# Question about Einsteins theory of relativity

• emcc22
The time for radio transmission will vary depending on the distance between the observers and the speed of light.

#### emcc22

I have a question about einsteins theory of relativity.

he stated, that speed described by *constant* c (0.3Gm/h) is equal, no matter what observer you choose.

imagine this scenario:
observer A - a guy on earth, sitting in the lab chatting with B
observer B - a guy on sace ship that that orbit our star system with v = 0.999c.
person C - a guy which assist a pilot or a scientist in lab.

you are in room with A, watching B preparing to takeoff. They both synchronize clocks, its 15:00.
B is leaving, let's forget abbout innertia that should kill him instantly. After 3 hours he's in designated speed, 0.999c.
they start conversation:
(lets forget about time required for radio transmission to reach partner and its doppler effect, B is traveling in circles just to make it easier, relativistics events are same for cicrle movement.)

- A: Hey B, 'whats the time on your clock?'.
- B: Its '17:11'
- A: Oh realy, its 18:02!
- B: wtf, i they told me in school time slow down when you travel at high speed.
- A: so it did! its 17:11 for you, while its 18:02 for us!
- B: wtf you cheat :( impossible.
- A: hey, do you really think that c is constant?
- B: sure, why?
- A: well, fire that laser into our mirror, and tell us how fast it return to you, don't forget to adjust angle to your speed!
- B: its 18:10, firing laser, I am 1 light hour from it, so i shoud recive reply in 2 hours.
2 hours later...
- A: B, you should get this signal right about now!
- B: wtf, only 19 minutes had passed!
- A: nop, its 20:10!
- B: ... your tellin me that this signal made to Earth and back in 19 minutes?
- B: ok

now let's reverse roles.
you are in a ship with B, while chatting with A, whos on earth.

its 23:00, you both synchronise clocks.

- A: do you have a passenger
- B: right, I am ready to go.
- A: good luck this time, i will ask you same questions, physics doesn't change in few hours, so you shoud report back simmilar results.
- B: I am in my trajectory, speed 0.999c, exactly as last time. time is 02:02. WTF I've made it faster last time!
- A: yeah something is wrong, ifs 01:49!
- B: ok i will make this laser test now, you ready!
- A: sure!
- B: 01:50, firing laser
2 hours later...
- B: I've got this signal, exactly 2 hours passed this time!
- A: hey only 19 minutes here! and we recived your beam after 8.5 minutes from your report! it traveled 1 light hour in 8.5 minutes! How it happend?
- B: there is nothing wrong, you are traveling with v = 0.999c in relation to me.
- A: yeah, but results were opposite when your passenger was on earth! Why physics treat him as the observer of the universe?!
- B: i don't know, returning to base.

now here is the question, accorgind to einsteins relativity, everything is relative, for example - c = constant.

But where is this observer, to which its relative? You can't 'its relative to all'.
Because you and your friend might take a place of A and B and get exactly same results!
Will physics will be relative to you, or your friend? They can't be to both!
if they were, B would report exactly what A. And then time dilatation wouldbt be possible!
Length contraction doesn't apply also, because speed is kind of displacement, and all according to guy C is shifted in a fabric of space. So it act as it were contracted, but this is another topic.

My question is, is there a fundamental flaw in Einstains theory, or there is a single observer (perhaps part of a single human brain), that is responsible for mine and your own very existence, a GOD?

And if it exist, do you realize the implications? It can manipulate all the universe at once! Just changing its form! Of course its to weak to blow a star just thinking so, but it can affect sub atomic vibrations by changing himself (change perception = change what exist. If your ultimate perception = change will be also ultimate). Universe according to relativity will 'adapt' in some ways. Time dilatation, mass change are ways it do so.
If its the center of all, what you see, what i see, is just an interaction to presence of this being! If universe is expanding, its in a center of it (propably, here i only guess, I am not sure). And if it is, this 'observer' can be detected by any inteligent being, just by examining space expansion in 2 points!

You can't assume that radio transmission is instantaneous. No information can travel faster than the speed of light.

The physical laws will hold for both observers from their own observations however if they communicate their results they will realize that the observations will be different. This doesn't mean that special relativity fails. It just means that the all laws are the same as viewed by an observer from his/her reference frame.

Special relativity doesn't really say anything about laws being the same in any reference frame as viewed from any other reference frame.

Do you understand the difference?

You can't assume that radio transmission is instantaneous.

ok then change scenario to more 'common' way.

player B is flying for XX hours and returns. Then he compare clocks.
if C was with him - B's clock will be ahead of A.
if C was with A - B's clock will be behind A.

get it now?

they will realize that the observations will be different
and whos to say, which one will be slowed down?

It just means that the all laws are the same as viewed by an observer from his/her reference frame.
You think ur an observer? Me also. i take ship 1, you stay on earth. Winner is the one with more time on his clock than oponent. Will you win this, or will i? Whos to decide?

emcc22 said:
ok then change scenario to more 'common' way.

player B is flying for XX hours and returns. Then he compare clocks.
if C was with him - B's clock will be ahead of A.
if C was with A - B's clock will be behind A.

get it now?

I don't get what you're saying.

and whos to say, which one will be slowed down?

Exactly! You're trying to compare people in two different reference frames you can't do this. The special relativity doesn't say anything about people in two different reference frames.

If I do an experiment in my reference frame and you do the same experiment in a spaceship and we both measure our own results we will get the same results.

If you do an experiment in your reference frame and we both measure your experiment we will get different results but this is not what S.R. is saying.

You think ur an observer? Me also. i take ship 1, you stay on earth. Winner is the one with more time on his clock than oponent. Will you win this, or will i? Whos to decide?

If you're talking about leaving Earth then returning then you will win. But if this is the case we're not talking about special relativity anymore because you had to accelerate to do this action which is not supported by special relativity. If you want more information look at the twin paradox.

emcc22 said:
ok then change scenario to more 'common' way.

player B is flying for XX hours and returns. Then he compare clocks.
if C was with him - B's clock will be ahead of A.
if C was with A - B's clock will be behind A.

get it now?

and whos to say, which one will be slowed down?

You think ur an observer? Me also. i take ship 1, you stay on earth. Winner is the one with more time on his clock than oponent. Will you win this, or will i? Whos to decide?
The observer who turns around--and thus accelerates--can be distinguished from the one who stays in the same inertial frame the whole time. This is the notorious 'twin paradox'. But everyone agrees that it is the traveling twin who experiences less proper time during the round trip flight.

You're trying to compare people in two different reference frames you can't do this.
I can't only if i want to measure universe from arbitrary point of view.
But i can if i want to explain how does it work, and why.
I think Einstein found the design of universe, at least basics of it. But did he asked himself a simple question:
Am i real? Am i here? Do i exist?
I guess if he did answer is YES!

If you ask yourself those questions, you will most likely say 'yes'.
No matter which human you ask, all of them will say yes,im real!

And now second issue, if you are real, then everything else is in your reference frame! You own the universe, because it is your frame, all is relative to you! you never move, all move relativly to you! c is always constant to you!
They all agree. But it can't be right, there are no parallel reference frames!
Divide all people into 2 groups, load 2 space ships and send them for a trip, then return.
Team with slowed down clock loses.
Do it until untill 1 person remain. He will be real. If you take his frame of reference, you will always have c = const, and will always have fastest clock (gravity and special effects not counting).

Are you real? Are you even CAPABLE of experiencing slowed frame of reference, and variable C? 'Real being' is not. If you go to ship A, and i go to ship B, 1 of us will experience slower frame. Of course all local experiments will be same, but its about comparing your reality, to mine. Wich is real, and which is only a imitation.

You're not making much sense. All observers are 'real'.

oh really?
then you agree, you will never lose this competition? You go to ship A, and start moving relativly to B, and your clock will be ALWAYS further in future than B's.
B loses? Someone MUST as stated in relativity. You are either on B, or A. You can't stay on Earth and watch them. If you do, you are out of equation, and they will have their clocks equal.

Now I am B, and i say '********, all frames are real, this topic suck'. And what, that assumption makes me win?
You think you have your own reference point, i think the same, but we both can't win, you, or me is not real, and this experiment is just very simple explanation of reason of existence! There are more more complicated ways to prove some things, but i lack technology to check them.

You're moving into the realm of philosophy Einsteins laws won't tell you anything pertaining to existence, etc...

In fact some no science will really give you answers in that respect. Personally I'm of the belief that science only serves practical purposes as good approximations that can be utilized.

From what I am reading, you are simply having a hard time with the Twin paradox. Twin A, on Earth, says that Twin B's clock is moving slower, while Twin B, on the rocket, says that Twin A's clock is moving slower. Yet, you believe this can't be possible, correct? Both twins can't be right, one must be wrong.

The idea behind this paradox is indeed very conceptually confusing. What you must realize, though, is that the twins can't really compare their clocks until they return to the same place (i.e. Twin B returns to Earth).

While Twin B is on his journey, he thinks he is right (A's clock is moving slower) and A is wrong, and A thinks A is right (B's clock is moving slower) and B is wrong. Special relativity says that you can't say who's right or wrong if the two frames are inertial, and no frame jumping occurs.

However, when B returns to Earth, they can compare clocks. In that case, B's clock will have ticked less. Thus we have a paradox.

The resolution of the paradox is two-fold. First, twin B must have accelerated during his journey (after-all, he came back!), and as such, during his time of acceleration, special relativity doesn't apply. The second (related to the first point) is that twin B must have changed reference frames on his journey. One reference frame in which he is moving away from twin A and one reference frame in which he is moving towards twin A. Therefore, Twin A is the reliable source (since he neither accelerated nor changed reference frames) and it is, in the end, Twin A who is correct.

emcc22 said:
oh really?
then you agree, you will never lose this competition? You go to ship A, and start moving relativly to B, and your clock will be ALWAYS further in future than B's.
I don't know what you mean by "always" or "further in the future". Once the round trip is made and the two compare clocks (or ages), the one who stayed home in the inertial frame will be older. So?

You think you have your own reference point, i think the same, but we both can't win, you, or me is not real, and this experiment is just very simple explanation of reason of existence!
Both observers are quite real, but analyzing things from the accelerating frame is a bit more complicated. Realize that it's not a simple matter of comparing two inertial frames, where you can say that each sees the other's clock go slow. Nonetheless, both observers agree that relativity predicts the observed behavior of the clocks, regardless of whose frame you choose to analyze things from.

Do a search on "twin paradox" and you'll find many threads explaining these things in excruciating detail.

Matterwave said:
The resolution of the paradox is two-fold. First, twin B must have accelerated during his journey (after-all, he came back!), and as such, during his time of acceleration, special relativity doesn't apply. The second (related to the first point) is that twin B must have changed reference frames on his journey. One reference frame in which he is moving away from twin A and one reference frame in which he is moving towards twin A. Therefore, Twin A is the reliable source (since he neither accelerated nor changed reference frames) and it is, in the end, Twin A who is correct.
I'm sorry to nit-pick your explanation because you've made an effort to explain the 'paradox'. You've chosen a scenario where one twin remains inertial, and designated that twin as the 'correct' or 'reliable' one.

But what happens if both twins go on journeys and return to Earth ? Who is 'correct' or 'reliable' then ?

The elapsed time on their clocks depends on the details of their journeys - on the proper interval of their world lines and nothing else.

So there is a simple formula for calculating what their clocks will read. This has been stated many times now in threads about the 'twins'.

 posted simultaneously with the post above.

emcc22 said:
ok then change scenario to more 'common' way.

player B is flying for XX hours and returns. Then he compare clocks.
if C was with him - B's clock will be ahead of A.
if C was with A - B's clock will be behind A.
emc22, do you understand that the time dilation law only applies in inertial frames? An inertial frame is one which moves at constant velocity (constant speed and direction) for all time, so an object at rest in this frame never feels any G-forces corresponding to acceleration (here we're talking about an SR context where gravity is ignored--think of ships in deep space for example). And if B turns around to return to A, then B must have accelerated when he turned around (he knew he accelerated since he felt G-forces), so he will have changed velocity in every inertial frame. If you actually do the calculations from the perspective of any inertial frame, including a frame where A was in motion and B was at rest for the first part of the journey before turning around, all frames will agree that B is the one who's younger when A and B finally reunite and compare clocks. I showed the details of how one might calculate the aging on such a trip from the perspective of two different frames (with both frames getting the same answer for the final ages) in post 36 of this thread if you're interested.

You don't get one critical thing.
Universe is not a ball. You can't take it in hand, rotate it, look into diffrent places, and imagine yourself in one of them. You exist inside it, you are a part of this, you can't see yourself!
You only see world around! You experience events aroud. Dont think in 3rd person about yourself, you don't have any point of reference there!
Third person view might work, but its rather a simulation - a prediction what might happen. Yet you experience things in first person view, you must remember that anytime!
I had troubles in understanding it myself, but come on, it was AGES ago and i was way more stupid then.

You're moving into the realm of philosophy
I gave you a practical experiment. 2 ships, 1 'winner'. There is no philosophy there.
Im not talking about possible implications, I am not talking why you exist, i talk about predictable facts and a serious flaw in your understanding.

Personally I'm of the belief that science only serves practical purposes
it is pratcical. possibility of changing c, possibility of instant travel to other galaxy, its science.
but fact that all of it is meaningless, no matter what you do its meaningless is philosophy.

Twin A, on Earth, says that Twin B's clock is moving slower, while Twin B, on the rocket, says that Twin A's clock is moving slower. Yet, you believe this can't be possible, correct? Both twins can't be right, one must be wrong.
depends where am i. my point of reference = only real one. you should also come to this conclusion, you = real, and here where my experiments decide whos real and whos not.

While Twin B is on his journey, he thinks he is right (A's clock is moving slower) and A is wrong, and A thinks A is right (B's clock is moving slower) and B is wrong.
A's thought process is also defined by speed, don't forget it. example as above, if I am with A - she's winner. If I am with B - she is the winner.

emcc22 said:
But where is this observer, to which its relative? You can't 'its relative to all'.
Because you and your friend might take a place of A and B and get exactly same results!
Will physics will be relative to you, or your friend? They can't be to both!
Why not?

Your writing is really difficult to decipher, so I assume that english is not your first language, but from what I can piece together I think that you misunderstand the first postulate of relativity. The point of the relativity postulate is just that the coordinates you use to describe a physical situation are nothing more than labels, and different "natural" ways of labeling things will disagree about the labels but agree on the results. All reference frames will agree on the outcome of any given experiment, even if they disagree about how to most naturally label things.

mcc22 said:
You don't get one critical thing.
I can't wait to hear what it is ...
Universe is not a ball. You can't take it in hand, rotate it, look into diffrent places, and imagine yourself in one of them. You exist inside it, you are a part of this, you can't see yourself!
You only see world around! You experience events aroud. Dont think in 3rd person about yourself, you don't have any point of reference there!
Third person view might work, but its rather a simulation - a prediction what might happen. Yet you experience things in first person view, you must remember that anytime!
oh, and there was me thinking the universe was a ball and I am actually someone else.
I had troubles in understanding it myself, but come on, it was AGES ago and i was way more stupid then.
Hard to believe the last bit but I'll take your word for it.
I gave you a practical experiment. 2 ships, 1 'winner'.
The conclusions you draw from the experiment are wrong. This has been explained to you.
it is pratcical. possibility of changing c, possibility of instant travel to other galaxy, its science.
No, it is not science. It's science fiction. Almost certainly instantaneous travel is impossible.

depends where am i. my point of reference = only real one. you should also come to this conclusion, you = real, and here where my experiments decide whos real and whos not.
That does not make sense. Every person has a point of view and every person is real.
A's thought process is also defined by speed, don't forget it. example as above, if I am with A - she's winner. If I am with B - she is the winner.
If you traveled with A then you'd have the same experience and aging as A, and similarly if you traveled with B, you'd age like B etc. You've said something that is true, and also acknowledged that A and B have their own viewpoints.

All you've got to accept now is accept that there's no paradox, no winners or losers, both viewpoints are valid.

The fact that A and B will see one anothers clocks running slowly does not affect the outcome when they meet and compare elapsed times.

Finally I would ask you to stop being arrogant and saying 'don't forget ...' or 'what you're not getting is ...'. These matters have been argued about for a 100 years by people a lot smarter than you or me. Acting as if they're all wrong and you're right makes you look a prat.

Mentz114 said:
I'm sorry to nit-pick your explanation because you've made an effort to explain the 'paradox'. You've chosen a scenario where one twin remains inertial, and designated that twin as the 'correct' or 'reliable' one.

But what happens if both twins go on journeys and return to Earth ? Who is 'correct' or 'reliable' then ?

The elapsed time on their clocks depends on the details of their journeys - on the proper interval of their world lines and nothing else.

So there is a simple formula for calculating what their clocks will read. This has been stated many times now in threads about the 'twins'.

 posted simultaneously with the post above.

The twin paradox traditionally has one twin stay on Earth (inertial), and one twin go off into space. If both twins travel, then the result depends on the journey. In explaining the traditional twin paradox, did I do something wrong?

Matterwave,

there's lots of things in your first post that don't help. Stuff like 'changing frames', and 'it depends on which twin is inertial'. You just said
If both twins travel, then the result depends on the journey.
But both twins are always traveling through spacetime, and the result always depends on both journeys. The clocks just show the proper time of those journeys.

The important thing is the spacetime bit - not acceleration ( which I presume is what you mean by 'changing frame' ).

Another thing worth pointing out is that the 'time dilation' effect depends only on instantaneous relative velocity and is a different thing altogether from the integrated worldline.

The explanation you gave is commonly given, but in my opinion it sweeps the essential issues under the carpet. Please don't take it personally.

Ok, well that's the explanation that I've always heard. If it's wrong, then sorry to bring it up. :)

Matterwave said:
Ok, well that's the explanation that I've always heard. If it's wrong, then sorry to bring it up. :)

I believe you're thinking of the example for Differential Aging (i.e. Planet of The Apes) and not The Twin Paradox. I made this mistake myself here until someone was kind enough to correct me.

@All: Is it doing the OP any favours to discuss his theory in this fashion? When the boom is dropped on him (inevitably, thankfully) it will be after playing with him a little bit (mentz114). I enjoy that as much as the next person, and often more, but I am given to understand that this is an educational site. I think the point has come where either a more direct approach is used in the discussion, or the crackpot is finally put out of his misery.

Again... Kruger-Dunning Effect. I think by letting him/her go on this way, we're at least not helping where possible and maybe exacerbating matters.

EDIT: To be fair, that said I have no idea how to get through to people like him, with "all of the answers" and all of the ego, lacking ALL of the humility and self-reflection.

emcc22 said:
now here is the question, accorgind to einsteins relativity, everything is relative, for example - c = constant.

But where is this observer, to which its relative? You can't 'its relative to all'.
Because you and your friend might take a place of A and B and get exactly same results!
Will physics will be relative to you, or your friend? They can't be to both!
if they were, B would report exactly what A. And then time dilatation wouldbt be possible!
Length contraction doesn't apply also, because speed is kind of displacement, and all according to guy C is shifted in a fabric of space. So it act as it were contracted, but this is another topic.
There are so many flaws in your reasoning that it would take too long to address them all. The biggest mistake you're making is to think that a theory that's been studied and understood by many thousands of smart people can contain glaringly obvious logical inconsistencies that they have all failed to notice or agreed to keep quiet about.

Fredrik said:
When A's clock is slow in B's rest frame, B's clock is slow in A's rest frame as well. Both are correct to say that "the other clock is slow". That's not a statement about something absolute. What the statement really means is that the coordinate system that's naturally associated with B's world line is assigning time coordinates to the events where A's clock is present that are higher than the numbers that are displayed by A's clock at those events.

emcc22 said:
My question is, is there a fundamental flaw in Einstains theory, or there is a single observer (perhaps part of a single human brain), that is responsible for mine and your own very existence, a GOD?

And if it exist, do you realize the implications? It can manipulate all the universe at once! Just changing its form! Of course its to weak to blow a star just thinking so, but it can affect sub atomic vibrations by changing himself (change perception = change what exist. If your ultimate perception = change will be also ultimate). Universe according to relativity will 'adapt' in some ways. Time dilatation, mass change are ways it do so.
If its the center of all, what you see, what i see, is just an interaction to presence of this being! If universe is expanding, its in a center of it (propably, here i only guess, I am not sure). And if it is, this 'observer' can be detected by any inteligent being, just by examining space expansion in 2 points!
This is a science forum. If you have questions about the science, go ahead and ask them, but don't make silly claims like this. I'm surprised the moderators have allowed it. (You should read the forum rules).

That does not make sense. Every person has a point of view and every person is real.
i disagree. why you think you are real?
from my point of view, you just interact with environment, i can't experience your frame of reference. I just see that you exist, you have self awarness - so what, its just a state of brain.

It is you who don't understand it, you still insist on being in 3rd person. Sorry, that's a perception failure. Everything you post is strictly related on referencing youself from 3rd person view. Overcome this brain issue, and maybe i continue with this topc. For now i quit, its a waste of time.