Special Relativity Is False
Voting Style:  Open  Point System:  7 Point  
Started:  9/16/2017  Category:  Philosophy  
Updated:  3 months ago  Status:  Post Voting Period  
Viewed:  569 times  Debate No:  103986 
The following syllogism demonstrates the absurdity and impossibility of Special Relativity (c = 186,282 miles per second):
Impossible! I thought your opening argument was well presented. I noticed nobody had yet accepted your debate and I believe the time remaining to accept it was less than 24 hours. So, I decided I would be nice and accept it. It's possible I'm not the best expert on Special Relativity. Nevertheless, for the sake of this debate, I assume a faith in Special Relativity. It seems Premise 1 is false. Photons always travel at c through a vacuum.(1)(2) Premise 1 does not include the vacuum constraint. It thus seems that in my everyday life on Earth with air all around me, as approximately true as Premise 1 may be, Premise 1 is false. It seems factors such as air and gravity would slow down the speed of photons. Photons always have zero rest mass.(1) I think that in order for an object to have inertia, it must have some nonzero mass. That is suggested by the force = mass * acceleration equation. Therefore, photons with zero rest mass can never have inertia. That suggests that photons with zero rest mass can never have inertial reference frames. It thus might be true that no photons can ever have their own inertial reference frames. Premise 2 may be false on the grounds that photons are an exception. Photons might be theoretical objects that don't have a physical existence, similar to geometric points, lines, and planes. That epistemic possibility suggests it's epistemically possible, with respect to me, that photons are not entities applicable to Premise 2 as you have implicitly assumed them to be. I thought that physical objects can not move at c because that would require an infinite amount of energy. I thought that years ago I saw a graph on Wikipedia that suggested that. So, there is more evidence that photons are not physical objects, but are theoretical objects. In a recently completed debate I instigated, I actually supported the position that all propositions are true.(3) I continue to support that position. The universe is inconsistent. There might be results in quantum mechanics that further support that position. Reality is too dynamic to be consistent. Since all propositions are true, I agree that your conclusion is impossible. However, since all propositions are true, your conclusion is also not impossible. Therefore, you are wrong and your argument fails to disprove Special Relativity. Sources Cited: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.debate.org... 

"I noticed nobody had yet accepted your debate and I believe the time remaining to accept it was less than 24 hours. So, I decided I would be nice and accept it." Thank you very much! You are too kind. "Photons always travel at c through a vacuum. Premise 1 does not include the vacuum constraint. It thus seems that in my everyday life on Earth with air all around me, as approximately true as Premise 1 may be, Premise 1 is false." Very well. I update my argument as follows:
"Photons always have zero rest mass." Your criticism of Special Relativity has been reduced to the case of being in a vacuum. However, my entire life, and the entire lives of everybody else in known existence, are not lived in a vacuum. I think anybody who lived even for a short time in a vacuum would suffer serious physical injury or death. So, even if your refined criticism of Special Relativity were true, it would not apply to the everyday lives of everybody in known existence. So, even if your refined criticism were true, Special Relativity would still remain true when applied to the everyday lives of everybody in known existence. While much of the universe may be considered to be a vacuum, much of the universe is not a vacuum. So much of your refined criticism does not apply. I'm not entirely sure what "rest mass" is and how it differs from the standard, classical notion of mass. You claim that photons must have mass because they exist. You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you. Nonetheless, I can think of what may, epistemically with respect to me, be counterexamples to that claim: geometric points, lines, and planes, and real numbers. Those things exist, but may have no mass. They may have no physical existence. They may exist only in the mind. They may be theoretical objects. For Advanced Placement Physics as a senior in high school, I read A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes by Stephen Hawking. I believe that in the book, Hawking discusses the existence or proposed existence of at least several theoretical particles in the field of physics. Photons may have even been among them. Special Relativity does not prohibit photons from moving at c. Photons always move at c through a vacuum.(1, supra) I think that basic property would be consistent with Special Relativity. It is impossible for matter to travel at c.(4) An infinite amount of energy is required to move matter at c.(4) It's evident in (4) that matter and photons are distinguished from each other. To answer your end question from the previous round, yes, even if you lose this debate, you win. Since all propositions are true, the following two propositions are true. 1. You will win this debate and I will win this debate. 2. You are on both sides of this debate and I am on both sides of this debate. I know about Albert Einstein's ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, which you cited. I don't believe I've ever read it in its entirety. Source Cited: (4) https://www.livescience.com... 

"Your criticism of Special Relativity has been reduced to the case of being in a vacuum." The application of my criticism can be made universal by modifying it like so:
"You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you." Statements (Reasons) A. If a thing has mass, then it can't travel at c. (From my (4), supra. (4) is "Can Matter Travel at Light Speed?" on Live Science by Live Science Staff.) B. Photons can travel at c. (From my (1), supra and my (4), supra. (1) is "Photon" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors.) C. Photons do not have mass. (modus tollens using (A) and (B)) So, my (C) shows photons are not matter. Thus, in that sense, photons are not physical particles. Since photons don't have mass, it seems they don't have inertia. And if photons don't have inertia, I don't see how they can have inertial reference frames. I made a similar point in my opening argument that you never rebutted. As (5), infra, suggests, inertial reference frames require physical bodies. As (6), infra, implies, physical bodies require matter. Physical bodies are in contrast to theoretical bodies such as photons. So, it seems your implicit assumption that photons have their own inertial reference frames is incorrect. Your (C) from this round seems to not be impossible. I don't see how "a photon's speed is zero" and "the sum of its actual speed, plus the speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is c" are incompatible. No explicit contradiction is there. I don't even see an implicit contradiction. One of the subjects of the two conjuncts of your alleged impossible conclusion (C) from this round is a speed; the other is a sum. A speed and a sum can be compatible. For example, a motor vehicle's speed on Route 36 is 40 miles per hour, but the sum of its speed and the speed it lost by not being on Highway 27 with a speed of 65 miles per hour is 40 miles per hour + (65 miles per hour  40 miles per hour) = 40 miles per hour + 15 miles per hour = 65 miles per hour. The example presents no incompatibility. Sources Cited: (5) "Inertial frame of reference" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors, https://en.wikipedia.org... (6) "Physical body" on Wikipedia by Wikipedia contributors, https://en.wikipedia.org... 

"A. If a thing has mass, then it can't travel at c."
I disagree with this premise. In fact, I have already proven it wrong. Photons travel at c; we both agree. Photons have mass; we both agree here too, as proven this statement of yours: "You implicitly rest your case on the claim that if a thing exists, then it has mass. It seems you are right, and I tend to agree with you." Photons exist, so they have mass, and they travel at c, so contrary to your first premise, a thing with mass can travel at c. "Since photons don't have mass, it seems they don't have inertia. And if photons don't have inertia, I don't see how they can have inertial reference frames." Since I just established photons have mass, it follows that they have inertia, and they have inertial reference frames. " I don't see how "a photon's speed is zero" and "the sum of its actual speed, plus the speed lost due to the refractive index of the medium it is traveling through, is c" are incompatible." In that second equation, both the "actual speed" and the "speed lost" are always numbers between 0 and c. Since it is impossible for these two numbers to sum to zero, the second equation (speed + speed lost = c) will always contradict the first (speed = 0). And that is the contradiction. "No explicit contradiction is there. I don't even see an implicit contradiction. One of the subjects of the two conjuncts of your alleged impossible conclusion (C) from this round is a speed; the other is a sum. A speed and a sum can be compatible." In my opening argument for this debate, I supported the view that all propositions are true. A proof that all propositions are true is located in my (3), supra. In the next paragraph with words, I present that proof with some additional italic formatting. Consider the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square." Since some rectangles are squares, a rectangle is a square. Thus, p is true. Since some rectangles are not squares, a rectangle is not a square. Thus, p is not true. So by Conjunction Introduction, p is true and p is not true. But that is a contradiction. Since every proposition follows from a contradiction by the Principle of Explosion, the proposition "all propositions are true" is true. Therefore, all propositions are true. Since all propositions are true, the proposition "photons have mass and travel at c" is true. So, I agree with you that photons have mass and travel at c. Since photons travel at c, I further agree with you that "a thing with mass can travel at c." Since all propositions are true, the proposition "photons do not have mass, do not have inertia, and do not have inertial reference frames" is true. Thus, photons do not have mass, do not have inertia, and do not have inertial reference frames. The equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" do not contradict. Substituting 0 for speed in "speed + speed lost = c" results in "0 + speed lost = c." By simplification, "speed lost = c." Since there is a pair of values (speed, speed lost) that makes both equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" true, the equations do not contradict in the sense that they are not incompatible. Furthermore, since all propositions are true, the proposition "the equations 'speed + speed lost = c' and 'speed = 0' do not contradict" is true. Therefore, the equations "speed + speed lost = c" and "speed = 0" do not contradict. 

I messed up my conclusion for too many rounds, you're right it doesn't necessarily have a contradiction. My original syllogism was correct though, I just messed up trying to modify it to include nonvacuum cases. Although it still proves Special Relativity wrong.
Your original syllogism may be able to be appropriately modified to present a counterexample to Special Relativity. However, it seems the counterexample you have attempted to reveal depends on the apparently unconventional view that protons have mass. The view that protons have mass might itself falsify Special Relativity. All propositions are true. "Special Relativity is true" is a proposition. So, "Special Relativity is true" is true. Therefore, Special Relativity is true. 
Geocentricist  holla1755  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  0  0 
The speed of Light can always be calculated as the constant relative to one position, one instant, by mass and velocity. In contradiction to any other interpretation. Otherwise light would simply need to be selfpropelled. It clearly is not selfpropelled. The issue is with the use of fix equation it is many ways special relativity can be established as wrong. It"s a fix outcome meaning it cheats to be right Goldtop. There is a purpose of these type equations, but the purpose is in no way ever relative. It is fixed under false conditions and these conditions are not Boolean.
The greatest obstacle is the fact that relativity is a description of velocity and therefore answers to laws of motion which is why Special relativity, and relativity interpret Isaac Newton"s work by linear equation, so law of motion can be ignored using the fix. What is important is that Special relativity can be used to try and formulate a start to spite the use of a fix for outcome. Though this is even less important than to formulate the overall mathematical condition it might set.
Relativity is not applicable to the Analogue clock as the principle is based on spherical trigonometry, and its linear interpretation is impossible to make as the outcome is indefinite. The trigonometry by physical expression of expansion, a true example of the universe by its expanding process is made. Here again fractions as a tool of timing are misused as a poor substitute for many reasons.
What's worse, it's a willful lack of understanding.
Premise 2. Gibberish
Conclusion. Wrong. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame for a photon.
Premise 2. Gibberish
Conclusion. Wrong. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame for a photon.