Is Relativity Incorrect? Examining Motion and Perception Evidence

[wespe]

Please see:

http://wespe4.tripod.com/

(15K - requires flash)


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
EDIT AFTER 115 REPLIES:

OK I WAS WRONG. THIS DOES NOT REFUTE RELATIVITY.
DO NOT READ THE REST OF THE THREAD IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

[lvlastermind]

*cough* BOGUS *cough*

 

[franznietzsche]

Dear god, the same average! That addresses neither the principle of relativity nor the constancy of the speed of light for all observers! It must disprove relativity!

To your credit, it seems like you managed to disprove relativity ithout demonstrating any knowledge of what it is!

*ahem*

You've got way too much free time that's not spent on actually knowing what you're contesting...like physics...

 

[Hurkyl]

The author of the animation seems not to have tried very hard.

Did he consider an astronaut that wasn't between his two clocks? Did he consider the addition of a third clock? What about moving clocks?

(And I'll ignore the author's observation that the astronauts have the same value simultaneously is wrong, because that can be patched up by using continuous signals instead of discrete ones)

 

[russ_watters]

What about moving clocks?

Without any moving clocks, it doesn't even have anything to do with Relativity, does it?

 

[kuengb]

wespe, I guess you simply posted this in the wrong section. Go to "General Discussion" --> "Science Jokes"

 

[wespe]

Ok, here's an extra explanation for you:

All the astronauts - on the line between the stationary clocks - will calculate the same average value, simultaneously, whether they are stationary, moving with a constant speed, or even accelerating. Therefore, there can be no mutual time dilation. (Just imagine two rows of synchronized clocks passing by). And the relativity of simultaneity is likewise a paradox. With this setup I have shown that it is possible to define absolute time and simultaneity, and with a little thinking you can figure out absolute space too.

Thank you for your time,
wespe - anonymous

 

[jcsd]

wespe answer me this one question:

How does your model demonstrate absolute simultaneity in Einsteinian relativity as opposed to just demonstarting absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity?

 

[wespe]

By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.

 

[quantumdude]

By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.

No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!

You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.

 

[wespe]

No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!

You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.

I can't refute a theory by demonstrating a contradictory theory? I'm proposing an experiment like in the demonstration. Do you disagree with galilean prediction of this experiment? That is, the calculated average values, will act like absolute clocks, for all astronauts no matter what their speed is.

 

[quantumdude]

I can't refute a theory by demonstrating a contradictory theory?

What do you mean by "demonstrate"?

If you mean "demonstrate mathematically" or "demonstrate with an animated graphic" or "demonstrate in a thought experiment", then no, you can't refute a theory that way. The only way to refute a theory is with a real experiment.

Now where has the real experiment been done which refutes special relativity?

 

[jcsd]

By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.

Yes they're mutually exclusive, but if you formulate an experiment which is solely based on the assumptions of one theory, your thought experiment can never hope to refute a theory which is mutually exclusive.

Now if you designed the same though experiment based on the assumtpions of general relativty, guess what happens? You find that simulatenity fails at distance!

 

[wespe]

What do you mean by "demonstrate"?

If you mean "demonstrate mathematically" or "demonstrate with an animated graphic" or "demonstrate in a thought experiment", then no, you can't refute a theory that way. The only way to refute a theory is with a real experiment.

Now where has the real experiment been done which refutes special relativity?

This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this? Ok then, let's do the experiment, but wait I can't go to space. But I am able to predict the result, by logic. We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right? Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right? So we're done. I see no logical way for any other result, unless you claim they see different images.

 

[quantumdude]

This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this? Ok then, let's do the experiment, but wait I can't go to space.

OK, fine. But there are plenty of real experiments that can be done (in particle accelerators, for instance) to test relativity, and so far it has passed every one.

But I am able to predict the result, by logic.

That means nothing. We can predict the results of relativity "by logic", too. This just gets back to what I was saying before: You can't refute a theory with anything other than real data from a real experiment.

We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?

What is an "absolute clock"?

Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right? So we're done.

No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.

 

[Doc Al]

We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?

Not "absolute" clocks, by which I assume you mean clocks that any observer will agree are always in synch. What we can agree upon is that the stationary astronauts will all agree that the average values will relate to the clock times by (T1 + T2 - L/c)/2, where L is the distance between the clocks (measured in the stationary frame) and T1 and T2 are the clock times at the same instant as measured in the stationary frame. So what?

Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right?

If a moving astronaut passes by a stationary astronaut at just the time that certain images arrive from the two clocks, then of course both astronauts will agree on what the average value of those images is. But so what? The moving astronaut will certainly not agree that this "average" represents time as measured by his moving clocks! The moving astronaut will also not agree that the stationary astronauts get the same average value at the same time.

So we're done. I see no logical way for any other result, unless you claim they see different images.

Not quite. The issue is when each observer sees those images and how does the calculated average relate to the real time. Stationary observers think that they all see the same average at the same time; the moving astronaut disagrees.

You animation just assumes the viewpoint of the stationary astronauts--even for the moving one.

 

[kurious]

There is no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong.Many people think that this is being said because of the problem with the universe starting out as a single point -
a problem that Hawking and Penrose pointed out.But factors other than relativistic considerations may stop a singularity from forming- for example if there are lots of charges of the same sign floating around in the universe without charges of the opposite sign to cancel them, then the mutual repulsion of the charges could stop a singularity from forming.I'm not saying this is the right explanation, just using it as an example.

 

[wespe]

No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.

I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory. Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames. But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..

 

[quantumdude]

I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory.

Yes, the reasoning by transitivity you presented is valid.

No, it does not imply that two events that are simultaneous in one frame are necessarily simultaneous in another.

Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames.

It still isn't possible to refute SR with this, because you aren't taking any real data!

But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..

What is the paradox?

 

[kuengb]

This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this?

I've found another thought experiment that gives us absolute time: The astronauts are meeting at a point, they adjust their wristwatches and they start their space journeys. And here's the key move: when the astronauts look at their watches (Swiss watches) at a given time t_o, they will all read the same time t_p (p stands for personal). This is an absolute time frame!

Physics is so easy, one must just think clearly, and now give me that damn Nobel.

 

[russ_watters]

Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames.

It has been possible, through Relativity, to synchronize distant clocks in different frames for quite some time. The GPS system depends on this very phenomenon.

wespe, the point here is that your thought experiment doesn't say anything relevant to Relativity. Passing a signal back and forth between two clocks separated by distance but stationary relative to each other doesn't deal with any relativistic effects.

To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving and the observers must be carrying clocks with them. Then, only by using Relativty would you be able to synchronize the clocks and reconcile the observations.

 

[wespe]

What is the paradox?

I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.

 

[quantumdude]

I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.

Take the weekend off, it's not worth your sanity!

 

[geistkiesel]

We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?

Not "absolute" clocks, by which I assume you mean clocks that any observer will agree are always in synch. What we can agree upon is that the stationary astronauts will all agree that the average values will relate to the clock times by (T1 + T2 - L/c)/2, where L is the distance between the clocks (measured in the stationary frame) and T1 and T2 are the clock times at the same instant as measured in the stationary frame. So what?

If a moving astronaut passes by a stationary astronaut at just the time that certain images arrive from the two clocks, then of course both astronauts will agree on what the average value of those images is. But so what? The moving astronaut will certainly not agree that this "average" represents time as measured by his moving clocks! The moving astronaut will also not agree that the stationary astronauts get the same average value at the same time.

Not quite. The issue is when each observer sees those images and how does the calculated average relate to the real time. Stationary observers think that they all see the same average at the same time; the moving astronaut disagrees.

You animation just assumes the viewpoint of the stationary astronauts--even for the moving one.

It appears there is some confusion. Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?

If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?

Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree?

 

[geistkiesel]

Lost 'simultaneity' found after exclusion by flawed relativity theory

There is no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong.Many people think that this is being said because of the problem with the universe starting out as a single point -
a problem that Hawking and Penrose pointed out.But factors other than relativistic considerations may stop a singularity from forming- for example if there are lots of charges of the same sign floating around in the universe without charges of the opposite sign to cancel them, then the mutual repulsion of the charges could stop a singularity from forming.I'm not saying this is the right explanation, just using it as an example.

The words "no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong" is an inclusive statement defining the limitations of your deliefs. If reason to believe otherwise exists what are the consequences to contradicted belief systems?

For instance if the 'loss of simultaneity' construct, derived from fundamental postulates of relativity theory is proved fatally flawed would this be a "reason" to believe relativity theory is wrong?

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel

 

[geistkiesel]

Quote:

No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.

Tom Mattson what does the link below prove to you?

I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory. Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames. But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..

Okay, if the loss of simultaneity of events construct, derived from fundamenal postulates of relativity theory is fatally flawed, what consequences does this have on proponents of relativity theory?

Caveat emptor -
http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/

 

[Doc Al]

It appears there is some confusion.

Of course there is, that's the whole point.

Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?

Both, actually. They are related.

If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?

It's not clear what you are describing. I assume you mean that a light at the midpoint between the two reflectors is flicked on? I would assume that all observers would see two "pulses" of light: one going towards each reflector. Or do you mean something else?

Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree?

You'll need to describe your thought experiment more carefully.

 

[wespe]

ok guys, I promised I'd clear this up (like anyone cares).

First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse.

Although I can't work out the exact math, I still think relativity effects are indeed nullified. If we analyze from the moving astronaut's frame: 1-Length contraction: this scales the distances equally in both directions, average would be same. 2-Time dilation: this causes both clocks to run slower equally, same here. 3-Relativity of Simultaneity:This causes a shift in both clock values, same (remember my setup already had an offset). So I don't think any of these will change the average for the moving astronaut.

Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument.

Thank you.

 

[russ_watters]

First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse.

If you place your clock in a moving spacecraft , synchronized by your method next to a standard atomic clock, the times shown by the two clocks would diverge: they would not keep time at the same rate. The effects of relativity still show up.

Adjusting a clock to tick at a different rate, however you do it, does not affect the rate of the passage of time.

 

[energia]

Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument.

Thank you.

huh?


this is a classic strawman argument - and in the end he withdraws his argument

how does this prove why relativity is wrong?

am i missing something?