Purple dosn't beleve in relativity

[qs]Ok..do this experiment: Go to the nearest bowling alley, take the heavest bowling ball you can find. Now hold it steady over your foot. Steady now...Ok now ask yourself one question before you let it loose..does the bowling ball exist? Is Newtonian physics adequate to predict what is about to happen? Will the bowling ball quantum tunnel? Let us know what you find out. I think your skepticism of the laws of the universe and mans precision at predicting motion will be put into a new light. Cuz you see it doesnt matter whether you believe it or not. Shit happens anyways.[qs] Thats all very well and fine but am I just imagining the sensation of an imaginary bowling ball crushing my imaginary toes? And furthermore, am I imagining the sirens of the ambulance that rushes me to the imaginary hospital? Shit even happens in your imagination!PY

I am with you on this point but surely there has to be some kind of correlation or interaction between frames of reference or else the equations that so conveniently convert observations in one frame to those in another have no definable reference piont to work from.From what I am picking up here today, the equations (is this the Lorentz equations btw?) are applied to one frame of reference to bring it in line with another frame are actually just a correction factor based on the differences in observed time.
Is that right or have I gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick here?An analogy from my own line of work would involve measuring the isotope ratios of a given element with a mass spectrometer. We know the ratio of the isotopes in the standard but the machine measures it slightly different. Therefore we have to determine the correction factor to apply to all measured ratios based on the difference between the known and observed. This correction changes with different conditions.Does that come anywhere close?I will read up a little more on these equations I think.PY

Better make that imaginary malnutrition.Anyway I think it is reasonably well established that whether we are imagining everything or not, our imagination/reality is still controlled by a set of physical laws so the point is moot anyway.It's just a question of what those laws actually are.PY

A conversion factor is still a conversion factor no matter what way you look at it. If you have a measurable divergence between two different measurements and that divergence has a constant rate then the conversion factor can be applied in all cases providing the fields of reference remain constant.The principle applies to my work or to relativity. The measurements are of a different type though.PY

Well of course I know what will happen so what is the point of it. It would break my damn foot unless I had a good pair of steel toe-cap shoes on.I don't see what the heck this has got to do with relativity though. There is no paradox either implied or real about dropping a bowling ball.Any theory that gives approximate result to whatever degree is quite obviously going to get it right the vast majority of the time. It is just those times when it doesn't get it right that concern me. I honestly can't even imagine a situation where the bowling ball won't squash my toes. This just isn't one of those situations is it?The point I am trying to get at is that just maybe there are other explanations for life, the universe and everything, besides relativity.
During the last few days alone I have found half a dozen different postulations that all claim to be the right one.I personally have a problem with Relativity. I'm not really sure why. It just never seemed to sit right with me. I was hoping this forum would help me to get a better grasp on the subject and in some cases I now understand the argument for relativity a lot better. Some of the things I thought I knew have been squished like bugs. I admit that I don't know enough of this field to argue my points in a way that even I can beleive.
In other ways though it seems like the real solution is hidden behind "fudge factors" and stuff that has been piled up to reinforce itself.
I know that science works this way. It has to be allowed to be modified and tested. Einstein himself reworked the theory many times.However I am seeing many of the same arguments used by religions to defend their beleifs. That is to say a complete closed mind set when it comes to questioning the great God Einstein. It is as if science is in a rut and can't get out.These are my thoughts as the oficial "devil's advocate" anyway.PY

JazznAhh! Thanks for the further explanation. Now it makes a lot more sense to me. You may well be right.PY

Well therin lies at least a part of the problem. I thought I did understand it, at least well enough to argue some points and propose some flaws.
I was obviously mistaken in that assumption. I would love to if I knew the first thing about QM but truth be known, I have never studied the stuff. I have heard it said that QM and Relativity disagree in some extreme cases but that is as far as it goes.It was actualy Mr Jack that said that. Maybe he can shed some light on the subject.I think at this point, I will attempt to sum up what I have come up with over the last couple of days of rather intense reading and of course, input from this forum.

• I must be as guilty of beleiving things that are told to me, as the next man, since my "knowledge" of relativity was (up until two days ago) entirely imparted to me by my college Physics Professor. I now see that many of the "facts" that he taught me are actually wrong. I had intended to submit one more "anomoly" based on infinite mass at light speed but I have found this "fact" to be false too.
• Relativity does indeed give accurate predictions that remain consistant within its framework. Despite my hair splitting about the definitions of scientific methodology yesterday I have always accepted that no framework can give absolute answers.
• I am still having a great deal of trouble visualizing the way that my prior example is not actually a paradox at all but I am willing to accept that the math is there to explain it even if my brain can't cope with it. Dormamu summed it up pretty well in his last post.
• I still maintain that it is something akin to sacrilige to question the work of Einstein in most circles, no matter how good the evidence is. This is again born out by my old physics proffessor who stated to me on one occasion "I will defend Relativity with my life!" he then went on to say that if anyone were ever to successfully overturn relativity with a better theory then he would immediately kill himself rather than accept the new theory. (I have actually encountered this attitude many times over the last 10 years.)
• My Physics proffessor was either a complete IDIOT or a LIAR!
• I was intending to put forward one or two alternate theories for comparrison. I even invited the author of one of these theories to come here and take part in this discussion. His lack of response doesn't fill me with enthusiasm to pursue this line of reasoning. Let me know if you would like me to continue with it. Could be fun.

I have taken this as far as I am able to now. My knowlegde of the subject is not deep or complete enough to argue any more points (other than useles hair splitting about definitions).Dormamu: I tried to meet your challenge and I have obviously failed. At least I learned a few more things in the attempt so it wasn't time wasted and it was kind of fun too.One more point is that I don't understand why some of the replys have become personal. This does nothing to further your cause and in fact only tends to alienate the other debater (is that a real word?) and drive a deeper schism between the opposing sides of the debate.I also don't appreciate the accusation of not being a scientist. I am not a "Physicist". I admit that. But a Scientist is one who searches for knowledge is it not? I do that every day, at home and at work.Thanks for the explanations guys. It's been fun. See you all on other threads. (or here if you really want to carry on of course)PY

Thanks Percy.As for the Einstein applecart thing. I was referring to some kind of drastically out-of-the box kind of thing that wouldn't just require a modification to existing theory but a completely new theory based on totally different premises.Say for example, the ether (aether or whatever) that was widely accepted prior to Einstein, was actually found to exist and to explain everthing better than relativity does.
It would be a really major upset wouldn't it?
That was the kind of thing I was referring to.PY

Thanks for the definition Ifen. Nicely put. That is exactly what I am talking about.PY

I don't understand this statement. I have never really got this part of it at all.If space is made of nothing then how can it expand?Surely for something to expand, it would have to have something there which is actually doing the expansion. Vacuum can't exert a pressure to accelerate anything.
This also suggests that the media through which bits of the universe are travelling would have to have a profound effect on those bits of the universe (planets stars etc.).
Sounds a lot like the Aether theory to me.It must take a lot of energy to accelerate a galaxy. Where is that energy coming from? I don't understand how exapnading nothingness can drag real things with it.If by an expanding universe you mean something like an equal increase in the the size of all space then wouldn't that mean that an observer would be expanding at the same rate as everything that he observed? Wouldn't this also make it impossible for him to actually observe the expansion? Or is the universe only expanding at the edges?Confused? I sure am. PY

Thanks for the explanation Sylas. There are still some parts I don't quite get though. I am not arguing that you are wrong here, just trying to get an explanation that I can understand so please bear with me. Thanks Jon. That summed it up perfectly.I guess my difficulty in understanding all this is that (like most people) I think intuitively and that appears not to jazz with the explanations given by people who are obviously much more knowledgable about the actual mechanics and mathematics of the situation.I think my biggest non-understanding has to be the bit about local forces overcoming expansion of space.
The way I see it is that if all space is expanding then the space between and within atoms should expand at the same rate. (ie . 10 microns expands to 10 microns + 2% and 10 MegaParsecs expands to 10 MegaParsecs + 2%)
If local forces can prevent this expansion then there has to be a further factor involved or else the large and small forces, gravity etc. would all change proportionally to the expansion and no expansion would ever be detectable due to the change in the frame as a whole. Gravity (for example) is a function of mass and distance so if distance changed then the local gravity would have to become greater in order for the change to be locally resisted. This means that small objects would actually have to be shrinking with respect to actual distances which are increasing. What factor other than actual distance can we measure this by? Surely if this is true then local gravity must be increasing.Does any of this logic make sense?Hopefully Sylas or someone else can shed some light here.PY