Proposal: Time paradox in Special Relativity Theory.

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Emil

Valued Senior Member
I want to show that there is time paradox in SRT.
I challenge anyone who says that this paradox is a false paradox.

I will present a concrete situation where is time paradox.
Who responds to the challenge will need to show that there is no time paradox.
 
For Pete's sakes, get on with it already! You've started two threads stating what you plan to do and have not yet presented your argument. So far, this does not bode well.
 
Janus58 said:
For Pete's sakes, get on with it already! You've started two threads stating what you plan to do and have not yet presented your argument.
Click to expand...
I wait for an opponent who "raises the glove".
Are you the one who engages?
 
Emil said:
I wait for an opponent who "raises the glove".
Click to expand...
So you aren't going to produce your argument until someone accepts your challenge?
Are you the one who engages?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to engage is such a pointless exercise. The only times I engage in such discussions is to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. Since this can be accomplished here by not responding, I choose the easier route. In fact, I suggest this course of (in)action to anyone else tempted to accept said challenge. One less pointless argument with a clueless Anti-relativity crank cluttering up the forum, the better.
 
Janus58 said:
Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to engage is such a pointless exercise. The only times I engage in such discussions is to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. Since this can be accomplished here by not responding, I choose the easier route. In fact, I suggest this course of (in)action to anyone else tempted to accept said challenge. One less pointless argument with a clueless Anti-relativity crank cluttering up the forum, the better.
Click to expand...
So you're just one of the "believers" who do not engage in any serious debate.
 
I would like to accept, but you haven't met the threshold of the "Formal Debates" forum.

Are you proposing a one-one debates using standard rules? If so, you need to phrase your proposal more formally. Presumably you wish the topic for which you will take the affirmative side is "There is a real paradox in situation X when analyzed with the special theory of relativity" but you haven't defined the word "paradox" and you haven't said what X is. Thus there is no way to know if the question is a real and valid question or not. X could be "the neighbor's grass is always greener."

By paradox do you mean mathematical contradiction or contradiction with Newtonian intuition?

I would accept the debate if you specified standard rules and adopted the proposal in the form "X is a hypothetical, but physically realizable situation modeled by special relativity yet leads to a mathematical contradiction Y."

James R said:
Standard Rules for one-on-one Formal Debates

The following rules are the standard rules for debates involving only two participants.

One participant will argue the affirmative side of the topic; the other will argue the negative side. The participants will be agreed in a Proposal thread.

1. The debater for the affirmative side of the debate will create the "Debate" thread and post the first post, setting out his or her main arguments.
2. The debater for the negative side will then reply with his or her own introductory post.
2. There will then be exactly two follow-up and rebuttal posts from each debater, in which the debaters may address and refute points made by the other person, as well as adding any new points that may come up.
3. Finally, each debater will post one concluding post, summing up his or her side of the debate. Following the concluding posts, the thread will be closed.
4. Debaters each have exactly two days from the time of posting of a post by their opponent to post their next post. If they do not post in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed.
5. Debaters may not post more than 4 posts in total. Once the 4-post limit is reached, further posts by that debater will be deleted from the thread, but the thread will remain open for posts by the opponent, until either his or her own 4-post limit is reached or until time runs out.
6. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites.
7. Individual posts may not be longer than 1500 words, including any quotes.
8. Any claims of violations of these rules should be made in the related Discussion thread of the relevant Debate. A moderator may follow up on such complaints, deleting any posts in violation of these Rules, unless the debaters agree to some other mutually satisfactory solution.
9. Other than as provided in Rule 8, debaters may not post in the Discussion thread until after the conclusion of the Debate.
Click to expand...
 
rpenner said:
I would like to accept...
Click to expand...

From my point of view the definition of the word paradox is sufficient as defined in the dictionary.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/paradox

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory
Click to expand...
You will need to show:
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true
Click to expand...
If you disagree, please define it yourself.

The case X I will present in the debate.
If you have questions about the case, you will address the question(s) to which I will respond.
From this moment I consider, from my point of view, the debate is closed.
Follow your explanation why this paradox is not a real paradox.
I will not comment on your explanation in the debate.
Maybe I will comment in discussions.
I will not delay more than 36 hours.
 
So you guys are going to follow the scientific method and peer-review Einstein's work to discover a fatal flaw. You do understand what the phrase "peer-review" means, right? It means that you are Einstein's peers.

So each of you has a PhD in physics?
 
Emil said:
I will not comment on your explanation in the debate.
Click to expand...
Then it is just a thread with two posts and no proper debate at all. Your proposal is unacceptable.

1) First of all, questioning may result in admission that you have relied on some assumption which is not part of special relativity, thus rending your X paradoxical but due to no fault of special relativity. Thus it is fair to want to know what X is before I commit to invest time in this.
2) Second, if you never respond after I take the time to understand your viewpoint and respond, how do I get confidence that you have understood my viewpoint? Unless you seek in the debate thread to respond to my argument our opinions haven't been symmetrically reviewed by each other.

At this time, X is completely mysterious. It may involve special relativity or it may be off that intended topic. So while it is improper to discuss X in this thread prior to debate, defining X I think is essential if you want anyone to accept your challenge. And in every case of anti-relativity claims being made before, it will be essential for me to invest time explaining the math and/or logic of special relativity for a true meeting of the minds to occur.
 
You do not have to strive that I understand, the audience needs to understand.
If I do" some assumption which is not part of special relativity", then it will be easier to prove that I'm wrong, is not it?
 
Emil:

As far as I can see, you have not suggested a topic for debate at this stage.

Please post one, or I'll close this thread.
 
rpenner,
I forgot to mention.
I never ever contested your math. I can say a priori that your math is correct.
 
James R said:
Emil:

As far as I can see, you have not suggested a topic for debate at this stage.

Please post one, or I'll close this thread.
Click to expand...

The case, in short, is this:
(I can fill with data if required.)
attachment.php

a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?[/QUOTE]
 
I try to post the image link changed.

The case, in short, is this:
(I can fill with data if required.)

attachment.php

a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?[/QUOTE]

View attachment 5876
 
Emil said:
The case, in short, is this:
(I can fill with data if required.)
attachment.php

a and b have the same speed, so they periodically meet at the point of tangency of their trajectory.
When they meet they synchronize their clocks.
At the next meeting, which will be "the young" and which will be "the old" ?
Click to expand...
There was discussion on this issue years ago here at sciforums... concerning the wheels of a train relative to platform.
The end result If I recall is that "rotational vectors" are excluded from SRT....as in SRT only allows straight line vectors. To put the "twins paradox" in this scenario would be considered as non SRT if I am not mistaken.
I am sure some erudite SRT'ist will entertain explaining this...
 
Last edited:
Emil said:
I answered and: "Your post will show when a moderator has approved it".
Click to expand...

Emil, I would not commit to a debate on any issue. I just don't have the desire for that kind of a time commitment. The following comment is as observer only.

Is your intent that the debate is restricted to the conditions of SRT alone or will GR come into the debate?

The reason I ask is that in the absence of gravitational fields, the circular paths involve not only speed or velocity, but a constant acceleration defined by the curved paths. While SRT can deal with acceleration, it is far more easily dealt with, from the context of GR and the equivalence principle.

It still seems that your basic proposal requires more detail. It should include what underlying conditions and assumptions, are to be considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top