Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Purple dosn't beleve in relativity
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 114 (165551)
12-06-2004 3:58 AM


Purple Yokuo Says he dosn't think relativity is valid I challenge him to support his claim.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-06-2004 4:27 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 114 (165557)
12-06-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by The Dread Dormammu
12-06-2004 3:58 AM


Link please
So to have the context of this spin-off topic, please supply a link to where Purple Yokuo made the statement.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 12-06-2004 3:58 AM The Dread Dormammu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 12-07-2004 2:23 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 114 (165824)
12-07-2004 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
12-06-2004 4:27 AM


Unsure how to post links, is this ok?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-06-2004 4:27 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 10:38 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 4 of 114 (165835)
12-07-2004 2:49 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 114 (165838)
12-07-2004 3:04 AM


Message 3 got lost in the topic move
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: 11-11-2004


Message 6 of 114 (165875)
12-07-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by The Dread Dormammu
12-07-2004 2:23 AM


Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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 Reference
Einstein'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.com
The 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): Observer
An 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 12-07-2004 2:23 AM The Dread Dormammu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 10:44 AM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2004 10:53 AM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 12-07-2004 11:22 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 7 of 114 (165877)
12-07-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2004 10:38 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 10:38 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 10:49 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 11 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 11:11 AM PaulK has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 8 of 114 (165879)
12-07-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
12-07-2004 10:44 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 10:44 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 9 of 114 (165880)
12-07-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2004 10:38 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 10:38 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 11:06 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 10 of 114 (165885)
12-07-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Jack
12-07-2004 10:53 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Jack, posted 12-07-2004 10:53 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 11 of 114 (165887)
12-07-2004 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
12-07-2004 10:44 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 10:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 11:33 AM PurpleYouko has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 12 of 114 (165888)
12-07-2004 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2004 10:38 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
PurpleYouko writes:
So far I have not shown any real arguments for my position.
Any time you're ready.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 10:38 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 1:18 PM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 13 of 114 (165890)
12-07-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2004 11:11 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 11:11 AM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 12:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 14 of 114 (165899)
12-07-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
12-07-2004 11:33 AM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 12-07-2004 12:30 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 114 (165902)
12-07-2004 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PurpleYouko
12-07-2004 12:23 PM


Re: Relativity! Fact or fiction? you choose
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 12:23 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PurpleYouko, posted 12-07-2004 1:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024