Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Was Einstein was wrong?

  1. Mar 27, 2003 #1
    In this topic (If I am allowed), I shall be concerned with applying reasoned-thought to specific issues concerned with Einstein's theory of Relativity.
    This first post is to the mentors and to the people who complain to Greg. I want to know if I am going to be allowed to proceed, before I do proceed. I need to know where I stand.
    Note: It will not be my intention here to state that Einstein was wrong. Indeed, my argument depends upon him being right so that I can discuss concepts such as 'absolute-lightspeed'. Hence, whatever I say here shall not change ANY mathematical equation which Einstein has formulated, nor any conceptual-conclusion, such as "All observers see lightspeed as 'c'". As such, you cannot accuse me of being anti-science.
    The whole point of my arguments here (and I cannot emphasise this enough), is not to denounce Einstein as wrong; but to show that there is another level of information which is to be gleamed from what Einstein has showed us.
    Ultimately, I'll only be extending reason to Einstein's theory. I wont want to change a single thing about it[. I'll just be seeking to change a few views about reality.
    As such, I ask that the powers-that-be allow me to proceed. I promise to do so in a way that will not demise the value of science, nor denounce the credibility of Einstein, nor seek to challenge any mathematical-equation ever formulated.
    And if I promise to do those things, then at least tell me why you wont let me proceed. Note: All materialistic bias shall be highlighted.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2003 #2

    Eh

    User Avatar

    Will you read criticisms of your claims, and reply to points made? That seems to be the key issue with your posts.
     
  4. Mar 27, 2003 #3
    I shy-away from no remark. Make a sincere complaint, and I'll respond.
     
  5. Mar 27, 2003 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The problem is, when we do that, your typical response is, "Your complaint is meaningless" or "You haven't addressed my argument" or some other evasive tactic.

    Post what you want to post. We are watching, and will step in when you go wrong. If one of us corrects you, we expect you to accept it and try to learn from it, not fight us tooth and nail. If that happens, we'll shut it down and ask you to move on. The days of "lifegazer-on-physics" topics going nowhere for 10+ pages are over.
     
  6. Mar 27, 2003 #5
    My limited experience is that the topics tend to sprawl. After five or more pages, there is little or no convergence because there is no agreement from the outset on meanings of basic words and concepts such as reason, mind, cause, effect, and meaning itself.

    I am afraid this might be another opportunity for you to tell everyone they have got it all wrong or have misunderstood you because we/they do not accept the idiosyncratic twist and spin you give to words.
     
  7. Mar 28, 2003 #6
    Okay... thanks. Just try to remember that I'm merely trying to use specific information/facts gleamed from physics to make further philosophical conclusions about reality. That's all I'm interested in. I want a discussion about 'reality' moreso than I do about physics. Try to bare that in mind when I begin posting.
     
  8. Mar 28, 2003 #7
    well have at it already!


    :wink:
     
  9. Mar 28, 2003 #8

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I always do.

    What needs to be remembered on your behalf though, is that even though you are not particularly concerned with the Physics facts, you must understand them to a degree which enables you to make your extrapolations from them.

    Even though you aren't contending the fact that 1D strings exist, for example, you can't use that claim to make a point, if that point is actually made by contradicting the theory behind the 1D strings. (For example...)

    Just remember that.
     
  10. Mar 28, 2003 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    (Discussion starter) Isn't that comletely outside the scope of what science does? It seems to me that any attempt along those lines is futile.
     
  11. Mar 28, 2003 #10
    Philosophy-forum russ. Not physics. I'll be attempting to use known facts as a basis for a reasoned argument in regards to 'reality'. I wont be attempting to formulate a new scientific theory, or to ammend what's already on the scientific-table.
    It's important that readers understand this, before I start.
     
  12. Mar 28, 2003 #11

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    LG, what's with all this - prepare/attempt/try...
    Get on with it man !
    If you say something wrong people will
    correct you. (It won't be the first time,
    after all...:wink:).

    Live long and prosper.
     
  13. Mar 28, 2003 #12
    Alright, I'm ready to hear your idea, lifegazer. I think your mind works on a tangent that most people never aspire to, and that is to be commended. Obviously you don't know everything, and will need to be corrected sometimes, but I have never seen you make a claim (except perhaps in your claims about string theory) that had no basis/merit.
     
  14. Mar 28, 2003 #13

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And I thought I was being respectful(no offense).:wink:
     
  15. Mar 28, 2003 #14
    Well, seriously, no idea is entirely without merit, but lifegazer's do show some actual insight.

    (Quiet, drag, I'm trying to encourage lifegazer to post (just kidding, lifegazer:wink: ))
     
  16. Mar 28, 2003 #15
    I want to show the reader that Einstein's work leads to an hitherto-unexpected conclusion. Specifically - as most of you have already guessed - I want to show the reader that the 'reality' we are perceiving does emanate from a subconcious-aspect of the Mind itself. I.e., that Einstein's laws of Relativity are laws which reflect the way the Mind imposes 'reality' upon 'awareness'.
    That's my aim. It's a philosophical-aim - a reasoned aim. If it affects science, it does so only to the extent that it shows the source of our perceptions to be, ultimately, non-material. I.e., if my argument challenges anything, then it challenges materialism - not science. I am of the opinion that being scientific about our perceived-universe does not oblige us to be materialists. And as this is the philosophy forum, I reserve my right to discredit materialism whilst not being derogatory about science.

    Relativity
    So; what have I got to go on? What am I going to discuss?
    Well, specifically, I want to mould my argument around these relevant facts about observation:-
    1) All observers will see oncoming light at a constant velocity - 'c' - regardless of their own velocity, and regardless of the direction from which they measure light's velocity. Because of this, we declare light-speed to be 'absolute' (universal).
    2) The motion of the observer will affect the actual value of that observer's time and spatial experience. I.e., when an observer accelerates, he/she inadvertently alters the consistency of his/her time & space in relation to the experience of other observers. Hence, motion alters the value of time and space.
    3) However, even though time & space are altered by motion, the observer will not notice anything different. His experiences will seem 'normal'.

    I request acceptance, or ammendment of the above facts, before I proceed. Tom? Janus? Anyone in the know?
     
  17. Mar 28, 2003 #16

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You got my humble O.K. to go on LG.
    (Is it all going to be in parts like this ?
    One can really boost the post count here,
    not that anyone's counting... )
     
  18. Mar 28, 2003 #17
    I'm sorry about that. The reason for me proceeding like this is because my hands are tied. My philosophy antagonises many people, it seems. So I have to be a bit careful with this one, as I'm directly discussing facts from a scientific theory.
     
  19. Mar 28, 2003 #18
    amend to include a prequalifier of "in an absolute vacuum"; but otherwise, yes.


    time and space are always changing, and we are all in motion relative to many things; but yes mass effects space-time.

    but it 'seems' normal because it is, this is always happening. what would seem weird is if all the sudden you did not have any effect on anything.

    you seem to be looking to prove a point and building an argument to lead to it. i find that it is generally better to take what arguments one comes across and follow it to see if there is point.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2003
  20. Mar 29, 2003 #19

    ahrkron

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    As kyleb already said, you just need to add "in vacuum".

    Not "absolute" (or universal), but constant. And we don't "declare" it, we observe that such is the case. It is a result of
    a. Our operational definitions of "interval of time" and "interval of space", and
    b. Our definition of "speed".

    Once we define such things, we do find that light has a constant speed. This has deep implications on our interpretation of (a) and (b).

    You need to be careful here.

    There is no such a thing as "THE motion of the observer" in relativity. The main content of the theory is precisely that.

    Similarly, there in no "actual value" of temporal or spatial intervals. You can talk about the proper time of a particular reference frame though.

    If that is what you mean (the proper time), then the last part of the previous sentence is wrong, since the proper time is not affected ever by the motions an observer has wrt any other observer. The "experience of time" of an observer does not depend on her state of motion.

    Not the "consistency", since relativity works perfectly, and all measurements are perfectly consistent with each other. What happens is that the measurements are not consistent with the newtonian expectations (which means that nature works as SR, not Galilean Relativity, describes).

    The conclusion is rather: hence, time and space measurements are related to each other in a way we did not understand before relativity.

    Again, you refer to time and space as if they were absolute. Let me clarify:

    "Time and space are altered by motion" conveys the mental image of time and space as existent entities that are the same for all observers. As if the question "in the north pole of Jupiter, how long are seconds right now?" would have the same meaning for all observers.

    Instead, what is altered by relative motion is the result of measurements made by different observers; i.e., not "her time" or "his time", but the result of the process we call "time (or space) measurement". This in turn has implications on our interpretation of what such proceses are.
     
  21. Mar 29, 2003 #20

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I know that ahrkron has already covered this, but I think it bears repeating as it appears to be a common stumbling block when coming to grips with Relativity.

    You cannot speak of the the 'motion of the observer' . To do so makes the tacit assumption of a prefered frame of reference which the observer is moving with respect to. Relativity denies the existance of such a frame.

    Therefore, you cannot say that the motion of the observer effects his "value of time and space".

    This also makes a tacit assumption that time and space have some universal base value that is altered by motion. Again, this would imply the existance of a prefered frame of reference. (The one in which time and space operated at their "base" values).

    This tacit assumption of a prefered frame (in all its forms) is contrary to the rules of Relativity, and must be avoided if you really want to have a discussion on the conclusions of Relativity.
     
  22. Mar 29, 2003 #21
    The point is not the numerical value of 'c', which (if I interpret you correctly), is subject to slight variance in itself. The point is that when you observe light traversing through a specific medium, then your measurement of its velocity will be a universal-constant amongst observers, regardless of their own velocity. So, for the practical purposes of this thread, I can say that this point of yours isn't relevant anyway. The variance of 'c' through a specific-medium is not important. What is important, is that all observers will gleam the same value (for light's velocity) from the same observation. So, even light's infered variant-velocity is seen universally... it is 'constant'.
    I note what you say as correct. But I would say that it's not relevant to the point I made.
    The point I really wanted to make is that our opinion/judgement of time & space is entirely subjective. Things seem 'normal' because time & space are subjective-opinions of what 'time' & 'space' are. **Thus, such concepts are only relevant to the individual - in his unique experience. And the only "constancy" within this experience, is the velocity of light itself.**
    However; at the heart of the mathematics of Relativity, there is an absolute-dependence on '1 second', and '1 meter', as being absolute-parameters of existence for all beings. How can there be a comparative age-difference between those "twins", for example, unless our mathematics rely on each observer to experience '1 second' and '1 meter', in an absolute-sense? **Hence the experience of '1 second' and '1 meter', is a constant, for all observers.** This may not seem like an axiom stated by Einstein - and it probably isn't - but it will be highly-relevant to what I want to say, soon. So if you disagree with it, I'd like to know why. Anyone.
    I'm sorry. Unless I approach this thread in this specific manner, it will be locked almost immediately. I don't usually build my arguments like this. But I don't have much choice if I want to get any mileage out of what I say here. That's why I'm taking my time in-saying what I eventually want to say. So; I would appreciate some patience.

    If nothing else, this will give a more-revealing method to my conclusions. So, it can't be a bad thing in the context of revealing my sincerity when I post such threads. There is reason in my supposed madness. And maybe a few posters will recognise this. Hopefully.
     
  23. Mar 29, 2003 #22

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    This interests me. I wonder whether Relativity actually precludes a prefered frame, or just isn't based on the concept of one?

    What I mean by that (and here I just hope I am understanding 'Prefered Frame' in the same way that you mean it), is that you can have relativity exactly as you understand it, without any preferential reference frame at all for all practical purposes etc. BUT, ontop of all that, there may be God. And God contains the preferential reference frame. None but God have acces to this frame, and its status as the prefered frame has no actual bearing on any of the other infinite frames of reference, but it is indeed there, and so is indeed a valid concept.

    Does Relativity actually preclude this?


    BTW: I think this thread is proceeding very nicely. I hope to see this style more often.
     
  24. Mar 29, 2003 #23

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    While I did just say that I really do actually like this new approach, I don't think it is 100% necessary to approach it this way. Very few of your topics are locked. In fact, the String one just passed in the first one that I have seen it happen on. And in that case, I do think it was warranted to some degree. It really was becoming very silly (already was), and I am sure that Greg has interests in not letting PF3 run into the same problem that PF2 ran into.
     
  25. Mar 29, 2003 #24
    nope, you were right when you said this this:

     
  26. Mar 29, 2003 #25
    Well, I recognise what you mean, but hopefully my previous post will have addressed this. It's not really important.
    What's the difference?
    But these are formulated via experience. It is only because of the fact that the lesser-aged twin, for example, has experienced such comparative-youth to his brother, and in accordance with his own understanding of 'normality' ('normality' is a label which actually implies an underlying-unity of experience), that he can actually verify that the Lorentz-transformations are correct. I.e., if one twin experiences time & space differently to the other, but the analysis of this difference is dependent upon a universal-understanding of the experience of time & space (i.e., '1 second' is applied to all observers in a manner which is understood as ~universal-experience~); then it can be seen that though our understanding of time & space is subjective, it is still universally-consistent amongst all observers.
    In this respect, the value of '1 second' and '1 meter' (as an experience) is universal - absolute. Agreed? I hope so, because it's going to be important to my argument.
    meters... per... second. And since it is demonstrateably-possible to show that experience of time and space is universal; then our definition of speed is as reliant as our universal-experience of '1 second' and '1 meter'. It's an absolute-concept (universal) - as is the experience of time and space.
    We can argue that the 'value' of space & time is subject to relative-fluctuation amongst observers. **What must be recognised, is that there is an absolute-understanding of what time and space are, amongst all observers, in relation to their experiences.**
    - Even the mathematics of Relativity are dependent upon this! To share the same math, and make relative-comparisons between observers, each observer must have an absolute experience of '1 second', and '1 meter'.
    The definition proceeds the experience. And as I hope I have showed: the experience is assumed to be absolute (by the mathematics of the theory), in relation to all observers. The mathematics mirror the experience. '1 second' and '1 meter' are understood as measures of experience by all observers.
    Does the observer actually move, or do the perceptions upon his awareness change? That's a question I soon want to address. But either the observer has motion in relation to everything else, or everything else has motion in relation to him. And if you are infering the latter (with your statement), then you have saved me a lengthy argument: that 'things' are moving amongst his mind.
    That seems like a conclusion which avoids making a conclusion. Obviously, 'Relativity' changes our opinion about the universe/existence. The question is: How?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook