Einstein was wrong: My Theory of Relativity

[Janus]

 

Let me explain with an analogy.

 

Imagine that you are in a space craft going away from Earth toward the moon. Imagine further that there is a transmitter on both the moon and Earth that are capable of sending out a stream of data via electromagnetic waves of your favorite episode of Star Trek. Now we know that since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we know that those signals can only travel at the fixed speed of light, c.

 

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

But wait...since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long.

 

This is contradictory to Einstein's claim that you could even measure light (the electromagetic stream) to be the same in all directions.

 

The problem here is that you are trying to show Einstein wrong without actually knowing what Einstein said.

 

 

For instance, in your analogy, you imply that your time slowing down should compensate for the slowing down of the your reception of the Earth signal. Einstein never predicted this.

 

For one, the classical Doppler shift would be found by

 

[math]\frac{1+V_r}{1+V_s}[/math]

 

Where Vr is the velocity of the receiver and Vs the velocity of the source, and both are measured as fractions of the speed of light.

 

In the case of traveling away from the Earth, we Assume Vs = 0. Vr would be negative, so we get

 

1+Vs

 

Time dilation is found by

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-V^2}}[/math]

 

where V is the relative velocity between ship and Earth (as a fraction of c).

 

There are nowhere near reciprocal.

 

In fact, what Einstein says you'll see is Relativistic Doppler shift:

 

[math]\sqrt{\frac{1-V}{1+V}}[/math]

 

Where V is positive while moving away.

 

The point is that you get the same answer no matter who you consider as moving. All that matters is the relative velocity between source and receiver. Someone on the ship sees the same thing whether he is moving between Earth and Moon or he is still and it is the Earth and Moon that is moving. For him the speed at which the signal travels relative to himself is the same from both transmitters, it is changing distances that causes the Doppler effect.

 

Another problem with your scenerio is that you have a ship going from Earth to Moon at near lightspeed, and watching an 1 hr long broadcast. The Moon is only 1.28 light sec from the Earth, so the ship would get there in under 1 sec.

 

So, in fact, he would only see a fraction of the show.

 

Keeping that in mind, Here is what happens according to Einstein with the ship traveling at 0.99c

 

First seen by the Earth-Moon frame:

 

Assuming that the shows start at the moment the ship passes Earth: It takes 1.293 secs for the ship to reach the Moon. Since it takes 1.28 sec for the light to reach the Moon, the ship will have seen 0.1293 sec of the show. Since time dilation would have the Ship time run at a rate of 1/7, 0.1847 sec passes for the ship clock. Thus he sees 0.1293 sec of show in 0.1847 sec. In other words, he sees that show run at 0.7 speed.

 

The ship will not start receiving the Moon transmission unitl the ship meets the incoming tranmission. This happens after 0.64 sec (Earth time). The ship will see 1.293 sec of the show during the remaining 0.653 sec of the trip (earth time). With a time dilation of 1/7, this means the start of the show reaches the ship when its clock reads 0.0914 sec, So he will see 1.293 sec of the show in 0.0933 sec. He will see the show run at 14 speed.

 

Now as seen by the ship:

 

It takes 0.1847 sec to reach the Moon (Because due to length contraction, the distance between Earth and Moon is 0.1829 light sec.)

 

By the relativistic Doppler shift equation, he would see the Earth signal at a rate of 0.7 and see 0.1293 sec of the show. ( exactly what the Earth frame predicts)

 

He starts receiving the Moon transmission at 0.914 sec by his clock and see it at a Doppler shift rate of 14, seeing 1.293 sec of the show during the remainder of the trip. Again, this agrees with what the Earth expects. There is no disagreement nor contradiction, even though the Earth assumed that both signals traveled at c with respect to itself and the ship assumes that the signals travel at c with respect to itself.

 

 

Here's the bottom line: there are no contradictions in Relativity, if you think you've found one, you have misunderstood something or made a mistake.

 

Now this is not to say that Relativity can never be shown to be wrong, but instead, it can not be shown wrong by the way you tried. No analogy or thought experiment by itself can disprove Relativity. In order to do that, you would have to provide an example from the real world that does not agree with Relativity's prediction.

 

IOW, if Relativty predicts given results for an experiment, and the actual experiment gives different results, then you have a case. But you are not going to do it with arguments on a forum.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Janus

[ajb]

I think Einstein was wrong. At least, he wasn't completely correct.

It really does not matter if Einstein was completley correct or not. We have had over 100 years of special relativity and nearly 100 years of general relativity to formulate and understand the nature of space, time and gravity. Today we have a much more sophisticated understanding of relativity than Einstein did.

 

Special and general relativity are mathematical theories that make predictions that can be tested against nature. Importantly, the theory agress very well with nature.

[Scott Mayers]

The length of the recordings, as measured by the receiving craft will be the same. The wavelength of the recordings will be different, but the same light as measured in reality by the receiving craft will travel at the same speed.

Yeah, relative to a fixed background, or aether. That is what Einstein based his theoretical explanation on -- the Michelson-Morley experiments. Even quantum mechanics is recognizing a fixed background now. This invalidates Einstein's explanation -- not the math. So that I don't have to requote what I said, please refer to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16098/P15/ as it is relevant to this discussion. I will try to think of a better way, in the meantime to improve my explanation. But I'm not in a rush to come back here to talk about it due to the insult of this section. (trash!) It makes it more dubious to trust anything this site has to say if it must conform to insult over reasoning.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Scott Mayers

[uncool]

The length of the recordings, as measured by the receiving craft will be the same. The wavelength of the recordings will be different, but the same light as measured in reality by the receiving craft will travel at the same speed.

What do you mean by "the lengths of the recordings, as measured by the receiving craft"? If you mean the time from reception start to reception end, as measured by the craft, then this is false, as I have shown already. If you mean the time from transmission start to transmission end, as measured by the craft, then this is true.

 

My analysis above deals solely with reception time; I'll deal with transmission time now.

 

Clearly, relative to the Earth (and the moon), transmission time is always an hour. Relative to the spaceship frame, we will multiply by gamma; transmission time is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) hours, by using the Lorentz transform (this applies both to the transmission from the Earth and from the moon).

=Uncool-

Edited July 21, 2013 by uncool

[swansont]

I'm not in a rush to come back here to talk about it due to the insult of this section. (trash!) It makes it more dubious to trust anything this site has to say if it must conform to insult over reasoning.

!

Moderator Note

There are some critiques of your work that focus on the science, and rather than ignore them you need to address them. If you do not, the thread will be closed.

[ACG52]

 

 

Yeah, relative to a fixed background, or aether. That is what Einstein based his theoretical explanation on -- the Michelson-Morley experiments.

That would be the M-M experiments which did NOT find an aether.

[Janus]

Yeah, relative to a fixed background, or aether. That is what Einstein based his theoretical explanation on -- the Michelson-Morley experiments. Even quantum mechanics is recognizing a fixed background now. This invalidates Einstein's explanation -- not the math. So that I don't have to requote what I said, please refer to http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/16098/P15/ as it is relevant to this discussion. I will try to think of a better way, in the meantime to improve my explanation. But I'm not in a rush to come back here to talk about it due to the insult of this section. (trash!) It makes it more dubious to trust anything this site has to say if it must conform to insult over reasoning.

Quantum mechanics does not recognize any fixed background. In fact, Quantum Electrodynamics represents the fusion of Quantum Mechanics and SR and it is one of the most successful theories in terms of prediction vs. observation.

 

Also, I should point out that this thread is in the "Speculations" forum, not the Trash can. The Trash can is a subforum of the Speculations forum and is under that heading near the top of the page. You have to actually click on "Trash can" in order to enter it.

[Scott Mayers]

!

Moderator Note

There are some critiques of your work that focus on the science, and rather than ignore them you need to address them. If you do not, the thread will be closed.

Go ahead and close it. I've decided that I'm going to be more attentive to sites that even have a section for 'trash'. If this "forum" was meant to be what it should, you wouldn't censor as you do. Apparently, this is a site only for people who already agree with one another. I recommend you just have links that send people to what you prefer them to KNOW and leave the pretense of reasonable discussion out of it. I like democracies and freedom of speech, not aristocratic dictators who want to learn me better.

[Bignose]

Apparently, this is a site only for people who already agree with one another.

I tried to converse with you.

 

I invited you to present a plot with the experimental data, your predictions, and the predictions made by relativity.

 

I am completely willing to pay attention if you can demonstrate that your idea is indeed better then what we have today. I think you'll find most scientists are similar. What most scientists do not appreciate, however, is someone telling them that the current theory is wrong without demonstrating a better alternative, because in the end scientists are very practical -- the theory that makes the best predictions are the most useful.

 

So, demonstrate that your idea makes the most predictions. It will pretty quickly become the most useful and get noticed.

[swansont]

Science is not a democracy — not all ideas have equal merit. Uncritical acceptance is not the function of the speculations section.