I MAY WIN A NOBEL FOR THIS: IVE FOUND A MAJOR FLAW IN THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!!!!

[darktheorist]

Ive caught two fundemental flaws in einsteins theory.

To begin with, heres a simplified definition of the theory of R, (copied off a reliable source off google)

 

Supposing we agree on one thing and one thing only - that the speed of light is ultimate and that everything else will bend around this fact: imagine a car chase scene from your favorite movie. The guy in the car in the back opens the window and shoots the car in front. The speed of the bullet would be, say, A but the speed of the car is B, so the real speed the bullet has is the sum of A and B. Now imagine that instead of a bullet, that guy has a flashlight - he'd be firing light at the other guy; light, which now travels at the velocity equal to the sum of C (speed of light) and B (the speed of the car). As this is against what we agreed on (greater than the speed of light), the pacing of time around that point has to slow down by a factor so that the new C+B speed is actually equal to C in that environment. This is called time dilation and could be the most fundamental thing brought by the theory of relativity.

 

 

Got that so far?

 

Now in the above analogy, everything goes well upto the point where the beam of light is fired from the flashlight.

And it is here that einstein makes his THUMPING, RESOUNDING ERROR!

 

For he asserts that

 

the total speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam

 

Where, pray, does the speed of the car come into the picture? At the moment of firing, the beam is for all practical purposes being fired from a STATIONARY OBJECT. At the moment it's being fired, it's leaving a FLASHLIGHT THAT'S STATIONARY IN THE UNIT CAPSULE OF THE TIME it takes to fire the beam!

 

AFTER being fired, the beam travels on its OWN volition, with NO ASSISTANCE from the car!

 

So its just at that TINY FRACTION of time during when the beam is EXITING the flashlight, that it's speed, which we will call ITS SPEED OF EJECTION, equals (the speed of the beam + the speed of the car.)

BEYOND that, after its ejection, it travels of its own volition, with NO ASSISTANCE FROM THE CAR.

 

i.e theres no way the speed of the car could EVER affect the beam's speed, during its trajectory after leaving the flashlight, to its destination.

 

In a nutshell,

 

The speed of the car + the speed of the beam= THE SPEED OF EJECTION

 

NOT the entire speed at which the beam traverses the length from point A to B!

 

after its ejection, it continues at the normal speed of light, leading to NO time dilation, NO warping, NO STAR WARS BS!

 

GOT YOU, EINSTEIN!

Edited December 27, 2015 by darktheorist

[swansont]

Without reading the post, I will say: no, you haven't

 

Now in the above analogy, everything goes well upto the point where the beam of light is fired from the flashlight.

And it is here that einstein makes his THUMPING, RESOUNDING ERROR!

 

For he asserts that

 

the speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam

 

 

Where does he say that? You need to point us to the source with citations, so that we can be sure you haven't just misunderstood. As you most likely have.

 

I can't find any mention of a car in his 1905 paper (why would he use a car as an example, in 1905?)

[darktheorist]

Without reading the post, I will say: no, you haven't

'without reading the post' is the keyword.

An atttude typical of todays scientists, to push ahead of the facts, and yet conclude and decude in all ignorance.

clapclap

[Strange]

IFor he asserts that

 

the speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam

 

Actually, he says the exact opposite: the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source (and of the observer).

 

Maybe you should understand the theory before attacking it?

[darktheorist]

Without reading the post, I will say: no, you haven't

 

Where does he say that? You need to point us to the source with citations, so that we can be sure you haven't just misunderstood. As you most likely have.

 

I can't find any mention of a car in his 1905 paper (why would he use a car as an example, in 1905?)

 

delighted to oblige ya.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, I only perused it by way of getting an easy laymans explanation to the theory of relativity.

read it and you'll see thats exactly what was said.

[swansont]

'without reading the post' is the keyword.

An atttude typical of todays scientists, to push ahead of the facts, and yet conclude and decude in all ignorance.

clapclap

 

No, the problem here is that you did not just step in and see a major flaw (much less two) that thousands upon thousands of scientists have missed for more than 100 years. The most likely answer is that you misunderstood something.

[Strange]

 

To begin with, heres a simplified definition of the theory of R, (copied off a reliable source off google)

 

As you don't give your source, I am not sure it is reliable.

Did you have a similar thread on this before: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89062-i-may-win-a-nobel-for-this-ive-disproved-relativity

Edited December 27, 2015 by Strange

[darktheorist]

 

Actually, he says the exact opposite: the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source (and of the observer).

 

Maybe you should understand the theory before attacking it?

 

its you who's misunderstood.

He does definitely say that the speed of light-or of the beam fired from the car in the anology, is equal to ITS OWN SPEED PLUS the speed of the car its ejected from. Hence the time dilation to make allowance for the excess 'speed'.

Please have the goodness to read my ENTIRE post and not theorizing from bits and peices of it picked up from here and there.

[swansont]

delighted to oblige ya.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, I only perused it by way of getting an easy laymans explanation to the theory of relativity.

read it and you'll see thats exactly what was said.

At best, you have shown that "Gavrilov Miroslav, Programmer" misunderstands relativity.

 

Perhaps you should take on the actual theory, and not someone else's representation of it. Certainly not "a layman's view" of it - you aren't getting very far with that.

[Strange]

 

delighted to oblige ya.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, I only perused it by way of getting an easy laymans explanation to the theory of relativity.

read it and you'll see thats exactly what was said.

 

I can't see any such thing there. Quite the opposite, in fact. Perhaps you need to read it in more detail until you understand it.

[darktheorist]

 

No, the problem here is that you did not just step in and see a major flaw (much less two) that thousands upon thousands of scientists have missed for more than 100 years. The most likely answer is that you misunderstood something.

Maybe you're right, but then again, maybe you arent?

Why dont you READ my post and try to argue it based on what Ive said, instead of casually flinging in the suggestion that i may have erred without even bothering to READ it?

[Strange]

He does definitely say that the speed of light-or of the beam fired from the car in the anology, is equal to ITS OWN SPEED PLUS the speed of the car its ejected from. Hence the time dilation to make allowance for the excess 'speed'.

 

Where, exactly, does he say that?

Or even, where exactly doe the page you linked to say that?

[darktheorist]

LOL so now the guy's explanation of the theory is wrong?

What's taking shape here is all of you bending and twisting in whatever way you can, to throw chaff in the eyes of my disprovation. Kinda like the erreneous theory itself, you are DILATING to make way for the excess idea here. Like the speed of light, Your stolid acceptance of every theory that exists is a constant; there is no way to go above you.

[Strange]

LOL so now the guy's explanation of the theory is wrong?

 

No (but I don't like his explanation and he confuses cause and effect). But you are making up quotes that don't exist on the page you reference and are, in fact, contradicted by it. And ascribing them to Einstein who never said them either.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

LOL so now the guy's explanation of the theory is wrong?

What's taking shape here is all of you bending and twisting in whatever way you can, to throw chaff in the eyes of my disprovation. Kinda like the erreneous theory itself, you are DILATING to make way for the excess idea here. Like the speed of light, Your stolid acceptance of every theory that exists is a constant; there is no way to go above you.

What is so laughable that someone's watered-down explanation of the theory could be wrong (I said "at best"), or that you have misunderstood it?

 

My acceptance of the theory is stolid; I see no reason for it to not be, but that's because it's based on understanding the derivation of it and the mounds of experimental evidence that it's correct.

[darktheorist]

 

Where, exactly, does he say that?

Or even, where exactly doe the page you linked to say that?

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, for what I hope is the last time.

Enjoy reading, and when you can finally bring yourself to come to terms with the fact that everything I said is as it is, perhaps you'll unbend, where the stubborn speed of light refused to bend, and accept my explanation for why the theory of relativity is flawed BIG time.

Cheerio.

 

No (but I don't like his explanation and he confuses cause and effect). But you are making up quotes that don't exist on the page you reference and are, in fact, contradicted by it. And ascribing them to Einstein who never said them either.

 

What am I making up exactly? It would help if you could pinpoint the exact place you say Ive fabricated material.

[Strange]

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, for what I hope is the last time.

Enjoy reading, and when you can finally bring yourself to come to terms with the fact that everything I said is as it is, perhaps you'll unbend, where the stubborn speed of light refused to bend, and accept my explanation for why the theory of relativity is flawed BIG time.

Cheerio.

 

I searched that page for your sentence: "the speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam".

 

It isn't there. So please stop lying.

[swansont]

 

Where, pray, does the speed of the car come into the picture? At the moment of firing, the beam is for all practical purposes being fired from a STATIONARY OBJECT. At the moment it's being fired, it's leaving a FLASHLIGHT THAT'S STATIONARY IN THE UNIT CAPSULE OF THE TIME it takes to fire the beam!

 

AFTER being fired, the beam travels on its OWN volition, with NO ASSISTANCE from the car!

 

 

That's true of a ball thrown from a moving platform, too, so I wonder why you think this is any sort of "gotchya". If you throw a ball at 20 m/s (relative to you) from a moving vehicle that's going 20 m/s, the ball will be going 40 m/s relative to the ground. The thing is, if we could measure the speeds to a much higher precision, we would find that they don't actually add linearly.

 

If the vehicle were a rocket moving at half the speed of light and the ball was launched at half the speed of light from the rocket, it would not move at the speed of light.

 

Gavrilov Miroslav's explanation is awkward, and ultimately wrong. Time dilation occurs, but applying to light isn't correct.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-explain-the-Theory-of-Relativity-in-laymans-terms-How-can-you-explain-it-to-a-child-or-teenager

 

theres the link, for what I hope is the last time.

Enjoy reading, and when you can finally bring yourself to come to terms with the fact that everything I said is as it is, perhaps you'll unbend, where the stubborn speed of light refused to bend, and accept my explanation for why the theory of relativity is flawed BIG time.

Cheerio.

 

What am I making up exactly? It would help if you could pinpoint the exact place you say Ive fabricated material.

 

The main problem, as has been pointed out, is that you are quoting Gavrilov Miroslav, not Einstein. You are not using a reliable source.

[darktheorist]

 

I searched that page for your sentence: "the speed of the beam of light as its fired from the car = the speed of the car + the speed of the beam".

 

It isn't there. So please stop lying.

Jesus Christ. Are you for real?

He DID say that, only the wording was different: heres EXACTLY what he said

"he'd be firing light at the other guy; light, which now travels at the velocity equal to the sum of C (speed of light) and B (the speed of the car)"

which is what my statement meant exactly, in different words.

[Strange]

There are some reasonable explanations on that page. But there are some terrible ones as well.

[swansont]

Jesus Christ. Are you for real?

He DID say that, only the wording was different: heres EXACTLY what he said

"he'd be firing light at the other guy; light, which now travels at the velocity equal to the sum of C (speed of light) and B (the speed of the car)"

which is what my statement meant exactly, in different words.

 

You need to keep reading, of course. He then explains why that doesn't end up being the case. But, again, he isn't really doing it right.

[darktheorist]

 

That's true of a ball thrown from a moving platform, too, so I wonder why you think this is any sort of "gotchya". If you throw a ball at 20 m/s (relative to you) from a moving vehicle that's going 20 m/s, the ball will be going 40 m/s relative to the ground. The thing is, if we could measure the speeds to a much higher precision, we would find that they don't actually add linearly.

Yes, because in the case of a BALL, the balls speed would DEPEND on the speed it was thrown! Where does it get its momentum from? Your THROWING POWER. Your ARM'S POWER has a direct say in how fast the ball goes. No so in the case of LIGHT.

Regardless of the light SOURCE, it travels at exactly the same speed. Wether the car were travelling at half the speed of light, or 60 mph, the speed of the beam of light emanating from it would be the same. Totally independent of the light source' speed.

Your analogy is wrong because it deals with an object whos forward speed IS DEPENDANT on the forward speed of its source.

[Strange]

Jesus Christ. Are you for real?

He DID say that, only the wording was different: heres EXACTLY what he said

"he'd be firing light at the other guy; light, which now travels at the velocity equal to the sum of C (speed of light) and B (the speed of the car)"

which is what my statement meant exactly, in different words.

 

Note the use of "he'd" at the start of the sentence. This is short for "he would" which is used to indicate the counter-factual or irrealis mood because, as he goes on to say in the next sentence, this is NOT what happens.

 

So he agrees with you that your statement is untrue. And that is why relativity works.

[darktheorist]

 

Note the use of "he'd" at the start of the sentence. This is short for "he would" which is used to indicate the counter-factual or irrealis mood because, as he goes on to say in the next sentence, this is NOT what happens.

 

So he agrees with you that your statement is untrue. And that is why relativity works.

when puerile, careless banter is used as a substitude for ice cold factual argument, I begin to 'beam' with pride as I see it as a sign that there arent any that would hold up against my own argument. Thank you for indirectly proving my disprovation right.

[swansont]

 

Yes, because in the case of a BALL, the balls speed would DEPEND on the speed it was thrown! Where does it get its momentum from? Your THROWING POWER. Your ARM'S POWER has a direct say in how fast the ball goes. No so in the case of LIGHT.

Regardless of the light SOURCE, it travels at exactly the same speed. Wether the car were travelling at half the speed of light, or 60 mph, the speed of the beam of light emanating from it would be the same. Totally independent of the light source' speed.

Your analogy is wrong because it deals with an object whos forward speed IS DEPENDANT on the forward speed of its source.

 

 

Indeed. But it's not unreasonable to think that light would behave the same way, if you didn't know it was invariant. That's where the naive assumption about linearly adding speeds comes from.

The fact that it is invariant is why we have length contraction and time dilation. And, of course, we must acknowledge that Gavrilov Miroslav did not present a good explanation.

 

The point here is that you will not win a Nobel for finding a flaw in some layperson's explanation of relativity. I will not be winning any awards for pointing out the flaws in your critique, either. That's not how it works.