Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Special Relativity is Flawed

psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes. It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved. Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM, psyduck wrote:
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes. It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved. Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

Probably should add more details to spare people from giving me a modern physics 101 lecture.

The twin paradox is well known, but I've never seen a convincing argument against it. Forget acceleration. Two people cross each other at relativistic speed. For clarity's sake, they have instant communication with each other (this shouldn't make a difference as the lag for communication could always be accounted for by calculation). How after a time interval will both of them be communicating with somebody whose time is moving slower/is younger?

The next example is the familiar one with the train, platform, and two sources of light. When the train meets the platform halfway between the light sources, they flash. it's clear that the observer will see the light hit the train at different times. The train passenger will insist that the light will hit his train simultaneously. That ruins energy conservation. Imagine that the train has a gigantic parasol that will open in the middle of this whole affair. In the platform's perspective, the train will absorb x amounts of light energy, but in the train's perspective, it can absorb a much higher amount of energy.

Also, whenever time dilation is explained, it uses either a calculation that the moving object is going towards the light source, the the calculation of two mirrors parallel to the movement of a relativistic object. I believe the mirror clock calculations is based off a gross overlooking of the number of possible explanations. What would happen if those mirrors were to be placed perpendicular to the movement vector? Time dilation doesn't pan out in the calculations.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 2:11:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM, psyduck wrote:
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes. It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved. Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

Apparently it makes sense - I hold my judgement. I've met a grand total of zero people who talk in favour of it and cite scientific publications as sources for their claims.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM, psyduck wrote:
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

That's an odd way to put it, but OK.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes.

Why is that a problem, reality is paradoxical too. that doesn't mean it's flawed.

It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved.

Sure it does, the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy had to be unified because of their equivalence, but energy is still conserved.

Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:03:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:40:31 PM, psyduck wrote:
The twin paradox is well known, but I've never seen a convincing argument against it. Forget acceleration. Two people cross each other at relativistic speed. For clarity's sake, they have instant communication with each other (this shouldn't make a difference as the lag for communication could always be accounted for by calculation). How after a time interval will both of them be communicating with somebody whose time is moving slower/is younger?

If their "relativistic speed" is the same then they their time dilation would be identical and neither would be younger. If one is moving closer to the speed of light than the other then the one moving closer to the speed of light would be younger than the other. In neither case would both of them be communicating with somebody who is younger.

The next example is the familiar one with the train, platform, and two sources of light. When the train meets the platform halfway between the light sources, they flash. it's clear that the observer will see the light hit the train at different times. The train passenger will insist that the light will hit his train simultaneously.

So you are saying that there are two light sources distance X apart. There is a platform located between the light sources at X/2. In what direction is the train traveling? I assume from the description it is moving from one light source to the other. Why do you say the train passengers will insist that the light will hit the train simultaneously? It will take some amount of time for the light from each light source to reach the train. During that time the train will have moved closer to the light source it is approaching and further from the light source it is departing. To both an observer on the ground and an observer in the train the light would hit at different times. If they both had clocks and timed the exact moment the light arrived their times would vary slightly.

Also, whenever time dilation is explained, it uses either a calculation that the moving object is going towards the light source, the the calculation of two mirrors parallel to the movement of a relativistic object. I believe the mirror clock calculations is based off a gross overlooking of the number of possible explanations. What would happen if those mirrors were to be placed perpendicular to the movement vector? Time dilation doesn't pan out in the calculations.

There is nothing useful in an experiment where the mirrors are perpendicular to the direction of motion. Relativity still works perfectly well, but in that case classical mechanics and relativity make the same prediction.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:13:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

The speed of light is constant with respect to an observer, any observer. This gives rise to each observer seeing the Universe in a unique way. This may sound illogical but all experiments that have tried to test aspects of relativity have agreed with relativity.

For example any measurement of the speed of light gives the same answer despite the fact that they are performed on a moving planet orbiting a moving star which orbits a galaxy. The speed has been measured to an uncertainty less than 0.2mph, far less than walking pace, so with the earth moving at 60,000mph we would have noticed.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:30:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:40:31 PM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM, psyduck wrote:
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes. It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved. Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

Probably should add more details to spare people from giving me a modern physics 101 lecture.

The twin paradox is well known, but I've never seen a convincing argument against it. Forget acceleration. Two people cross each other at relativistic speed. For clarity's sake, they have instant communication with each other (this shouldn't make a difference as the lag for communication could always be accounted for by calculation). How after a time interval will both of them be communicating with somebody whose time is moving slower/is younger?

You can"t just "forget acceleration", the twin paradox is accounted for by the asymmetrical acceleration within STR, you can"t falsify relativity by just arbitrarily changing the principles it is based on. And postulating instant communication does make a difference, and if the lag for communication can always be accounted for by calculations, then those same calculations can account for their communication with "somebody whose time is moving slower".

The next example is the familiar one with the train, platform, and two sources of light. When the train meets the platform halfway between the light sources, they flash. it's clear that the observer will see the light hit the train at different times. The train passenger will insist that the light will hit his train simultaneously. That ruins energy conservation. Imagine that the train has a gigantic parasol that will open in the middle of this whole affair. In the platform's perspective, the train will absorb x amounts of light energy, but in the train's perspective, it can absorb a much higher amount of energy.

The conservation laws only apply to closed systems and the total energy of the closed system is conserved, how it looks to different observers in different relativistic frames of reference doesn"t change the fact that the energy is conserved. The different observers in the system can observe different energy values but that has no bearing on the total energy of the system in which they are embedded. The different observers have different frames of reference and so the observed differences are perspectival, but that doesn"t contradict energy conservation by any stretch of the imagination.

Also, whenever time dilation is explained, it uses either a calculation that the moving object is going towards the light source, the the calculation of two mirrors parallel to the movement of a relativistic object. I believe the mirror clock calculations is based off a gross overlooking of the number of possible explanations. What would happen if those mirrors were to be placed perpendicular to the movement vector? Time dilation doesn't pan out in the calculations.

That"s just another perspectival difference, STR is a theory of invariance and the total system is completely deterministic as far as clock calculations are concerned, the appearance of differences between observers in different reference frames has no bearing on the calculations of the total system. Time dilation does in fact "pan out in the calculations".

I"m sorry if you think this reply is a "modern physics 101 lecture", but it"s necessarily the basic facts of Special Relativity applied to your examples.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:54:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 10:40:31 PM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/16/2014 10:15:42 PM, psyduck wrote:
Time dilation in special relativity was developed to remove any unique reference frame in a universe where the speed of light is a constant.

The problems are that time dilation causes paradoxes. It doesn't allow for energy to be conserved. Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

Probably should add more details to spare people from giving me a modern physics 101 lecture.

The twin paradox is well known, but I've never seen a convincing argument against it. Forget acceleration. Two people cross each other at relativistic speed. For clarity's sake, they have instant communication with each other (this shouldn't make a difference as the lag for communication could always be accounted for by calculation). How after a time interval will both of them be communicating with somebody whose time is moving slower/is younger?

After each observer takes into account the time delay of receiving a signal they will infer that time on the other ship is slower. In other words each will see the other red-shifted by an amount beyond that expected by classical Doppler theory. There is no paradox here. Each has a different point of view that is all.

The next example is the familiar one with the train, platform, and two sources of light. When the train meets the platform halfway between the light sources, they flash. it's clear that the observer will see the light hit the train at different times. The train passenger will insist that the light will hit his train simultaneously. That ruins energy conservation. Imagine that the train has a gigantic parasol that will open in the middle of this whole affair. In the platform's perspective, the train will absorb x amounts of light energy, but in the train's perspective, it can absorb a much higher amount of energy.

Energy conservation is a local effect. This is true in classical physics as well as relativistic. Consider a car of mass 2 kg moving at 2m/s relative to me. I calculate KE=4J. If you are moving at 1m/s relative to me you could calculate the cars KE to be 1J or 9 J depending on the direction you move in. Does this break conservation? We can only measure changes in energy not absolute values, this is because energy is found by the integration of force wrt distance and any integral has a constant of integration that can have any value.

Also, whenever time dilation is explained, it uses either a calculation that the moving object is going towards the light source, the the calculation of two mirrors parallel to the movement of a relativistic object. I believe the mirror clock calculations is based off a gross overlooking of the number of possible explanations. What would happen if those mirrors were to be placed perpendicular to the movement vector? Time dilation doesn't pan out in the calculations.

You do realise we have measured time dilation directly? Its not a theory its a fact. If your calculations of time dilation from perpendicular mirrors does not agree I suggest you review your assumptions and working. Remember that anything moving is length contracted in the direction of motion, so you get a gamma squared effect in your set up when trying to evaluate the slowing of the clock. Putting the mirrors parallel to the motion removes this complication. By the way, Einstein did not use the mirror calculation originally in OEMB. Instead he used a rigorous method that was not dependant on any one given type of clock.

The highest relative velocity ever achieved between to people is probably only about 30,000 m/s. As I am sure you can calculate that is about 0.01% of c. Relativistic effects are not within normal common sense. We can get tiny sub atomic particles up to relativistic speeds and all the experiments agree with relativity. If you do not like the thought experiments then I say fine ignore them and concentrate on what we know to be true.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:09:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:30:16 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

You can"t just "forget acceleration", the twin paradox is accounted for by the asymmetrical acceleration within STR, you can"t falsify relativity by just arbitrarily changing the principles it is based on. And postulating instant communication does make a difference, and if the lag for communication can always be accounted for by calculations, then those same calculations can account for their communication with "somebody whose time is moving slower".


I know that assymetrical acceleration makes up for the time gap in STR. That's why I got rid of it. Time dilation states that an object moving at relativistic speed will have slowed down time. So I created a scenario with just relativistic speed. You need asymmetrical acceleration to explain way this paradox. I don't want to give it to you.

The conservation laws only apply to closed systems and the total energy of the closed system is conserved, how it looks to different observers in different relativistic frames of reference doesn"t change the fact that the energy is conserved. The different observers in the system can observe different energy values but that has no bearing on the total energy of the system in which they are embedded. The different observers have different frames of reference and so the observed differences are perspectival, but that doesn"t contradict energy conservation by any stretch of the imagination.


Fine maybe it doesn't go against conservation of energy, but it does create an energy paradox. If the train collected that light energy, and stored it in a simple matter. The platform and train would have different understandings of how much energy was collected. The train can simple turn around, go back to the platform and have a energy canister that should have two different energies

That"s just another perspectival difference, STR is a theory of invariance and the total system is completely deterministic as far as clock calculations are concerned, the appearance of differences between observers in different reference frames has no bearing on the calculations of the total system. Time dilation does in fact "pan out in the calculations".


Here let me explain what I mean. On a ship with two mirrors, a photon bouncing between them will do so at equal intervals. When the mirror is observed from a different reference frame, the light is thought to be moving in the same manner. This is how time dilation is calculated using a mirror clock because the photon has to go the hypotenuse to an outside observer but only a side to one on the ship. However, when you turn the mirrors sideways, this just shows how unsubstantial this calculation is. there's no way for an observer to blieve a light beam is hitting the mirrors at equal intervals.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:19:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:54:39 AM, chui wrote:

After each observer takes into account the time delay of receiving a signal they will infer that time on the other ship is slower. In other words each will see the other red-shifted by an amount beyond that expected by classical Doppler theory. There is no paradox here. Each has a different point of view that is all.

Imagine being on the phone with somebody and their time is moving slower. Also, according to them, your time is moving slower. Of course that's a paradox.


Energy conservation is a local effect. This is true in classical physics as well as relativistic. Consider a car of mass 2 kg moving at 2m/s relative to me. I calculate KE=4J. If you are moving at 1m/s relative to me you could calculate the cars KE to be 1J or 9 J depending on the direction you move in. Does this break conservation? We can only measure changes in energy not absolute values, this is because energy is found by the integration of force wrt distance and any integral has a constant of integration that can have any value.

Yeah, but I'm basing my example off how much energy was taken from the system, so it's applicable.

You do realise we have measured time dilation directly? Its not a theory its a fact. If your calculations of time dilation from perpendicular mirrors does not agree I suggest you review your assumptions and working. Remember that anything moving is length contracted in the direction of motion, so you get a gamma squared effect in your set up when trying to evaluate the slowing of the clock. Putting the mirrors parallel to the motion removes this complication. By the way, Einstein did not use the mirror calculation originally in OEMB. Instead he used a rigorous method that was not dependant on any one given type of clock.

We've measured time dilation, but that always involves acceleration. Then the effect of Special is calculated in. I don't believe we've ever observed SPT directly. Also as a favor, I would like to see his original rigorous method.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:23:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:13:07 AM, chui wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

The speed of light is constant with respect to an observer, any observer. This gives rise to each observer seeing the Universe in a unique way. This may sound illogical but all experiments that have tried to test aspects of relativity have agreed with relativity.

For example any measurement of the speed of light gives the same answer despite the fact that they are performed on a moving planet orbiting a moving star which orbits a galaxy. The speed has been measured to an uncertainty less than 0.2mph, far less than walking pace, so with the earth moving at 60,000mph we would have noticed.

lol
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:30:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:19:06 AM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:54:39 AM, chui wrote:

After each observer takes into account the time delay of receiving a signal they will infer that time on the other ship is slower. In other words each will see the other red-shifted by an amount beyond that expected by classical Doppler theory. There is no paradox here. Each has a different point of view that is all.

Imagine being on the phone with somebody and their time is moving slower. Also, according to them, your time is moving slower. Of course that's a paradox.


Energy conservation is a local effect. This is true in classical physics as well as relativistic. Consider a car of mass 2 kg moving at 2m/s relative to me. I calculate KE=4J. If you are moving at 1m/s relative to me you could calculate the cars KE to be 1J or 9 J depending on the direction you move in. Does this break conservation? We can only measure changes in energy not absolute values, this is because energy is found by the integration of force wrt distance and any integral has a constant of integration that can have any value.

Yeah, but I'm basing my example off how much energy was taken from the system, so it's applicable.

Um, you may not have heard the news but

E=mc^2 + (pc)^2 where p is the momentum (mv) of an object. Momentum will always increase but the relative mass will also increase. Energy will always remain conserved here.

You do realise we have measured time dilation directly? Its not a theory its a fact. If your calculations of time dilation from perpendicular mirrors does not agree I suggest you review your assumptions and working. Remember that anything moving is length contracted in the direction of motion, so you get a gamma squared effect in your set up when trying to evaluate the slowing of the clock. Putting the mirrors parallel to the motion removes this complication. By the way, Einstein did not use the mirror calculation originally in OEMB. Instead he used a rigorous method that was not dependant on any one given type of clock.

We've measured time dilation, but that always involves acceleration. Then the effect of Special is calculated in. I don't believe we've ever observed SPT directly. Also as a favor, I would like to see his original rigorous method.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:34:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

Someone give me some math for this please.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:36:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:30:49 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

E=mc^2 + (pc)^2 where p is the momentum (mv) of an object. Momentum will always increase but the relative mass will also increase. Energy will always remain conserved here.

Yes, the kinetic energy of the train is conserved. I'm talking about the light energy hit by the umbrella.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:48:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:36:56 AM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:30:49 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

E=mc^2 + (pc)^2 where p is the momentum (mv) of an object. Momentum will always increase but the relative mass will also increase. Energy will always remain conserved here.

Yes, the kinetic energy of the train is conserved. I'm talking about the light energy hit by the umbrella.

Oh, well light too has momentum p=h/wavelength since light is quantized into packets called photons.

The wavelength is what changes when you do this experiment, and is what we observe as red-shift or blue-shift depending on the relative motions of the objects. Red shifting reduces the energy per photon, and vice versa. It's this reason why the cosmic microwave background is so heavily in the microwave region.

If you were to fall into a black hole a similar effect happens for the outside observer, the photons given off by your spaghettifying corpse will become redder and redder as you approach the event horizon.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:52:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:48:42 AM, Sswdwm wrote:


Oh, well light too has momentum p=h/wavelength since light is quantized into packets called photons.

The wavelength is what changes when you do this experiment, and is what we observe as red-shift or blue-shift depending on the relative motions of the objects. Red shifting reduces the energy per photon, and vice versa. It's this reason why the cosmic microwave background is so heavily in the microwave region.

If you were to fall into a black hole a similar effect happens for the outside observer, the photons given off by your spaghettifying corpse will become redder and redder as you approach the event horizon.

Yes, I know redshift. I'm saying that an umbrella opens collecting a different amount of photons to an observer on the train and platform. Please read what I postulated before arguing against it.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:57:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:53:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Sswdwm, do you have the math I'm asking for?

Are you looking for t'=t sqrt(1-beta^2), where t' is dilated time and t observed time?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:59:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:57:18 AM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:53:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Sswdwm, do you have the math I'm asking for?

Are you looking for t'=t sqrt(1-beta^2), where t' is dilated time and t observed time?

I'm looking for some explanation of how light could be possibly be a constant in the scenario I presented. I'm not down with the math dude, any chance you could put it in English? It's a pretty simple scenario.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:19:06 AM, psyduck wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:54:39 AM, chui wrote:

After each observer takes into account the time delay of receiving a signal they will infer that time on the other ship is slower. In other words each will see the other red-shifted by an amount beyond that expected by classical Doppler theory. There is no paradox here. Each has a different point of view that is all.

Imagine being on the phone with somebody and their time is moving slower. Also, according to them, your time is moving slower. Of course that's a paradox.

A paradox must be impossible. There is nothing impossible here. So they both hear/see something different. So what? I do not see what you see, is that a paradox? If the twins arrived at the same place and time and relativity said that they were both younger then that is a paradox. But while they are separate there is no problem. Is it a problem that they are both red shifted? No and that is exactly the same thing as time mutually slowed.


Energy conservation is a local effect. This is true in classical physics as well as relativistic. Consider a car of mass 2 kg moving at 2m/s relative to me. I calculate KE=4J. If you are moving at 1m/s relative to me you could calculate the cars KE to be 1J or 9 J depending on the direction you move in. Does this break conservation? We can only measure changes in energy not absolute values, this is because energy is found by the integration of force wrt distance and any integral has a constant of integration that can have any value.

Yeah, but I'm basing my example off how much energy was taken from the system, so it's applicable.
You miss my point. Consider the car speeding up by 1m/s. I now calculate 9J, a change of 5 J and you calculate either a change of 3J or 7J. The observations are different. Its all about point of view. In both points of view energy would be conserved, but the energy changes observed can be different between points of view.


You do realise we have measured time dilation directly? Its not a theory its a fact. If your calculations of time dilation from perpendicular mirrors does not agree I suggest you review your assumptions and working. Remember that anything moving is length contracted in the direction of motion, so you get a gamma squared effect in your set up when trying to evaluate the slowing of the clock. Putting the mirrors parallel to the motion removes this complication. By the way, Einstein did not use the mirror calculation originally in OEMB. Instead he used a rigorous method that was not dependant on any one given type of clock.

We've measured time dilation, but that always involves acceleration. Then the effect of Special is calculated in. I don't believe we've ever observed SPT directly.
The transverse Doppler effect is a prediction of relativity and not of classical physics. First shown by Ives and Stillwell in 1938, it can be explained by time dilation of steadily moving particles. The particles are initially accelerated but at the time they emit light they are moving at a steady speed so acceleration need not be considered. I do not see a problem with calculating in an effect anyway as long as the maths is correct. Since we are talking about particle effects we are not going to see anything directly. As for SPT, sorry I don't recognise that acronym.
Another classic piece of evidence for time dilation is of course muon detection at ground based detectors. Here again I do not see how acceleration plays a part.

Also as a favor, I would like to see his original rigorous method.

Happy to oblige. Here is a reliable translation:
https://www.fourmilab.ch...

Section 2 and 3 show the derivation of the transforms that Lorentz invented to correct Maxwell's laws. Section 4 discusses the implications of them. Section 1 is worth a read because he discusses what time and distance are. Section 6 shows how Lorentz's transforms make the Maxwell laws velocity independent as experiment had shown they should be. A lot of this section is very similar to Lorentz's work, for which Lorentz got a Nobel prize.The unusual thing about this paper is that there is no bibliography. Einstein took all the credit for this theory for himself, which was incredibly poor etiquette, but he justified this by saying that Lorentz had only guessed at the transforms whereas Einstein derived them from basic principles.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:46:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I couldn't have asked a simpler question dudes, lol. I'm gonna read a book on this sh*t some day, I swear.
psyduck
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 9:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 9:16:17 AM, chui wrote:
you make good points, and I'm short on time. For transverse doppler, I believe that a width contraction could possibly form an alternative explanation. I don't have it all worked out myself.
To make a paradox...that's tricky. It's like trying to figure out one of those door-logic problems. Okay, two ships are travelling away from each other. After 5 seconds, they both fire a blue laser at the other. That laser should be fired after 5 seconds on the other ship. Once they receive the laser, they head back. Each side will reach their destination last according to their perspective.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:37:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:34:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

Someone give me some math for this please.

Ok I tried explaining it before but you did not follow the simple reasoning so I'll try to be even simpler.

First we will need to simplify your scenario further. Lets imagine that at the instant the two sources cross they emit a pulse of light forwards and backwards and the relative velocity of the two sources is half light speed.

After 1 second according to the 'stationary' source the light pulses are one light-second away in each direction and the moving source is half a light-second away and half a light-second behind its forward moving pulse.

From the moving sources point of view after one second it sees all light pulses a light-second away and the stationary source half a light-second behind it and half a light-second from the backwards going pulses.

These two view points appear contradictory. They are reconciled by factoring in time dilation and length contraction. Each observer looks at the other observer and claims that for the other time is slowed and length contracted, causing the other to make measurements that lead them to believe light expands like a sphere centred on themselves.

The maths for this is in OEMB section 3
https://www.fourmilab.ch...
Here Einstein shows that light spreads out in a sphere around all sources of light no matter what speed they move at and no matter what other observers see.

He starts from the stationary observer. Imagine he sends out a spherical light pulse. This is described by the equation:

c^2t^2=x^2+y^2+z^2 .........(1)

He then applies the Lorentz transforms to the measurements of the first observer and shows that the second observer moving past at velocity v also gets a sphere from his measurements.

c^2T^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2 .......(2)

The transforms are:
T=gamma(t-vx/c^2)
X=gamma(x-vt)
Y=y
Z=z

Where gamma is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Btw its easier to start from the second equation, sub in the transforms and show that you get the first equation.
Einstein describes this as a simple calculation.

Lol.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:44:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:37:54 AM, chui wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:34:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

Someone give me some math for this please.

Ok I tried explaining it before but you did not follow the simple reasoning so I'll try to be even simpler.

No you didn't. All you did was reiterate that the speed of light stays constant always, which is the crux of my problem, as that defies all sense.

First we will need to simplify your scenario further. Lets imagine that at the instant the two sources cross they emit a pulse of light forwards and backwards and the relative velocity of the two sources is half light speed.

After 1 second according to the 'stationary' source the light pulses are one light-second away in each direction and the moving source is half a light-second away and half a light-second behind its forward moving pulse.

From the moving sources point of view after one second it sees all light pulses a light-second away and the stationary source half a light-second behind it and half a light-second from the backwards going pulses.

These two view points appear contradictory. They are reconciled by factoring in time dilation and length contraction. Each observer looks at the other observer and claims that for the other time is slowed and length contracted, causing the other to make measurements that lead them to believe light expands like a sphere centred on themselves.

The maths for this is in OEMB section 3
https://www.fourmilab.ch...
Here Einstein shows that light spreads out in a sphere around all sources of light no matter what speed they move at and no matter what other observers see.

He starts from the stationary observer. Imagine he sends out a spherical light pulse. This is described by the equation:

c^2t^2=x^2+y^2+z^2 .........(1)

He then applies the Lorentz transforms to the measurements of the first observer and shows that the second observer moving past at velocity v also gets a sphere from his measurements.

c^2T^2=X^2+Y^2+Z^2 .......(2)

The transforms are:
T=gamma(t-vx/c^2)
X=gamma(x-vt)
Y=y
Z=z

Where gamma is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Btw its easier to start from the second equation, sub in the transforms and show that you get the first equation.
Einstein describes this as a simple calculation.

Lol.

Dude, will you just do the math for me. Throw in some figures and there's a formula? Sorry I lol'd at your earlier response, btw. I'll forgive you your condescension seeing as I did :P
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:00:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My problem is that there's correction going on in two different directions, which makes no sense. Both observers see light as having traveled the same distance, in each direction. But for the moving observer, light has traversed a greater distance is one way, and a lesser distance in the other. Time dilation solves it in one direction, but only drives what should be the perceived speed of light out further in the other direction. Just put that in a formula for me, and I'll figure it from the formula.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 12:32:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:34:31 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:47:05 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:02:53 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Also, it is contradictory with itself at the basic level.

How so?

Say you have a static and a moving light source, each shining lights in two directions, backwards and forwards, one source moving in the forward direction after its emitted light beam. How do you correct there? If you try to correct to keep the speed of light at a constant moving in the forward direction, you screw it in the backwards direction, and vice versa.

Of course I know that's probably not Special Relativity at all, but the thought experiments for it don't make any sense.

Someone give me some math for this please.

Yes I can. The spacetime continuum has what is called "the interval," which is what corrects for relativity. It makes no intuitive sense to a slow-moving object like a human that if we have two objects which are stationary to each other, which both suddenly accelerate at one another at 99% of the speed of light, that they are still approaching each other at only 99.99999....% the speed of light. Does it.

The interval is expressed as the square root of {your squared speed minus your squared time}. I can't make a square-root symbol so it will be "\/" :P
\/(s^2-t^2)

In practical terms, let us imagine that you are sitting there in Ireland and I am in Wisconsin. We both decide to approach each other and both of us accelerate to 9/10 the speed of light. Without relativity, we'd be traveling at 18/10ths the speed of light at each other. But we don't because our frame of reference changes what we "see." When you start going very fast, you start exchanging more and more of your movement through time with your movement through space. When the space-cadet twin travels out and returns, he finds his domestic twin old and very aged. Also, you shorten the distance along which you are going, which is kind of hard to conceive for me too but I'm still trying.

If you were to approach Wisconsin right now at 87% the speed of light, you would shorten the distance lengthwise by 50% and experience time at 50% its current speed. The way the math works out, 50% of the dilation effects occur in the last 13% of the speed of light - it's heavily back-loaded, so we don't notice any of the effects unless we are going unimaginably fast. If I threw a football to you over a distance of 10 m and at a speed of 10 m/s while you were approaching, you would only "experience" the football going 5 m and traveling 5 m/s, so you would see it approaching you at 87%c + 5 m/s. As you got faster towards c, you'd experience less and less of spacetime so that your answer would never hit 100%c.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.