Why relativity is wrong

[wespe]

I did focus on it.

 

"So relativity is wrong and they just confuse or ignore you"

 

A ridiculous statement .....

 

Just before that statement appears, did you notice that the moving astronaut calculated the same value with the stationary astronauts, simultaneously? Do you think that's compatible with "relativity of simultaneity"?

[atinymonkey]

Please enable flash on your computer or try to find a way to see the animation. Someone above describes it too. I'm tired of all these discussions.. Just imagine this setup and try to think for yourself, think if those events (the moment calculated values changes, for all astronauts, moving or stationary) are simultaneous or not. Then check what relativity of simultaneity is says. You decide.

 

 

I hate you. I really, really do. Instead of being caught by a manager on a science website, with might have been an image boost, I was caught on your flimflam and nonsense. Your evil, evil and tricksey and fat. You couldnt keep the crazy inside your skull, you had to let it dribble onto my PC screen.

[J'Dona]

Ah, it's working for me now. There's one problem with your flash... everyone sees incoming light coming in at the same speed - the speed of light - regardless of their relative motion. Aside from the fact that the astronaut cannot be moving at the same speed as the light particles (as he would then have infinite mass), the incoming light from the clock behind him will appear to be coming in at the speed of light, not a tiny fraction of it. I'm not exactly certain how this would affect it, but I'm sure someone else here can explain.

 

How about this: you have the same moving astronaut and the stationary clocks, and also another clock moving toward the astronaut at the speed of light, who is also moving toward it at the speed of light. The astronaut then takes the changing values he sees on all three and divides them by three to get the average. The result? A time value which increases at about three times the rate of your experiment.

 

In fact, you get a different result if you have even one of the clocks in your flash moving.

[YT2095]

I hate you. I really' date=' really do.

Your evil, evil and tricksey and fat.[/quote']

that`s a bit harsh for a "Samaritans" worker isn`t it?

[wespe]

Ah' date=' it's working for me now. There's one problem with your flash... everyone sees incoming light coming in at the same speed - the speed of light - [i']regardless of their relative motion[/i]. Aside from the fact that the astronaut cannot be moving at the same speed as the light particles (as he would then have infinite mass), the incoming light from the clock behind him will appear to be coming in at the speed of light, not a tiny fraction of it. I'm not exactly certain how this would affect it, but I'm sure someone else here can explain.

 

How about this: you have the same moving astronaut and the stationary clocks, and also another clock moving toward the astronaut at the speed of light, who is also moving toward it at the speed of light. The astronaut then takes the changing values he sees on all three and divides them by three to get the average. The result? A time value which increases at about three times the rate of your experiment.

 

In fact, you get a different result if you have even one of the clocks in your flash moving.

 

The speed of the moving astronaut doesn't matter at all, but if you want it below c, just imagine so. However, for the moving astronaut, the speed of light coming from back and front does look different, doesn't it? Based on relativity, you will say this is incorrect, you will say it should appear so and so. But you are forgetting that the light contains the clock value and you cannot change it, because the nearby stationary astronaut also sees it. Thus you cannot change the calculated value. So, that's a paradox, only if you assume relativity is correct.

 

And please don't change the scenario by making one of the clocks move or whatever. I'm not saying the calculated value would be the same if the clocks were moving. That's why discussions became endless, please don't do that.

[J'Dona]

It seems like a paradox, but unfortunately it's correct, even though it seems to defy common sense. You've got to understand that common sense is wrong, because people aren't used to this sort of thing in real life. Did you know that as the sun rotates, light coming from the approaching side and light coming from the receding side are exactly the same speed?

 

Also, please don't change the subject by avoiding any possible flaw in your scenario. I agree with what your flash shows because that's what relativity says would happen anyway. However, because of this, your flash in no way demonstrates that relativity is "wrong", so we need more examples.

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't mean to be rude... it's just that I'm getting paranoid about anything that might be pseodoscience lately. In the past week we've had or are having people we try to prove that there is a space-faring civilisation currently on Mars, or to disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics. I need to calm down.

[YT2095]

Did you know that as the sun rotates' date=' light coming from the approaching side and light coming from the receding side are [i']exactly[/i] the same speed?

quite true, but tell him that it will arrive a little later also (it travels further) , it may avoid any latter confusion

 

{edit} light speed is fast, but finite (as far as we know)

[wespe]

It seems like a paradox' date=' but unfortunately it's correct, even though it seems to defy common sense. You've got to understand that common sense is wrong, because people aren't used to this sort of thing in real life. Did you know that as the sun rotates, light coming from the approaching side and light coming from the receding side are [i']exactly[/i] the same speed?

 

Also, please don't change the subject by avoiding any possible flaw in your scenario. I agree with what your flash shows because that's what relativity says would happen anyway. However, because of this, your flash in no way demonstrates that relativity is "wrong", so we need more examples.

 

Ok, I know the light speed is always measured the same. But, that would have to be explained with some other mechanism, if relativity is refuted by a real paradox. What is real here, is that the clock values are embedded in the light and astronauts will see it. You cannot have two people at the same place (one moving) see different values, even though somehow they would measure the speed of light same. So this is not common sense, but logic, in question. If nature is illogical, that's another thing.

 

Ok, think of different scenarios, but don't make it look like I would say something I wouldn't. I would agree with whatever looks logical on the screen.

[atinymonkey]

that`s a bit harsh for a "Samaritans" worker isn`t it?

 

Er, I'm usually a bit less harsh on the phone. It's been a long week

 

BTW, it's Samaritans week the 22nd to the 29th of May, if anyone fancy's holding a fundraiser.

 

http://www.samaritans.org/support/fundraising.shtm#

[Sayonara]

And please don't change the scenario by making one of the clocks move or whatever. I'm not saying the calculated value would be the same if the clocks were moving. That's why discussions became endless, please don't do that.

In your scenario, relativity "fails" because you haven't applied it properly.

 

In J'Dona's scenario, your clocks explanation obeys relativity.

 

Mmmmm hmmm hmmmm.

[wespe]

In your scenario' date=' relativity "fails" because you haven't applied it properly.

 

In J'Dona's scenario, your clocks explanation obeys relativity.

 

Mmmmm hmmm hmmmm.[/quote']

 

I haven't applied relativity at all, because there's no need to. For example, I'm not saying anything about time dilation, because I'm not saying how the astronauts' own clocks would compare to other clocks or anything. Same with length contraction, I don't mention any length measurements, or measurements of speed of light. OK so far?

 

But you must agree that the calculated values act like a clock for all astronauts, no matter what their speed is. And they act like synchronized clocks. Do you agree? However, relativity will not allow absolute clocks! or else mutual time dilation would be a paradox. But with my setup, the average values act like absolute clocks. So there's the paradox, OK??

[J'Dona]

Your scenario doesn't account for any relative movement between the clocks, which is where relativity comes in. Whether the astronaut is moving or both clocks are moving together relative to him, the results would be the same.

 

Also, just to clear this up... light appears to travel at the speed of light, c (something like 2.997 x 10⁸ ms^-1), completely regardless of an object's relative motion. So even if the astronaut is receding from one clock and approaching the other, the light from both still appears to travel at c. The way that light always travels at c isn't something that can be argued over... I mean, the entire scientific community at the turn of the century tried to disprove it, and couldn't. It was only Einstein who managed to explain it, with relativity.

 

By the way, mutual time dilation is strange, but it's not a paradox. I'm not sure exactly which way you're referring to it, but if you have two people with synchronised clocks, and one moves away from the other at some great speed and then stops, the time on the clocks will be different. If they move back together again to compare, however, they will be the same again due to the reverse movement and reverse change in the time difference. That only applies for straight back-and-forth movement, of course. In a real example, they once synchronised an atomic clock on Earth to one on the space shuttle. After the shuttle's mission, where it spent quite some time at a significant speed (several miles per second) ad then landed again, the shuttle's clock was slower by a few milliseconds, which is something major as atomic clocks don't vary by more than one second over about a hundred thouasand years.

 

If I've made a mistake in here somewhere guys, point it out please. We haven't done any relativity in school yet, and I'm drawing this mostly from what I've learned about it in my own time.

[swansont]

Please enable flash on your computer or try to find a way to see the animation. Someone above describes it too. I'm tired of all these discussions.. Just imagine this setup and try to think for yourself, think if those events (the moment calculated values changes, for all astronauts, moving or stationary) are simultaneous or not. Then check what relativity of simultaneity is says. You decide.

 

I decide? Good. As a refutation of relativity, it's crap. Game over. Thanks for playing.

 

The page loads now that I am on my home computer. Your clocks are 15 light-seconds apart. All you are doing is measuring that they are 15 light-seconds apart. An observer at any position will be x light-seconds away from one clock and 15-x light seconds away from the other. One reading will always be T-x, and the other will be T+x-15 (ignoring your offset).

 

When you add them, x cancels out, so all observers see 2T-15. Wow. You've discovered algebra. <yawn>. Note that you have assumed Galilean transformations. Relativity hasn't come anywhere close to your dicussions, so I don't see how you can conclude that it's wrong.

[swansont]

In a real example' date=' they once synchronised an atomic clock on Earth to one on the space shuttle. After the shuttle's mission, where it spent quite some time at a significant speed (several miles per second) ad then landed again, the shuttle's clock was slower by a few milliseconds, which is something major as atomic clocks don't vary by more than one second over about a hundred thouasand years.

[/quote']

 

Actually this same experiment is carried out continually with GPS satellites. The clocks onboard the satellites have to have their output frequency changed from what they are on the ground, because of the combined effects of time dilation and the chnage in the gravitational redshift.

[Radical Edward]

I haven't applied relativity at all' date=' because there's no need to. For example, I'm not saying anything about time dilation, because I'm not saying how the astronauts' own clocks would compare to other clocks or anything. Same with length contraction, I don't mention any length measurements, or measurements of speed of light. OK so far?

[/quote']

 

so let me get this straight. In order to disprove relativity, you are going to ignore all the salient features of relativity, and present us with a thought experiment that has nothing to do with relativity. interesting. so how about applying relativity to your scenario now and showing us some incompatibility?

 

(twins paradox here we come)

[admiral_ju00]

so let me get this straight. In order to disprove relativity.............

 

(twins paradox here we come)

 

why simply stop at relativity? why not pick any other theory or better yet all of them and prove them wrong using similar tactics?!?

[Sayonara]

I haven't applied relativity at all' date=' because there's no need to. For example, I'm not saying anything about time dilation, because I'm not saying how the astronauts' own clocks would compare to other clocks or anything. Same with length contraction, I don't mention any length measurements, or measurements of speed of light. OK so far?

 

But you must agree that the calculated values act like a clock for all astronauts, no matter what their speed is. And they act like synchronized clocks. Do you agree? However, relativity will not allow absolute clocks! or else mutual time dilation would be a paradox. But with my setup, the average values act like absolute clocks. So there's the paradox, OK??[/quote']

That has bum all to do with relativistic effects.

 

OMG WE ALL KNOW A VALUE THAT MEANS NOTHING!!!!!!!!!111112

[blike]

His flash animation clearly proves that mitochondria were, in fact, once distinct organisms and that endosymbiosis is true.

[blike]

I'm thinking its about time for this to be moved to psuedoscience.

[wespe]

ok, to clear this up:

 

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.

[[Tycho?]]

Wespe, I fail to see how anything you've said even has to do with relativity. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

 

Time synconization for stationary clocks? What does this have to do with anything? Why would you need time syncronization for stationary clocks, when time dilation comes into effect with a moving object? That the astronaut is moving in that joke of a flash animation would certainly not make a difference. Why does it matter if he can get the same average time?

 

Damn it, and why does every second person feel they are so intelligent that they can disprove one of the most basic theories of physics, while having no education in the subject whatsoever? I stopped thinking I could do that before I was in middle school.

[swansont]

Although I can't work out the exact math...

 

This is the first hurdle to overcome, not a much later one.

[wespe]

']Wespe' date=' I fail to see how anything you've said even has to do with relativity. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

 

Time synconization for stationary clocks? What does this have to do with anything? Why would you need time syncronization for stationary clocks, when time dilation comes into effect with a moving object? That the astronaut is moving in that joke of a flash animation would certainly not make a difference. Why does it matter if he can get the same average time?

 

Damn it, and why does every second person feel they are so intelligent that they can disprove one of the most basic theories of physics, while having no education in the subject whatsoever? I stopped thinking I could do that before I was in middle school.[/quote']

 

ok.. my claim was that my synchronization method would work not only for stationary clocks, but also for moving clocks, as shown with the moving astronaut in the last part of the animation.

 

Assume my method worked: Apply the synchronization to Einstein's two lightening strikes thought experiment, just as the lightenings stike, and you conclude that the two events are simultaneous in both frames. This would invalidate relativity of simultaneity, which says the opposite. But now, I no longer claim that my method works for moving clocks, since I have withdrawn. I hope it's clear.

[admiral_ju00]

..........Failing that' date=' I withdraw my argument. .......

[/quote']

 

 

sooooo, may i ask what'll your next venture be? what other theory will now replace ralativity?

 

just curious

[wespe]

sooooo' date=' may i ask what'll your next venture be? what other theory will now replace ralativity?

 

just curious [/quote']

 

don't worry. my brain will think of something, I can't help it