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

Why relativity is wrong

  1. May 21, 2004 #1
    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
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2004 #2
    *cough* BOGUS *cough*
     
  4. May 21, 2004 #3
    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 thats not spent on actually knowing what you're contesting...like physics...
     
  5. May 21, 2004 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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)
     
  6. May 21, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Without any moving clocks, it doesn't even have anything to do with Relativity, does it?
     
  7. May 21, 2004 #6
    wespe, I guess you simply posted this in the wrong section. Go to "General Discussion" --> "Science Jokes"
     
  8. May 21, 2004 #7
    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
     
  9. May 21, 2004 #8

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    wespe answer me this one question:

    How does your model demonstrate absolute simultaneity in Einsteinian relativty as opposed to just demonstarting absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity?
     
  10. May 21, 2004 #9
    By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.
     
  11. May 21, 2004 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  12. May 21, 2004 #11
    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.
     
  13. May 21, 2004 #12

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  14. May 21, 2004 #13

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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!
     
  15. May 21, 2004 #14
    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.
     
  16. May 21, 2004 #15

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    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.

    What is an "absolute clock"?

    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.
     
  17. May 21, 2004 #16

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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. :smile:
     
  18. May 21, 2004 #17
    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.
     
  19. May 21, 2004 #18
    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..
     
  20. May 21, 2004 #19

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

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

    What is the paradox?
     
  21. May 21, 2004 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Why relativity is wrong
  1. Is it wrong? (Replies: 15)

Loading...