Is Relativity Wrong?

[Bignose]

Does any of this commentary have to do with relativity being wrong?

Look, we know the GR is wrong in that it is at least incomplete. We don't have a theory that well describes the very big (GR) and the very small (quantum mechanics) at the same time.

 

That said, relativity is extraordinarily useful in making good predictions. Again, please look through this link: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ It lays out the many experimental measurements that have been taken and how closely they agree with the predictions from GR. Some have errors of less than 1 part per million.

 

In this regard, GR is very, very right in that it agrees with quite a many different experiments.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Also, since this is a discussion forum, it would be appreciated if members could avoid making posts that amount to little more than, 'lol.' krash661, this isn't the first time staff have removed these sorts of posts by you. Please aim for something a bit more constructive in the future.

[Windevoid]

I don't think time dilation makes sense. Time dilation would say that when you go faster toward the speed of light you go slower, and that is a direct contradiction.

[Delta1212]

I don't think time dilation makes sense. Time dilation would say that when you go faster toward the speed of light you go slower, and that is a direct contradiction.

No, it says the faster something goes, the less time it experiences. Slower time is not the opposite of faster speed.

[Windevoid]

Maybe it doesn't speed up?

[Delta1212]

Maybe it doesn't speed up?

Maybe what doesn't speed up?

[ajb]

In this regard, GR is very, very right in that it agrees with quite a many different experiments.

This cannot be stressed enough. Today we have many direct and indirect tests of general relativity. So far none of these show any deviation from the theory. General relativity is not complete for sure, but rather problematically nature is giving us few hints on what comes next.

[krash661]

I don't think time dilation makes sense. Time dilation would say that when you go faster toward the speed of light you go slower, and that is a direct contradiction.

T0=[1-v^2/c^2]T^1/2

[DimaMazin]

Yes.Let's check relativity.Twin and twin' are moving to each other.Twin is radiator of two photons to twin'.Twin' atomic clock recieves the photons.The first photon includes the clock.The second photon switches off the clock.

dt_i - time between radiation of first photon and radiation of second photon in twin frame

dx/c - time of travel of first photon in twin frame

(dx-v * dt_i)/c - time of travel of second photon in twin frame

T₁=0 - indication of the clock before collision with first photon

T_{2 =} T₁+[(dx-v*dt_i)/c+dt_i-dx/c]/gamma -prediction(by twin) of indication of the clock after collision with second photon

Please show the indication predicted by twin' .

I mistaken there

dx/(c+v) - time of travel of first photon in twin frame

(dx-v * dt_i)/(c+v) - time of travel of second photon in twin frame

T₂=T₁+[(dx-v*dt_i)/(c+v)+dt_i-dx/(c+v)]/gamma

[Windevoid]

Let's say you are going near the speed of light, .99 times the speed of light. Now in relativity, time would slow down (the ship and you, right?), your mass would increase, and the spaceship would "shorten".

 

 

The problem here is that when the ship slows down, the engine also slows down, because it is part of the ship. This means that since the engine has slowed down (I don't know what happens to the exhaust, but the engine could be electrogravitic or electromagnetoNewtonian instead of a rocket), the ship also slows down, and thus should experience less relativity. But then the engine would speed up and cause the exact same problem as before.

 

 

But I think that relativity is the wrong explanation of the universe.

[swansont]

Let's say you are going near the speed of light, .99 times the speed of light. Now in relativity, time would slow down (the ship and you, right?), your mass would increase, and the spaceship would "shorten".

 

 

The problem here is that when the ship slows down, the engine also slows down, because it is part of the ship. This means that since the engine has slowed down (I don't know what happens to the exhaust, but the engine could be electrogravitic or electromagnetoNewtonian instead of a rocket), the ship also slows down, and thus should experience less relativity. But then the engine would speed up and cause the exact same problem as before.

 

 

But I think that relativity is the wrong explanation of the universe.

 

In your frame, nothing changes.

 

Other frames see you shorten and you clock running slow. Your mass (using the definition commonly used in physics) in unchanged.

 

The universe doesn't care if you think relativity is wrong. Meanwhile, GPS works.

[Windevoid]

 

In your frame, nothing changes.

 

Other frames see you shorten and you clock running slow. Your mass (using the definition commonly used in physics) in unchanged.

 

The universe doesn't care if you think relativity is wrong. Meanwhile, GPS works.

"In your frame, nothing changes."

 

and

 

" you clock running slow"

 

seem contradictory.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Is that a defiance of the identity theorem?

 

My medicine bottle experiment would suggest that the universe is objective, not subjective.

 

A bird chirps even when you can't see it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Windevoid

[ACG52]

 

Am I missing something?

Yes, much.

 

In this case, you missed the words "other frames see "

 

You really don't have the faintest idea what Relativity is about or how it works, do you?

[Janus]

Let's say you are going near the speed of light, .99 times the speed of light. Now in relativity, time would slow down (the ship and you, right?), your mass would increase, and the spaceship would "shorten".

 

 

The problem here is that when the ship slows down, the engine also slows down, because it is part of the ship. This means that since the engine has slowed down (I don't know what happens to the exhaust, but the engine could be electrogravitic or electromagnetoNewtonian instead of a rocket), the ship also slows down, and thus should experience less relativity. But then the engine would speed up and cause the exact same problem as before.

 

 

But I think that relativity is the wrong explanation of the universe.

Even if the engine stops, the spaceship keeps going at the speed it was traveling when the engine was running. It coasts. With the engine running, the ship accelerates. What the outside observer will measure is that the acceleration of the Ship decreases in such a way that while it gets closer and closer to the speed of light, it never reaches it.

 

BTW, the universe doesn't care what you think is the wrong explanation, it will just continue to behave as it does without needing your permission.

[DimaMazin]

"In your frame, nothing changes."

 

and

 

" you clock running slow"

 

seem contradictory.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Is that a defiance of the identity theorem?

 

My medicine bottle experiment would suggest that the universe is objective, not subjective.

 

A bird chirps even when you can't see it.

When "your clock running slow" then signals of other frames are changed.

[Endy0816]

Muons forming in the upper atmosphere are the best example.

 

From our perspective they shouldn't have enough time to reach the surface before most of them decay.

 

From their perspective they have plenty of time.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

 

 

Helps to think of time as a mountain.

 

Two people going down it at different rates. They each see themselves as going at their "normal" rate, but they see the other person as going at a different rate.

 

No paradox, their experience is simply relative to their own frame of reference.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Endy0816

[sheever]

it has to be wrong to have so many conflict with other areas

 

http://youtu.be/vOrvVTFKDUA

[ACG52]

More youtube nonsense.

 

Relativity is entirely self-consistent, and experimentally and operationally verified for over a 100 years.

 

The only ones who question relativity are those who simply don't know anything about it.

 

And of course, those cranks looking for some measure of fame for 'thinking outside the box', when they don't know what the box contains in the first place.

[newts]

"In your frame, nothing changes."

 

and

 

" you clock running slow"

 

seem contradictory.

 

Am I missing something?

The modern theory of relativity was created by Lorentz et al, based on the speed of light being constant relative to the aether. Lorentz’s aether theory (LET) is simple and logical, and correctly predicts the result of experiments. SR contains no original maths, Einstein just copied Lorentz’s equations. SR is essentially LET except that all observers pretend that their reference frame is stationary in the aether, which is of course nonsensical.

SR is unfalsifiable because the high priests merely ordain that it makes the same predictions as the correct theory of nature LET. When educated people like Dingle or Sagnac argue that SR is wrong, they are not arguing about how the universe behaves, because both they and the relativity experts know full well it behaves as predicted by LET. Rather what they argue about, is how SR predicts the universe should behave. But SR does not describe a possible universe, it is a religious belief not a scientific theory, so it makes no real predictions. As such if the high priests ordain that SR makes the same predictions as LET, I do not see how the edict can be logically challenged.

If you want to find out about relativity, I suggest you research the history of LET, and pay little attention to either the Einstein-worshippers’ lies or the ignorant opinions of relativity critics who do not understand LET.

[ACG52]

Just another relativity denier, who knows nothing about what he says. Just your standard crank word salad.

 

SR is completely mathematically consistent, and has been experimentally verified in a thousand ways for over a hundred years, not to mention the fact that it is applied to technology on a daily basis. If SR didn't work, neither would GPS, your computer, or the accelerators at CERN.

[newts]

If SR didn't work, neither would GPS, your computer, or the accelerators at CERN.

I understand that you believe SR devoutly, and that you find it very upsetting that there are infidels who do not share your faith, as you have said so many times, indeed I cannot recall you ever posting anything much else.

But can you justify your belief by explaining why SR is necessary for computers to work?

[Unity+]

More youtube nonsense.

 

Relativity is entirely self-consistent, and experimentally and operationally verified for over a 100 years.

 

The only ones who question relativity are those who simply don't know anything about it.

 

And of course, those cranks looking for some measure of fame for 'thinking outside the box', when they don't know what the box contains in the first place.

But don't the equations of Einstein break down in a Black hole? This isn't me challenging the idea, but just clarifying something I wanted to make sure of.

 

I understand that you believe SR devoutly, and that you find it very upsetting that there are infidels who do not share your faith, as you have said so many times, indeed I cannot recall you ever posting anything much else.

But can you justify your belief by explaining why SR is necessary for computers to work?

 

He never implied that computers require Relativity to work.

 

In a GPS, relativity is required to get the specific location of your car or whatever vehicle to be able to direct you in the right direction. Without Relativity, your location would be far off from the destination because the GPS needs to calculate the specific routes at specific times(I don't know the specifics, however I can make a good guess o how it works).

 

The modern theory of relativity was created by Lorentz et al, based on the speed of light being constant relative to the aether. Lorentz’s aether theory (LET) is simple and logical, and correctly predicts the result of experiments. SR contains no original maths, Einstein just copied Lorentz’s equations. SR is essentially LET except that all observers pretend that their reference frame is stationary in the aether, which is of course nonsensical.

SR is unfalsifiable because the high priests merely ordain that it makes the same predictions as the correct theory of nature LET. When educated people like Dingle or Sagnac argue that SR is wrong, they are not arguing about how the universe behaves, because both they and the relativity experts know full well it behaves as predicted by LET. Rather what they argue about, is how SR predicts the universe should behave. But SR does not describe a possible universe, it is a religious belief not a scientific theory, so it makes no real predictions. As such if the high priests ordain that SR makes the same predictions as LET, I do not see how the edict can be logically challenged.

If you want to find out about relativity, I suggest you research the history of LET, and pay little attention to either the Einstein-worshippers’ lies or the ignorant opinions of relativity critics who do not understand LET.

 

I don't even know whether to take this seriously or not...

[Bignose]

SR is unfalsifiable because the high priests ...

Oh look, newts is back calling science a religion again.

 

Hey, remember this post: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65943-science-is-all-about-religion/?p=677397

 

Back in May 2012 I asked you to provide evidence of science being treated as a religion.

 

Is there any chance that today, 15 months later, you actually can do it? You've certainly had enough time, and you certainly didn't provide evidence then. If not, please quit trolling our forums with your totally unsubstantiated and tired claims about science being a religion.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Bignose

[Didymus]

Common factors as to why both evolution and relativity are so frequently argued against on places like youtube:

 

Because both theories are hogwash.

 

There is good evidence to support some very small parts of the theory, thus theyre extended to completely illogical conclusions. Both are defended to religious extreme because they've been "so concretely proven".... Yet the supporting evidence has more holes than empty space.

 

Problem is the math works out quite well. But the explanation for that math is backwards.

 

 

The one thing I'll agree with newts on is the method for "confirming" SR is an assault on logic. Particularly the H&K "clocks on an airplane"garbage. Direct measurement came nowhere near matching the theory, so certain variables were artificially accounted for, ignoring other significant ones until the numbers of the prediction matched the result. Accounting for fractions of variables is voodoo science.

 

And even if the clocks were off by the predicted amount, there's no justification for us to believe that "time" changed more so than the clocks. Too many obvious variables are ignored to pretend the theory fit.

[Bignose]

Because both theories are hogwash.

Please tell me what the hogwash parts of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ are? I would really, really like to know.

 

Because, as outlined in that paper, it is has been supremely successful at making predictions that agree with measured reality. I've said before many times, if you don't agree with it, just put out a new theory that makes more and even better predictions than the theory we have now -- and your new theory will be taken up with much, much aplomb and celebration of your genius. Oddly enough, I have yet to see a single "relativity is wrong" thread actually post even a single prediction that is better than the current theory, but there is always a first time.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Bignose