|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Purple dosn't beleve in relativity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Purple Yokuo Says he dosn't think relativity is valid I challenge him to support his claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
So to have the context of this spin-off topic, please supply a link to where Purple Yokuo made the statement.
Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
I Think he first makes the claim on this page
http://EvC Forum: Spirits and other incorporial things -->EvC Forum: Spirits and other incorporial things With messege 116:
I like to think of myself as a very scientific minded person. I never really accept anything on faith without seeing it tested and proved. There are even parts of general relativity that I personally don't agree with as I can see other explanations that make just as much or even more sense to me. But that is way off topic so I won't go into it. Hopefully we can go into it here. Also here on this page: http://EvC Forum: Spirits and other incorporial things -->EvC Forum: Spirits and other incorporial things In post 123:
Yes it would wouldn't it? That is my entire point. Very very few people really understand it and yet everybody jumps on the band wagon to defend it whenever anybody suggests that any part of it may be incorrect. I'm not at all sure if this website is even the place to be debating relativity though. besides which, I will be out of my depth when it comes to the pure mathematical definition of the system. I am an Analytical Chemist, not a mathmatician. I just like to question everything that I don't understand until I do understand it instead of taking it on "faith" Even though neither of us is qualified to discuss the mathamatics in depth, I think we can have a useful discussion about evedence supporting the theory as well as his objections. {Links pretty good - You did give the message numbers. I added the "#116" and "#123" to the links. That will get you directly to the messages. Will promote topic now. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-07-2004 02:48 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Entire content changed by edit:
OK, message 3's content was gone, so I recreated it in this message. Then the message showed up after all, so I deleted the recreations. Now it will probably disappear again. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-07-2004 03:07 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
OK then Dormamu. I accept your challenge.
I will play the devil's advocate and attempt to show that there are inconsistencies and paradoxes within the TOR. Lets just keep mathematical proofs (except for references and links) out of it and rely on logic and science. The math would fill several pages anyway and is so complex that it took the worlds leading mathematicians and Physicists (Einstein included) over 50 years to solve. I do not necessarily hold to some of the views that I will be arguing for but I will broach them anyway in an attempt to show that other theories explain everything as well, if not better, than relativity. Let's start out with a few defininitions. (for those who are not up to speed here) Q What is the special theory of relativity? A It is a postulation based on the assumption that the speed of light (known simply as "c") is a universal constant. Any observer in any frame of reference will always measure the speed of light to be this same value. From this assumption it can be inferred that there must be a different variable (other than speed) in the basic equation to calculate speed. In its simplest form this is speed = distance divided by time Since relativity states that (for light) speed is a constant then in order for the measurement of its speed to remain constant for any frame of reference then one or both of the others must be changing. Relativity actually proposes that both change to some degree but for the purpose of my arguments here I will largely work with time dilation only. A number of other basic fundamentals apply here. It is first necessary to define and understand the terminology. I used the term "Frame of reference" above. Here is a pretty basic definition of that term taken from Howstuffworks.com Howstuffworks.com writes: Frames of ReferenceEinstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of reference frames. A reference frame is simply "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing". You, at this moment, are probably sitting at your computer. That is your current reference frame. You feel like you are stationary, even though you know the earth is revolving on its axis and orbiting around the sun. Here is an important fact about reference frames: There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference in our universe. By saying absolute, what is actually meant is that there is no place in the universe that is completely stationary. Here are a couple more definitions. Also taken from Howstuffworks.comThe First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity.
The first postulate of the theory of special relativity is not too hard to swallow: The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference. This is the simplest of all relativistic concepts to grasp. The Second Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity The second postulate of the special theory of relativity is quite interesting and unexpected because of what it says about frames of reference. The postulate is: The speed of light is measured as constant in all frames of reference. This can really be described as the first postulate in different clothes. If the laws of physics apply equally to all frames of reference, then light (electromagnetic radiation) must travel at the same speed regardless of the frame. This is required for the laws of electrodynamics to apply equally for all frames. And my final definition (for now): ObserverAn observer is a hypothetical person who is able to directly observe multiple frames of reference. The fact that this is impossible in the real world is not important. The events are there to observe even if we can't actually do it. Imagine that the observer is outside of space/time as it were. Here is the first Paradox. This one even puzzled Einstein himself when he first realized it. The Twins Paradox (note: Explanations have since been given for this but I will come to that later. For now, this is just to get you all thinking.)
Suppose two twins, John and Hunter, share the same reference frame with each other on the earth. John is sitting in a spaceship and Hunter is standing on the ground. The twins each have identical watches that they now synchronize. After synchronizing, John blasts off and speeds away at 60% the speed of light. As John travels away, both twins have the right to view the other as experiencing the relativistic effects (length contraction and time dilation). For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that they have an accurate method with which to measure these effects. If John never returns, there will never be an answer to the question of who actually experienced the effects. But what happens if John does turn around and return to the earth? Both would agree that John aged more slowly than Hunter did, thus time for John was slower than it was for Hunter. To prove this, all they have to do is look at their watches. John's watch will show that it took less time for him to go and return than Hunter's watch shows. As Hunter stood there waiting, time passed faster for him than it did for John. Why is this the case if both were traveling at 60% the speed of light with respect to one another? Please note that in the STOR (special theory of relativity), it is impossible to say which of the twins is in motion and which is stationary. They are both in motion relative to one another. Both will be able to measure the speed of light as the universal constant "c" within their own individual frames of reference. So how is it that the watch worn by the twin on the spaceship shows a shorter period of elapsed time?(Incidentally this experiment has been performed by two cesium clocks. one a jet plane and one on the ground. The results were exactly as for the twins.) So far I have not shown any real arguments for my position. As I said before, I just want to get you all really thinking first. PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I've studied Special Relativity although it was quite a long time ago.
The fundamental problem with your post is that Special Relativity only applies in inertial reference frames (i.e. with no acceleration) - it's "Special" because it deals with that "special case". So your version of the "twins paradox" runs into trouble because acceleration is involved. John accelerates to 0.6c on the way out and decelerates to match velocities with Hunter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Yes I know that. That is why my note said that "the problem has been addressed and solved." In fact STOR [i]can[i/] deal with accelerations but just not as easily as GTOR (General Theory Of Relativity)
PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
How about you assume we're not stupid, do know what relativity is, and have thought about and will understand what you say, and just tell us what it is about relativity that you think is wrong?
(Incidently, I'm 100% certain relativity is wrong too - QM and relativity don't jive.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Patience Mr. Jack.
I'm getting there. Just let me take the logical steps to get to the right place. I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't know the first thing about it. PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Paul
I have just been thinking about your answer and it actually brings up another paradox of relativity. If STOR only applies in an "inertial fram of reference" then when exactly can it be applied, as there is no such thing as a position in the universe with no acceleration? Every part of the universe is subject to a gravitational pull from something. Every point of the universe is in orbit about something. The universe is accelerating as it expands! (so we are told)In relativity, gravity = acceleration does it not? They are two names for the same thing. Therefore if gravity affects every nook and cranny of the universe then STOR can never be applied can it? PY This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 12-07-2004 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
PurpleYouko writes: So far I have not shown any real arguments for my position. Any time you're ready. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Just as Newtonian mechanics is an adequate approximation for Special Relativity when speeds are low enough then surely Special Relativity can be an adequate approximation for General Relativity if the accelerations are low enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PurpleYouko Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: |
Approximations just don't cut it.
It is either right or it isn't. There are no grey areas here. You might just as well postulate a theory for why fairies wear boots. (Ozzy said they did anyway.) If it is impossible for the theory to ever exactly predict anything other than approximations then the theory is unfalsifiable because the only conditions in which it could possibly work, do not in actual fact exist. You can NEVER test it! Terefore STOR does not actually fit the criteria for a scientific theory at all. PY
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Sorry, but Newtonian mechanics is still taught in schools. A sufficiently good approximation is fine - even if it isn't entirely correct. And there's nothing I know of that says that a good approximation is unscientific (indeed without infinite accuracy on measurements we can't know that any quantitative theory is anything more than an approximation).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024