Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

I believe Einstein made a mistake.

Pirate
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 3:07:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was reading a french magazine, can't remember which one, probably LaRecherche or Science&Vie, in which i saw an interesting sentence. Although i can't remember exactly how it was presented, i'll write here what i remember.

"Be A and B two distinct persons (humans), standing in two very far apart places in the Universe. Be C the location where a Supernova is happening. B is much closer from C than A. Therefore, B receives light from C before A. As soon as B sees the supernova, B reports it. He says "There is a supernova happening now". Then A gets the light from the supernova, the supernova is already over. He reports it the same way B did. These two persons are right, that is why we speak of relative times. Each person had their own distinct relative time."

If the words are far different, the idea behind it is the same. If someone sees something and he says it's happening, then that person is right. Therefore Einstein created this notion of relative time. Am i the only person seeing how wrong this is? B is wrong, and so is A, when they say the supernova is beginning, it's probably already in the midle of it.

I didn't read much about Relativity, but if this is what it's based on, then it's awfuly wrong. On the other hand, how could generations of scientists not spot this? But also, how can a well known science magazine publish this as being Einstein's words?

I don't see a need for relative time from this example. Do you?

If i find the magazine i'll post the exact quote here. Translated ofc.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 3:17:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You're right. Time is objective, it can't be changed based on our perception of it. However, time can be warped and thus made to be different depending on where you are, this is the true meaning of relative time. I don't see how that example was a case of relative time at all.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 3:17:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
the supernova already passed- according to what reference frame? to someone on the surface of the star that exploded, sure... but they're toast :P

you're still missing the main thrust of relativity which is that there is no privileged reference frame. time passes at different rates for observers traveling at different velocities. the story is probably confusing you because its basically irrelevant to the idea of relative times. at most, what you can get from the story is that each person observes the supernova happening at a different time because it takes different amounts of time for its light to reach them. but its been proven experimentally that objects traveling at high speeds experience a slower passage of time. so... that part, at least, isn't a mistake...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Relativity is a sham. An observer on a photon traveling in the opposite direction of another photon doesn't limit either's speed just because he is perceiving a photon moving twice the speed of light.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2010 4:33:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 4:15:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Relativity is a sham. An observer on a photon traveling in the opposite direction of another photon doesn't limit either's speed just because he is perceiving a photon moving twice the speed of light.

your statement is so ridiculous i can only conclude that you are being sarcastic for some reason. its not funny though so o.O
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Pirate
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 5:00:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/13/2010 8:06:56 PM, LeafRod wrote:
relativity is absolutely true and only morons actually think it may not be correct. end of story.

Assuming that one thing is true because some people consider it to be true is not a productive state of mind. You need to question to find out new things, or to change things.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 5:48:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 5:00:18 AM, Pirate wrote:
At 7/13/2010 8:06:56 PM, LeafRod wrote:
relativity is absolutely true and only morons actually think it may not be correct. end of story.

Assuming that one thing is true because some people consider it to be true is not a productive state of mind. You need to question to find out new things, or to change things.

Assuming that one thing is false because you do not understand the evidence is not a productive state of mind. You need to learn new things!

See how easy that is? :P Leafrod's claim was not an argumentum ad vercundiam. There is strong evidence that time relativity is true. It is your burden to show otherwise. That first requires naturally for you to understand what it is and why it is held to be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 6:07:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
If the words are far different, the idea behind it is the same. If someone sees something and he says it's happening, then that person is right. Therefore Einstein created this notion of relative time. Am i the only person seeing how wrong this is?:

You're just not understanding Relativity or Special Relativity (not to say that Einstein's theory won't some day be supplanted by a more accurate model).

For one thing, time as you know it is measured in increments mathematically for your convenience. In the sense that seconds and minutes and hours are arbitrary, time is artificial in that sense. But time (literal time) is homologous with space (space-time). You can't have space without time, or time without space. Time is an actual property of space.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 9:30:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 6:13:58 AM, Pirate wrote:
Uhm actually you can. I read about simulations working without time.:

Give one example where space exists outside of time, or where time exists outside of space. Remember that theoretical mathematics is not the same as reality. The concept of infinity only makes sense mathematically. Infinity is an abstract concept, not and not something known in the universe. Same principle here applies.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 1:51:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I didn't read much about Relativity, but if this is what it's based on, then it's awfuly wrong. On the other hand, how could generations of scientists not spot this? But also, how can a well known science magazine publish this as being Einstein's words?

I don't see a need for relative time from this example. Do you?

Well, I will say that is a pretty poor example for illustrating the ideas behind relativity. But I would think that before I claimed that an established scientific theory that has been demonstrated through numerous tests and about which hundreds of the greatest thinkers of our time have studied and drawn similar conculsions was wrong, I would at least spend the time to read about relativity.
Instead you seem eager to dismiss it because you don't understand one very basic analogy that attempts to convey only a portion of relativity in layman's terms. From this I would think it is safe to say the problem is probably not with the theory...

"Relativity is a sham. An observer on a photon traveling in the opposite direction of another photon doesn't limit either's speed just because he is perceiving a photon moving twice the speed of light."

To a third party observer, the distance between the photons would increase at twice the speed of light.

But a itself photon doesn't have a reference point (and therefore can't be an observer). So your point is meaningless. This is demonstrated in the calculation for relativistic velocity:

w = (u + v) / (1 + uv/c^2)

Where w combined velocity of two objects using special relativity and u and v are the velocities of the two objects. So if "u" is photon A it has a velocity of +c. If "v" is photon B, it has a velocity of -c. We get the solution being 0/1 which of course is undefined.

So it seems the sham is your ideas and not relativity.
Pirate
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2010 3:46:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True. Instead of blaming the example, i'll read more about it. The example probably wasn't even Einstein's.

I see time as different states of matter. If matter was static, if there was no energy, there would be no time. But since there is motion, there is energy, "things" move. Since they move at the same time there's time.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 11:05:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/14/2010 5:00:18 AM, Pirate wrote:
At 7/13/2010 8:06:56 PM, LeafRod wrote:
relativity is absolutely true and only morons actually think it may not be correct. end of story.

Assuming that one thing is true because some people consider it to be true is not a productive state of mind. You need to question to find out new things, or to change things.

yeah, too bad i've already done that and not come up with ridiculous and easily-refuted ideas.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 12:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
EINSTEIN MAKE MISTAKE! YOU STUPID! EINSTEIN MAKE NO MISTAKE! HE EINSTEIN! YOU IS STUPID AMERICAN!

lol
I miss the old members.
Pirate
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 2:47:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 2:44:17 PM, Pirate wrote:
That's what i would've said if he was american lol.

Before you tell me i'm wrong, i'll quote Wikipedia.

"Albert Einstein (né le 14 mars 1879 à Ulm, Wurtemberg, et mort le 18 avril 1955 à Princeton, New Jersey) est un physicien qui fut successivement allemand, puis apatride (1896), suisse (1901), et enfin helvético-américain (1940)[1]."

He was first German, then lucky bastard didn't belong to any country, then he was Swiss, and then Helvetico-American or something like that. Aka swiss and american. I don't know if swiss is a word in english lol.
Valtarov
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 8:53:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 2:47:43 PM, Pirate wrote:
At 7/16/2010 2:44:17 PM, Pirate wrote:
That's what i would've said if he was american lol.

Before you tell me i'm wrong, i'll quote Wikipedia.

"Albert Einstein (né le 14 mars 1879 à Ulm, Wurtemberg, et mort le 18 avril 1955 à Princeton, New Jersey) est un physicien qui fut successivement allemand, puis apatride (1896), suisse (1901), et enfin helvético-américain (1940)[1]."

He was first German, then lucky bastard didn't belong to any country, then he was Swiss, and then Helvetico-American or something like that. Aka swiss and american. I don't know if swiss is a word in english lol.

Swiss is an english word. We call the country Switzerland, and the people Swiss. Only a classics junkie like me will know where you're talking about when you say "Helvetica" :P
"We are half-hearted creatures,
fooling about with drink and sex and
ambition when infinite joy is offered us,
like an ignorant child who wants to go on
making mud pies in a slum because he
cannot imagine what is meant by the offer
of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily
pleased."—C.S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2010 10:25:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/17/2010 8:53:23 AM, Valtarov wrote:
At 7/16/2010 2:47:43 PM, Pirate wrote:
At 7/16/2010 2:44:17 PM, Pirate wrote:
That's what i would've said if he was american lol.

Before you tell me i'm wrong, i'll quote Wikipedia.

"Albert Einstein (né le 14 mars 1879 à Ulm, Wurtemberg, et mort le 18 avril 1955 à Princeton, New Jersey) est un physicien qui fut successivement allemand, puis apatride (1896), suisse (1901), et enfin helvético-américain (1940)[1]."

He was first German, then lucky bastard didn't belong to any country, then he was Swiss, and then Helvetico-American or something like that. Aka swiss and american. I don't know if swiss is a word in english lol.

Swiss is an english word. We call the country Switzerland, and the people Swiss. Only a classics junkie like me will know where you're talking about when you say "Helvetica" :P

Or someone who knows their fonts.