Purple dosn't beleve in relativity

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 timeSince 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.comHere are a couple more definitions. Also taken from Howstuffworks.com
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.) 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

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

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

PaulI 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?PYThis message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 12-07-2004 11:13 AM

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

OK then Percy. Since you asked so nicely, let's get down to the fun stuff.First up we need to look at an example of why time has to be a variable under experimental (theoretical anyway) conditions.Go to about half way down this page and you will see such an example.However I will use my own version of it here.This is how it was explained to me in college.
A fast moving spaceship of some sort is moving from point A1 towards point A2 at some significant portion of light speed.
Onboard this spacecraft is a light clock in which a beam of light is fired (at point A1) directly downwad toward the mirror. The mirror is actually part of the light clock and moves with it but for the sake of keeping the diagram simple I have drawn it as one continuous line or plane.
For an observer in the spacecraft, the trajectory of the light beam will appear to be as shown by t1. ie. straight down then straight up again and will take exactly one second to return to its starting point. (this is an unrealistic time I know but that is entirely beside the point)
However, to an observer at position B, the light beam will appear to travel along trajectory t2 which is obviously a much greater distance and so will take considerably longer than the one second observed by A.
We know that the light has actually travelled distance t2 for both observers so the only conclusion is that time must be compressed for observer A with respect to (relative to) observer BThis all seems logical and as a "proof" of the principals of relativity in action, it is quite convincing and is often used to educate the "uninitiated"However, Let's take the example one step further. (this is never done by physics professors to my knowledge).
Take this diagram..Now both observers have a light clock and are moving at a constant speed (wrt each other) in opposite directions.
As before, observer A measures his light speed as c, his elapsed time as 1 second and the distance traveled by the light beam as t1.
Observer B still sees observer A's light beam as travelling a greater distance than A does.
Conclusion: As before, observer B determines that observer A's time must be compressed relative to his own due to the greater distance that A's light beam travelled.Now here comes the bit that has always thrown me.Observer B sees his own light beam travel distance t3 in one second while observer A sees observer B's light beam travel distance t4 in considerably more than 1 second.
As light speed is constant, observer A concludes that observer B's time has to be compressed relative to his own.Now we have the paradox. Both observers see the other observer's time as being compressed relative to their own. That is clearly not possible so there has to be something wrong with the original hypothesis.No accelerations to explain it all away this time. How can this be possible?PY

But newtonian physics can actually be tested under some conditions. In fact it works completely under most conditions as far as I am aware. (If I am wrong here then please tell me so.)
That means that it is testable and is therefore falsifiable and valid under those conditions.STOR is not 100% accurate under any conditions.PY

Jar That is a response I didn't expect.Seems simple enough to me.A's elapsed time is shorter than B's but B's is also shorter than A's.How can you have two identical peices of string that are both the shorter of the two? If that isn't a paradox then I'm living in the wrong universePY

Who says I have to be an expert in the field in order to ask pertinent questions and examine the logic behind the answers? I have never claimed to know everything about it. I am merely offering observations making logical conclusion.
That kind of answer is usually one given by somebody who is absolutely unwilling to even examine their own frame of reference (wanted to avoid the word beleifs here)Also, by the way you put it, newtonian physics is also untestable. I admit to being completely unaware that it was invalid if any relative motion is present between the bodies involved.So we live in a universe defined by vaguaries and approximations on every side do we? near enough is good enough is it?What the heck is reality then?PY

If you recall, this was just a side point anyway. I ended up off at a tangent to the real point anyway.My final point along this path is that there must be a science somewhere that can give 100% accurate results 100% of the time. We just don't have it yet. If the universe operates on a set of rules (which I would say it has to) then these rules cannot be "approximate". They must be precise.
Relatively may be mostly right and so might newtonian physics. Ether way it is neither here nor there. They don't explain everything so I am looking for the thing that does.And you are right that this tangent is a waste of time.PY

Only 2 POVs actually. I didn't specify a third observer in this particular example. That is besides the point though.So, are saying is that because these two observers are in different frames of reference then the entire example is pointless?
If that is the case then why do they continue to teach the first part of my example as a "proof" for way relativity works.
The link that I provided also sites this as an example, just worded somewhat differently.
It also would mean that there can never be an outside observer in any relativity example that would be meaningful in any way whatsoever. I'm sorry but this sounds like an even bigger paradox.How can you ever prove something like this seeing as how the person observing the event is always in a different frame of reference from the event he is observing so his observation is, of necessity, wrong and unreliable."something happens -----> makes something else happen. Somebody else sees something different happen. But what the heck. We can never observe it accurately anyway so who cares?"I am starting to seriously wonder whether anything exists at all.PY

Just did didn't I? Also please try to remember that I am playing devil's advocate here (as stated in my first post in this thread)PY

OK I stand corrected on that mistake. I didn't mean to infer the existence of a third observer.What about in a hypothetical "absolute" frame of reference? or maybe I should say from the frame of reference of the light beam.
Oh forget it! I'm not even sure where I'm going with this one. My head hurts Now I remember why I dropped physics and went into chemistry.I need to go away and think about all this stuff very very deeply I think.Nice Piccy btwPY

Is it actually shorter or does it simply appear to be shorter.PY

Hi Jazzns Maybe it's my ignorance of math that is at fault here but if this is correct then you have just turned my entire understanding of mathematics on its head.I always thought that "<" and ">" were called "inequalities". ie. the two variables are not equal.Using real numbers in normal math, if you were to substitute 10 for A and 658 for B then by this logic "10 = 658" Clearly incorrect.If you are just trying to say that in boolean logic, "(10 < 658) and (658 <10) =>(10 = 658)" then you are just talking about logic states and not real numbers in which case I don't think it applies since it makes no claim that 10 = 658 at all, just the logic state of FALSE.It would be the same as saying "TRUE AND FALSE => FALSE" wouldn't it?PY