usually calibrated by INSTRUMENTS that are more accurate than our perceptions (in this case the instruments are atomic clocks). You are working on the fallacious assumption that our senses never deceive us. How would you scientifically measure "right now?" You can't. "Right now" is a human linguistic term that evolved based on our limited earthly perceptions of time. "Right now" works great in everyday earth life, but has no meaning in the vast cosmos. In order to illustrate what I mean: we all know that the universe is 13 billion years old. We know that the Hubble images of distant galaxies are actually representing galaxies as they were BILLIONS of years ago. When we see the images they do not represent "right now." The problem you have is you are trying to look at two observers from a separate "absolute" vantage point (almost like an omniscient vantage point) and this simply is NOT possible. Just because we can all imagine what "right now" means for two observers, doesn't mean we can calibrate it in any way. Just because we can imagine pink unicorns doesn't make them real. The truth is, based on SR, there is no way to DEFINE "right now" for two separate observers. Einstein proved that when trying to do so, you come up with different answers depending on which observer you ask. And this isn't because each observer has flawed perception. You can check the atomic clock that each is holding and each will give a different reading.

Again, you are trying to attribute your own biased intuition on the reality of what instruments measure. If you don't want to measure your reference frame based on the frame of another observer, then what do you measure your reference frame against? A "stationary planet?" What is this planet stationary relative to? It is moving relative to another object. What is the other object stationary to? You can see where this is going and you can see how absolutism fails when discussing space/time. I challenge you to define the center of the universe. Can you do that?

Conjecture does not equate to reality. If that was the case, we would still be assuming that the God Poseidon causes floods and Aphrodite causes love.

Absolutism is simply a natural sentiment of humans; we long to think in terms of absolute reference frames since our brains have mostly evolved that way based in our earthly experience. It is easy to think in terms of "right now" because "right now" works pretty well on earth. The truth is, however, that our senses are fooling us. The universe does not work in the way we "think" we are perceiving it. This has been proven for decades in relation to time, and there was just another experiment done recently which further backs up the veracity of SR. Check physicsworld.com for info.

The truth is science has proven SR over and over again (as the link below is just another example). Your side has proven NOTHING other than your inability to understand SR and your propensity to project human "reasoning" into the reality when our observations and our instruments do not support your claims.

18. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Welcome to sciforums. I agree with all of your post except the part quoted below is too broad in that it is possible to dispute the ontological status of time (without being "befuddled") and yet firmly hold that SR is by far the best description of the nature of space and the parameter called "time," which is just very convenient in all common descriptions of physical events. (But can be mathematically eliminated for all such discriptions - I have several threads showing how to solve all normal descriptions of form F(t) for t and then equate the resulting equations to eliminate t from the equation set and have all event descriptions in terms of other events/conditions. I.e. "t" is only a convenience, not essential, for a complete discription of the universe and "time" has no measurable or causal* properties.)
You are 100% correct that the concept of "right now" is nonsense. The best one can achieve is to set all clocks in all frames to be 12 noon at the same time, but in frames moving with respect to one another, 12:05 in our frame is not 12:05 in any other. I.e. clocks in different frames can be sychronized at one time, but "right now" is at best only at the arbitary instant that they are commonly set to the same value. - "right now" has no enduring quality and is only arbitary valid at the instant the clocks are commonly set to be the same. (the "TWIN PARADOX" is a well understood example of the failure of "right now" to be meaningfully different from the sychronization for one instant only of clocks. - When one twin is old dying the other is not. etc.as their personnal "right nows" were different while in different frames.)
------------------
*You seem a little confused. The elimination of time from a discription of the universe would not cause everything to be simulataeous as you suggest. one event preceeds the events it causes. I.e. a physical process is changing the state of the universe and in that new state, other physical processes will or may proceed differently. Time passing does not cause the pendulum of a "grandfater clock" to swing. That is a result of gravity and inertia. Likewise, my hair is not now grey because "time passed" but because of a long chain of related and interacting physical processes. TIME HAS NO CAUSAL POWERS, NOT ONE MEASURABLE PROPERTIY** - HENCE DOES NOT EXIST.

**No Mass, charge, speed, length, volume, color, etc.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2007
19. ### ThiussatRegistered Member

Messages:
29
"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once" -- Einstein

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once; space is what keeps everything from happening to me" -- John Archibald Wheeler

Everything in the universe is a set of processes -- everything is relational. How would you define causal events without the element of time? You say gravity causes the pendulum to swing, yes, but explain the observable and measurable effect that gravitation has on space-time. Do you deny that time moves more slowly for an observer orbiting a black hole than it does for an observer that is just outside the black hole's massive space-time warping effect? Gravity warps space AND time. Essentially, if you want to do away with time, you must do away with space. In your universe, nothing exists.

Perhaps time doesn't exist, perhaps it is an illusion to us humans (despite the fact our instruments measure it). Perhaps space can exist without time. But, for one to deny time, one would have to be giving a purely metaphysical argument. Metaphysics is not the job of science. Science explains what we OBSERVE, not what we think we observe or what we think "could be."

Based on human observation there is not one reason to suggest time doesn't exist. And science is about human observation. I'll leave the rest of the speculation to metaphysics, rationalism and idealism.

Messages:
26,343
Duration.

21. ### ranthiRegistered Member

Messages:
141
its just a thought experiment right? no math really needed...

it would be the same as saying do the experiment with b...and do it again and call it c.

b and c would show the same time relative to the time it shows on a.

22. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
WOW! 2 1/2 years and you guys are still carrying this argument foward. I am really pleased. DO NOT, I repeat DO NOT, let these SR brain dead egotists change your minds.

The whole foundation for SR is to set forth conditions and restrictions which prohibit sound physical comparison.

i.e. - the claim there is no absolute time, hence you cannot make comparisons.

Yet it is "Intuitively" obvious that events are simultaneous all over the universe all the time. The fact that you cannot percieve nor measure those events simultaneously is actually irrelevant.

Simple calculations can prove their simultaneity.

Motion does indeed alter the tick rate of clocks. HOWEVER, it is and has always been ONLY the clock which under went acceleration force (F = ma) that records less time. There has NEVER in 100+ years of Einstein a case where the clock that remained inertial recorded less time. SR's reciprocity is NOT a physical reality.

F = ma, v = at These simple basic formulas are in fact valid and use the origin inertial ordinate point as an absolute reference. They do not use other observers at various relative velocities as a reference.

Velocity IS an absolute function relative to it's origin and any and all effects are relative to that origin and not any other observer.

What you might "Observe" while in motion is another matter but "Perception" is not basis of physical change. The only time dilation that is real is that which becomes permanently recorded upon direct comparison in a common inertial frame.

The problem is this. Given "C" and "B" are space stations with a relative velocity apart of 0.866c and "A" is a shuttle. "A" is harbored at "B" and "A" and "B" have a common tick rate. "C" is ticking at 1/2 their rate.

1 - In an absolute system when "A" accelerates away from "B" towards "C", "A's " tick rate must decrease and it starts to accumulate time slower than "B" and more inaccordance with "C".

All is well and makes sense.

2 - Once landed on "C", "A" now ticks in concert with "C" and is ticking slower than "B". Still OK.

3 - But NOW to launch "A" back to "B" we must accelerate once again and according to SR "C" is remaining inertial and hence "A" must now begin to tick slower than "C" but it doesn't and can't.

We know emperically it doesn't because once back on "B" it has restored it's original tick rate and is now ticking faster than "C".

4 - Therefore what "C" calls acceleration must in fact be decelleration ( -a ) and has an affect on "A's" clock as an absolute function of it's origin.

TRY IT. Forget what you might observe while in relative motion but concern yourself only with what is happening to the clocks local proper tick rate and is being accumulated upon subsequent direct comparison in a common frame.

The problem becomes obvious when you consider consuming fuel to accelerate in the opposite direction of "B" - NOW "A" begins to tick slower than "C" and even more slower than"B". That is let "C" beocme a new origin of acceleration and the clock must slow down.

It doesn't require a lot of thought to realise that every inertial point CANNOT be an origin of acceleration because that would require "A" slow down regardless of vector toward "B" or away.

Last edited: Nov 23, 2007
23. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
MacM:

Perhaps you'd like to debate in the new Formal Debates forum?