Register to reply 
Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR 
Share this thread: 
#73
Apr604, 11:29 AM

P: 286

I thought maybe you'd answer me, or try to tell me that it does in fact lead to a contradiction in SR.
This situation (where v=c) just doesn't make sense. Distance = rate*time. No matter what your rate, if time is zero, distance is zero. But for v=c, no matter what amount of time you try to assert has passed at clock A denoted by [tex]\Delta t[/tex], clock B traveling at v=c will measure [tex]\Delta t = 0[/tex], which is why we cannot define [tex]\Delta t'[/tex] with respect to A. We just wouldn't understand it! No matter how much time we experience traveling with clock A, clock B never measures any change in our clock. Your initial argument that two photons traveling parallel to each other are traveling relative to each other at velocity zero is classic newtonian velocity addition. This is an incorrect application of newtonian physics, just like the application of newtonian physics to explain the "almost insignificant" change in Mercury's perihelion did not apply (but was precisely explained by Einstein's equations). So, if I can prove that one of your assumptions is incorrect, I can call your entire conclusion incorrect. I won't mention that you assume that we're in Euclidian space (not proven), and that space is the same for a photon as it is for us (not proven), AND that you assume time is absolute (which I'm sure you know carries implications of variable c and the ether, as well as absolute space, which you've admitted you agree with). I don't know why I bother. Think what you like, but your thoughts aren't as original as you believe they are. 


#74
Apr604, 11:34 AM

P: 286

(time, x,y,z) Anyway I'll try to make it through the rest of your post now...though right off the bat you show me that you are in fact confusing the heck out of me by calling an event a duration of time. *sigh* 


#75
Apr604, 11:53 AM

P: 286

Therefore because A and B will never coincide with respect to each other, the rest of your statements never occur. 


#76
Apr604, 11:54 AM

P: 220

P.S. I know why some verbal confusion has arisen. You refer to a single moment in time as an 'event'. That is the standard terminology yes. But there is another word for this, which is used in philosophical circles, and that word is 'state'. You represent a state using the following symbolism: (ct,x,y,z) But you have no precise notion of the "time of an event" which can only be defined using two states, one of which must occur before the other, in universal time. Consider two distinct states. Using your notation we have: State 1 = S1 = (ct1,x1,y1,z1) State 2 = S2 = (ct2,x2,y2,z2) Let S1 occur before S2. I am calling [S1,S2] an event, the amount of time of this event is given by your (t2t1). Regards, The Star 


#77
Apr604, 11:58 AM

P: 286

Oh and remember that your "Universal Time" you referred to when defining the philosopher's circle 'event' is actually just another frame of reference which is subject to relativity itself. In my post, that "Universal Time" could be in terms of F3, but that means you're not presenting all the necessary facts. And remember that there is no preferred frame of reference, and if there is one (in your opinion) how do YOU personally define that? 


#78
Apr604, 12:01 PM

P: 220

You use the word 'event' to mean what I call 'state', and I use the word 'event' for something you don't have a word for. Kind regards, The Star (P.S. It is easier for you to change than me.) EDIT: Correction, you do have a word for it... duration. However, duration isn't a noun, the way an event is. Philosophers would have a field day with you. To familiarize yourself with the philosophical use of the terms 'state' and 'event', peruse the following reputable site which discusses temporal logic. Temporal Logic Keep in mind that these guys are just dying to talk with physicists. 


#79
Apr604, 12:08 PM

P: 286




#80
Apr604, 12:09 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396

And linguists would have a field day with you. Not to mention psychologists, given your egoism.



#81
Apr604, 12:12 PM

P: 220

Absolutely no point in arguing semantics. I can switch back and forth between your terminology and mine, I am intelligent enough for that. I presume you have the same capability? Kind regards, The Star 


#82
Apr604, 12:13 PM

P: 220

Kind regards, The Universe 


#83
Apr604, 12:15 PM

P: 286

To suppliment my post about your incorrect use of Special Relativity, peruse this answer to the twin paradox. The paradox is not a paradox at all. The individual cites his source and mentions that General Relativity is needed to correctly answer the paradox because Special Relativity does not supply a means to deal with acceleration and/or a preferred frame.
I admire your apparent understanding of physics (both classical and electromagnetic), and your mathematical ability. I'm just a beginning student to the topic(s) yet I spot your error so easily. Why do you persist in thinking you can prove an error in SR where SR does not apply? 


#84
Apr604, 12:39 PM

P: 220

I understand which quantity of time is being measured by which clock. That wasn't/isn't the contradiction I am reaching for. As for your new question about the twin paradox, let me read the article at the site first, and then I will come back and give you my comments. As for my persistence in thinking I have spotted an error in SR... the reason for that is because I have. I don't really believe I am the first to ponder it either. Nonetheless, the error to me seems obvious, yet it hasn't caught on to mainstream physics yet. And that is what I really cannot understand. If the relative speed in this problem is given by v=c, then we have two photons moving at right angles to each other. The clocks B,C are thus in a photonic frame (see other threads on this). The conclusion I reach, is that if the fundamental postulate of the theory of special relativity is true, then photons cannot move relative to each other. That cannot possibly be true, based upon simple facts that come from sensory perception. Now let me give this site a look, and I will come back and tell you what I think. Kind regards, StarThrower EDIT: Correction, the clocks B,C are in a photonic reference frame (reference frame in which photons are at rest) 


#85
Apr604, 12:55 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 9,396

So, you're an expert, a genius able to see to the very inherent contradictory nature of relativity, and you've not come across the twin paradox?



#86
Apr604, 12:55 PM

P: 286




#87
Apr604, 01:00 PM

P: 286




#88
Apr604, 01:01 PM

P: 220

[tex] P(t) = P_0 e^r^t [/tex] Give me a moment here, I'm reading. Regards, Star 


#89
Apr604, 01:03 PM

P: 286




#90
Apr604, 01:07 PM

P: 220

Consider the following experiment performed by an ancient caveman: He started a fire for the women to sit, directly on his left, so he didnt have to listen to them squalk, and then started a fire directly in front of him, for the men to sit around. He noticed that not only was the front of his body warm, but so was the left side of his body too. He concluded that photons can move relative to each other. P.S. Or was this a thought experiment? Geeze, I forget. Maybe he just thought he was warm??? Regards, Star 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Special Relativity, accelerating frames, proper time  Introductory Physics Homework  3  
Photons for accelerating charges and frames  General Physics  10  
Frames of reference & Inertial frames  Classical Physics  2  
Accelerating frames  Classical Physics  9 