On The Non Relativity Of Simultaneity

TheAtheistKing

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum.

In oct 2000 I submitted a paper to the European journal of physics on the non relativity of simultaneity. Essentially, the paper didn't deal with the theory of relativity, so much as it did with the issue of simultaneity.
The paper was not published, however since that time I have expanded on my original paper, and focused more on the incorrectness of the relativity of simultaneity. I would like to discuss my work here, as I am preparing to resubmit the paper to the Journal. I would like to have some general reaction to the material that is going to be submitted to them.

The original paper didn't focus on time dilation, but rather it focused upon length contraction. There is a simple way to understand why length isn't relative, and the answer has to do with simultaneity.
The definition of an inertial reference frame is a frame in which Newton's laws are valid. Now, suppose that F1 is an inertial refefence frame, and F2 is moving at a constant speed relative to F1. It will follow that F2 is also an inertial reference frame.
Now consider a ruler R1 at rest in some inertial reference frame F1. There are no forces acting upon this ruler, because we have stipulated that it is at rest in this frame i.e. v=0. Now, suppose that another ruler R2 has an identical length to R1, if the rulers are at rest with each other. Thus, the ends of the rulers can be made to 'coincide' as illustrated below:

R1: A....................B
R2: A...................B

Now, suppose that the same two rulers are now in uniform relative motion to each other, so that each is still in an inertial reference frame. They are now in relative motion, and the relative speed is v.

Assumption 1: The Lorentz Fitzgerald length contraction formula is true.

Consider things now from the point of view of ruler 1 at rest and ruler two moving from right to left as illustrated below. Ruler 2 is length contracted as shown below:

Initial state
R1: A....................B
R2:______________A.....B

Inermediate state
R1: A....................B
R2: _________A.....B

Final state
R1: A....................B
R2: A.....B
As you can see, the order of states is very clear. B coincides with B BEFORE A coincides with A.

Now consider things from the point of view of ruler 2 at rest and ruler 1 moving from left to right as illustrated below. In this frame ruler one is length contracted, and the order of states is shown below:

Initial state

R1:A.....B
R2:______A....................B

Intermediate state
R1:______A.....B
R2:______A....................B

Final state
R1:_________________A.....B
R2:______A....................B

As you can see, A coincides with A before B coincides with B.

Thus, if assumption 1 is true, then there are different states of the universe X,Y, such that X before Y AND Y before X. This should be regarded as impossible, and thus SR can be overthrown without having to think about the time dilation formula at all. This then is the basis of my approach to toppling the theory of special relativity.
The proper conclusion is that the ends of the rulers coincide simultaneously in all reference frames, not just inertial reference frames. In other words simultaneity is absolute, not relative.
I think this is enough to start off the discussion. At the very least, this should help you understand how come the conclusions of SR are so weird. My current paper goes into clock rates, inertial reference frames, synchronicity, location of measurements in a frame, derivation of the length contraction formula and time dilation formula using the basic postulate of SR which is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and a few other things which could be regarded as new. I refer to the new theory as state theory, and regard it as the only alternative to relativity theory.
I will start the thread by asking a question. Who here understands the logic of my argument, which is that we needn't worry about the time dilation formula in our approach to overthrowing SR?

Thanks

Last edited by a moderator:
Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
This should be regarded as impossible, and thus...
Unfortunatly, we cannot just say "this should be impossible".

The problem you described is only a problem if we assume there exists some universal "correct" order that events happen. But this is not an assumption we make in relativity.

TheAtheistKing

Unfortunatly, we cannot just say "this should be impossible".

Fortunately an algebraic proof can be constructed.

The problem you described is only a problem if we assume there exists some universal "correct" order that events happen. But this is not an assumption we make in relativity.

We don't need to assume anything other than lorentz contraction, in order to arrive at an algebraic contradiction.

Last edited by a moderator:

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
You are wrong again, since you don't need to assume anything other than lorentz contraction, in order to arrive at an algebraic contradiction.
This isn't an algebraic contradiction. Algebra doesn't say anything about "simultaneity should work this way". In fact, algebra doesn't say anything about time at all.

TheAtheistKing

What I've shown you here can be converted into an algebraic argument, and there will be a clear contradiction. I didn't say this was the algebraic argument, only that there is one.

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
What I've shown you here can be converted into an algebraic argument, and there will be a clear contradiction. I didn't say this was the algebraic argument, only that there is one.
But all that will show is that one of your assumtions is false. In order to overthrow SR that way, you need to assume only special relativity. But that wasn't the only assumption you made.

TheAtheistKing

What I've shown you here can be converted into an algebraic argument, and there will be a clear contradiction. I didn't say this was the algebraic argument, only that there is one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But all that will show is that one of your assumtions is false. In order to overthrow SR that way, you need to assume only special relativity. But that wasn't the only assumption you made.

You aren't following the logic of my argument correctly. Here is the argument form I use:

If X then (Y and not Y); therefore not X

where X is the length contraction formula. I only use SR, binary logic, and algebra in the proof. You have not seen the algebraic proof yet. You are making false statements about my assumptions.

Look at the issue the following way.
Let A denote the length contraction formula, and let B denote the time dilation formula, now consider the following fact taken from binary logic:

If A and B then A

So if we can show that "if A then (X and not X)" SR is overthrown.

Hence the time dilation formula need never be assumed, in order to overthrow SR, and certainly SR uses binary logic and algebra, so they can be considered assumptions of SR as well.

You really should just say you want to see this supposed algebraic proof that simultaneity is absolute and not relative, rather than simply cling to a very misguided theory. Additionally, I am glad you are interested in the topic.

Last edited by a moderator:

master_coda

I understand the logic you're using. But you're making two assumptions, not one. You're assuming:

1. That SR is true.

2. That if A and A' coincide before B and B' in one inertial reference frame, it cannot happen the other way around in another inertial frame.

The contradiction you've shown is only a contradiction is you assume both 1 and 2. But that only proves that either 1 or 2 is false.

TheAtheistKing

I understand the logic you're proving. But you're making two assumptions, not one. You're assuming:

1. That SR is true.
2. That if A and A' coincide before B and B' in one inertial reference frame, it cannot happen the other way around in another inertial frame.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The state diagrams which you looked at aren't an argument, they are state diagrams. However, what I am saying is that we can quickly see what it is about common sense that the theory of relativity contradicts. In other words, the state diagrams lead to a clear algebraic argument, the diagrams themselves aren't the argument. Succincly put, the algebraic argument doesn't make assumption two above. Here, I will give you a clue. In the algebraic argument, only one state diagram is used and it is this:

Initial state
R1: A.....B
R2:_____A.....C..............B

Intermediate state
R1:_______A.....B
R2:_______A....C...............B

Final state
R1:__________________A.....B
R2:_______A....C...............B

Last edited by a moderator:

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The state diagrams which you looked at aren't an argument, they are state diagrams. However, what I am saying is that we can quickly see what it is about common sense that the theory of relativity contradicts. In other words, the state diagrams lead to a clear algebraic argument, the diagrams themselves aren't the argument. Succincly put, the algebraic argument doesn't make assumption two above.
In that case, I would certainly like to see that algebraic argument.

However I should mention that just about everyone who understands relativity knows that it contradicts most common sense. But common sense is a guide, not the absolute truth. And since relativity works better than any other theory we currently have, we use it.

TheAtheistKing

In that case, I would certainly like to see that algebraic argument.

However I should mention that just about everyone who understands relativity knows that it contradicts most common sense. But common sense is a guide, not the absolute truth. And since relativity works better than any other theory we currently have, we use it.

If SR ends in contradiction then no one undestands SR.

It will take me a lot of time to post the algebraic proof here, because I don't know how to place mathematical symbols here.

P.S.: Really, we have a decision that doesn't seem to be able to be made by the physics community, and that decision is on whether or not simultaneity is absolute or relative. The issue has remained unsettled for years, and without rigid adherence to binary logic, the issue can never be resolved.

Last edited by a moderator:

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
[BIf SR ends in contradiction then no one undestands SR.[/B]
But it only contradicts common sense, not itself.

Common sense is just a heuristic that evolved to help humans make quick decisions that are accurate most of the time. It may not be possible to replace relativity with a theory that doesn't contradict common sense. Unless you're willing to sacrifice accuracy.

TheAtheistKing

But it only contradicts common sense, not itself.

Common sense is just a heuristic that evolved to help humans make quick decisions that are accurate most of the time. It may not be possible to replace relativity with a theory that doesn't contradict common sense. Unless you're willing to sacrifice accuracy.

Forget about common sense, I am telling you if the lorentz contraction formula is true, then you can derive a contradiction algebraically. This has nothing to do with common sense whatsoever, the contradiction can be made explicit, or as you would say "SR can be shown to self contradict".

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
P.S.: Really, we have a decision that doesn't seem to be able to be made by the physics community, and that decision is on whether or not simultaneity is absolute or relative. The issue has remained unsettled for years, and without rigid adherence to binary logic, the issue can never be resolved.
Most physicists agree that simultaneity is relative. Particularly since this is a requirement of SR. If SR didn't agree with the evidence the way it does, people would probably prefer to throw it away and assume simultaneity is aboslute.

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
Forget about common sense, I am telling you if the lorentz contraction formula is true, then you can derive a contradiction algebraically. This has nothing to do with common sense whatsoever, the contradiction can be made explicit, or as you would say "SR can be shown to self contradict".
As I said, I would have to see that. It might be easier for you to post it if you use LaTeX.

TheAtheistKing

Most physicists agree that simultaneity is relative. Particularly since this is a requirement of SR. If SR didn't agree with the evidence the way it does, people would probably prefer to throw it away and assume simultaneity is aboslute.

What does it matter if they all agree, if SR ends in contradiction?
What conclusive evidence is there that SR is correct? The experiment which must be done to determine whether or not simultaneity is absolute is well known to be beyond our current ability to experimentally determine. No physicist wants to assume simultaneity is absolute, and no physicist wants to assume simultaneity is relative, they want to know which it is.

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing

What does it matter if they all agree, if SR ends in contradiction?
What conclusive evidence is there that SR is correct? The experiment which must be done to determine whether or not simultaneity is absolute is well known to be beyond our current ability to experimentally determine. No physicists wants to assume simultaneity is absolute, and no physicists wants to assume simultaneity is relative, they want to know which it is.
Of course, we don't know SR is correct, in any absolute sense. But we do have evidence, like the fact that the GPS works, to indicate that it is, as far as we know, accurate.

Since we need simultaneity to be relative for SR to work, we accept that it is. If someone comes up with a better theory than SR that requires absolute simultaneity, well use that. But currently, the theory that requires relative simultaneity gives the best results.

As for SR having a contradiction, I'll believe that when I see it.

TheAtheistKing

Since we need simultaneity to be relative for SR to work, we accept that it is...

As for SR having a contradiction, I'll believe that when I see it.

Ok, it is time for the proof, but It's going to be hard to get it all out on this thing. How about if you and I slowly go through the argument one piece at a time. I will post a little, and then you comment on whether you are following the argument so far. Let me start off the algebraic argument.

Consider two rulers which have identical lengths when at rest, which are now in uniform relative motion with speed v. Let the length of either ruler at rest be denoted by L0, and let the length of either ruler in relative motion be denoted by L. Let c denote the speed 299792458 meters per second.

Assumption 1: L=L0(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Consider an event where the rulers move by each other. The event is to begin with the universe in the following state:

R1:A.....B
R2:____A....................B

This state is characterized by the end B of ruler one coinciding with the end A of ruler two.

Now, suppose there is a clock stationed at A. An observer there can clearly note his clock reading when B passes by. Later on, the point A will pass by him, and he can again note what his clock reads. He will thus have made two readings, one reading made before the other. Suppose his first reading is x, and that his second reading is y, on a digital clock. Since the clock isn't being subjected to any forces, let us say that this single clock can make an inertial time measurement Delta t of the event which begins when B coincides with A and ends when A coincides with A. The time of the event as 'inertially' measured is:

Delta t = y-x

Do you follow the argument so far?

Last edited by a moderator:

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
Do you follow the argument so far?
Yes.

TheAtheistKing

Assumption 1: L=L0(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Consider an event where the rulers move by each other. The event is to begin with the universe in the following state:

R1:A.....B
R2:____A....................B

(the rest of the argument insert here)

The time of the event as 'inertially' measured is:

Delta t = y-x

Ok so, in time Delta t, the point A has moved some distance in this frame. The question now, is what is this distance? Well, in time delta t, the entire ruler 1 has moved by A, so that the distance traveled MUST be L (by assumption that lorentz formula is true). Hence the speed of A relative to A is:

Vaa = L/delta t

Any questions so far?

master_coda

Originally posted by TheAtheistKing
Any questions so far?
No. It's still good.

TheAtheistKing

Assumption 1: L=L0(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Consider an event where the rulers move by each other. The event is to begin with the universe in the following state:

R1:A.....B
R2:____A....................B

(the rest of the argument insert here)

The time of the event as 'inertially' measured is:

Delta t = y-x

Ok so, in time Delta t, the point A has moved some distance in this frame. The question now, is what is this distance? Well, in time delta t, the entire ruler 1 has moved by A, so that the distance traveled MUST be L (by assumption that lorentz formula is true). Hence the speed of A relative to A is:

Vaa = L/delta t

If ruler one has length contracted, then in this frame the point B on ruler one coincides with some point C on ruler two as follows:

R1:____A.....B
R2:____A....C..............B

Now, the location of the point C relative to A must be as follows:

The distance between A and c is equal to L. This is so because we have assumed that the Lorentz Fitzgerald length contraction formula is true. And by simple algebra, the distance from C to B is none other than L0-L.

Still following?

TheAtheistKing

Assumption 1: L=L0(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2

Consider an event where the rulers move by each other. The event is to begin with the universe in the following state:

R1:A.....B
R2:____A....................B

(the rest of the argument insert here)

The time of the event as 'inertially' measured is:

Delta t = y-x

Ok so, in time Delta t, the point A has moved some distance in this frame. The question now, is what is this distance? Well, in time delta t, the entire ruler 1 has moved by A, so that the distance traveled MUST be L (by assumption that lorentz formula is true). Hence the speed of A relative to A is:

Vaa = L/delta t

If ruler one has length contracted, then in this frame the point B on ruler one coincides with some point C on ruler two as follows:

R1:____A.....B
R2:____A....C..............B

Now, the location of the point C relative to A must be as follows:

The distance between A and c is equal to L. This is so because we have assumed that the Lorentz Fitzgerald length contraction formula is true. And by simple algebra, the distance from C to B is none other than L0-L.

Let me change notation here and instead of writing delta t for the time let me write delta t1. So, in this frame thus far, the point B is located in the middle of ruler two, it coincides with the point C, and the time this has taken as measured by a stationary clock located at A is delta t1.
Ok now here is what to do next. Consider things onward from C. So we have a state in which B coincides with C. We are now interested in the time it will take the point B to reach the point B. Let us denote that time by delta t2, therefore in time delta t2, the point B will have traveled a distance L0-L so that it now coincides with B. The speed of B relative to B is

Vbb = (L0-L)/delta t2

Ok so far?

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving