Opposing Special Relativity

Smellsniffsniff,

It's not an easy concept, it was difficult for me to grasp at first as well. Light is unaffected by relativity and therefore moves at a speed of C in every reference frame. In your statement above, you contradict yourself, at first you say Light is constant then you say that the moving ant sees light moving at "C+V", it can't be both.

Almost. Remember, when dealing with relativity, we don't know for certain which object is actually in motion. Since special relativity only deals with objects in constant motion, we can't use acceleration to fix this little relativity problem (in order to determine which object is actually in motion and which one is at rest).

Therefore the best thing we can say with your example is that the ant is moving at V relative to the meterstick while the meterstick is moving at V relative to the ant. In other words, in the ant's frame of reference, the meterstick is the thing that's moving and the ant is at rest. Therefore the ant sees Light moving away at him at a speed of C.

In the meterstick's frame of reference its the ant that's moving and the meterstick's at rest. Therefore the meterstick sees light moving away from it at a speed of C.

Clearly, as you stated, there's something wrong with this...one of the objects is in motion therefore the velocity of light should increase from C in some frame of reference...but it doesn't (that is special relativity).

The videos below discuss what, and how things like length contraction and time dilation can fix that problem so that Light moves at C in all reference frame and how light will speed off at C no matter what speed you're going.

Relativistic effects are frame defendant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWM2oZgi4E&feature=related

This is a pretty good video. Its not apparent but it switches between the reference frame of an observer watching the spacecraft, to the frame of the person inside the spacecraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2VMO7pcWhg&feature=related

Another nice depiction, but harder to follow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Even though the awesome concept of relativity is einsteins, I'm gonna equate the true measures for you:

The moving ant will allways find that light escapes it in lightspeed. It will also find that it is traveling in speed v. It will still measure the lights escaping velocity from the still ant to be v + c. The relation between their systems is ( v + c ) : c . That's why special relativity is no more.

Is there something of that that didn't fall in?

Oh, yeah, and the reason why the speed between the still ant and the light is c + v is because the speed of the still ant is -v seen from the moving ant and c for the light.
Why your opposing argument just as the others still are wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you missed the point. As I mentioned before, velocities don't add in relativity as they do in Newtonian mechanics and you are talking Newtonianly (if such a word exists).

Bob is moving at speed v towards Adam. Adam shines a torch at Bob. Obviously Adam says "The light is moving away from me at speed c". But if light speed is something all inertial observers see to be the same then Bob also sees the light from the torch move at speed c relative to him! If v<< c and Adam threw a ball at Bob at some speed w such that also w << c then to a very close approximation Bob sees the ball move towards him at speed v+w. But if Bob has some amazingly accurate device (and yes, they exist!!) which can do timings to parts per billion then he'll see its not actually v+w but \(\frac{w+v}{1+\frac{wv}{c^{2}}}\). If you know about Taylor expansions you'll know that \(\frac{w+v}{1+\frac{wv}{c^{2}}} = (w+v)\left( 1 + O(\frac{vw}{c^{2}}) \right)\), hence why if v and w are much much less than the speed of light it seems like velocities add in a simple fashion. They don't.

So how can both Adam and Bob say "The light is moving at speed c relative to myself!" without contradicting one another? Their clocks tick differently. Adam measures time parameter t and Bob measures time parameter t'. And this is something we have measured. Decay 'constants' change with relative velocity, precisely in the way relativity says.

You're basically asserting that relativity is 'wrong' because it says that some things outside of your experience don't match things which you have experienced. Boo fuckin' hoo. Relativity correctly describes things you have experienced and it correctly describes things you haven't experienced but which some people have. Special relativity isn't some physicist navel gazing without experimental testing, its the foundation of all high level physics and thus whenever high level physics gets tested so does SR. If SR fails, GR fails. If GR fails cosmological models fail. If SR fields quantum field theory fails. If QFT fails the Standard Model fails. The absence of failure in those things (as yet) means that we have yet to see a deviation in Nature from the predictions of SR. Doesn't mean its perfect but it sure as hell means your flat out ignorant assertion is wrong.

And if you think your basic level algebra and non-existent understanding is enough and that I'm unable to spell or barely read I'm more than willing to dial up the level of discussion in regards to how SR is embedded in the aforementioned physics to as high a technical level as you wish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fact remains that you didn't prove anything, and if it smells like a falls claim, is equally long and advanced without proving any point what so ever, it is a falls claim by nature of all that's adjusting to the argument.

 

Experiments can never prove a model true but they can prove a model false. Your claims are experimentally false. The fact you don't know about them and won't look at them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Are you trying to be ironic or do you not know how to spell 'false'? You have a go at people who do typos yet you twice misspell 'false' in such a way as to make it clear its not a typo.

Ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical, you'll fit in great with the other hacks.

 

Whatever spelling of false is equally effectfull since you never knew at what temperature and lighting I wrote this.

My claims are accurate, however the relation between registered speed of light by moving ant and escaping velocity of light from still ant registered by moving ant are still c : c + v.

How this effect time and length however is harder to equate. I get:

cT = ct + L
T = L/c + t

That is my solution.

Not so hard to see that Timedilation in this case is proportional to length contraction.

 

Then you don't acknowledge that light moves at a constant speed. As you have just stated, there are frames of reference where light moves at a speed other than C, regardless of whether you want to call it escaping or registered velocity. Whatever the case is, its clear you do not understand relativity nor do you wish to listen to those that do.

Honestly you haven't presented anything new. These questions have been addressed in the transition from classical physics. Do you really believe that such a simple concept such as classic relativity wasn't addressed thoroughly in that transition?

Why do you expect others to listen to you when you won't listen to them?

The point of the matter is...light is not effected by relativity. Light does not move C + V, it is always C. If you think this is wrong then you need refute Max Planck's work on Quantum Theory as well as Planck's constant as these are the fundamental concepts that led to the development of Special Relativity.

That is to say, that special relativity cannot be possible without Max Planck's postulates. Classical physics (what you're referring to) is not compatible with Planck. If you don't understand this, you are further behind than I imagined.

 

If you see clear evidence for that a negative speed noted on a still man from a moving man is impossible as compared to the light, then you need to redo third grade. Don't come back here until you can add velocities.

 

Ah so you're okay to spell poorly but not others? Good one.

Reality says otherwise.

Reality says otherwise.

Reality says otherwise.

Except you have the wrong result. Reality says otherwise.

See a pattern here? You're simply making stuff up without any regard for whether that's what the universe is really like!

 

Ahh I see...I need to go back to school to understand your advanced theories. The concept...the math... its all just too far above me to comprehend with my second grade education. There's just no possible way that the misunderstanding lies within you. Hell...why even bother addressing any of the points I made, right? It's just childish banter.

Well then good luck with your theory. I honestly hope you have some idea about what you're talking about.

 

No, you all missed the point, each and every one of you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=14209

Enhance and watch the picture:

c(0)²t(0)² - v(0)²t(1)² = c(0)²t(1)²

c(0)²t(0)² = c(0)²t(1)² + v(0)²t(1)²

t(0)² = t(1)²(1 + (v/c)²)

t(0)²/√(1 + (v/c)²) = t(1)²

 

So how does posting the same incorrect nonsense on a different forum make your point?
Unless your point is that you're determined to remain totally clueless.

 

It's clear you don't know what you're talking about so I'm gonna report you again.

 

That would, in reality, be you. As has been pointed out.
You have consistently failed to show that your contention has any validity whatsoever and all you can do is persist in repeating it.
As AlphaNumeric has pointed out, experiment and reality shows you are wrong.

Good. The more you report me the more it will highlight your trolling idiocy and the sooner you'll get that justly-deserved ban. Be my guest.

 

If that is the way the forum you are in works, it's obvious that you're living in a cuntatorship, and I want no part of a cuntatorship what so ever.

 

Ah, so you didn't realise that trolls on forums eventually get banned?
One more count of ignorance on your part then.

You have still yet to show there is any validity whatsoever to your contention, and diverting off into (pretended?) misunderstanding of my point about your trolling isn't going to do it for you.

 

No we fucking didn't. While I can't say specifically for others in this thread who've disagreed with you but I have hands on experience with relativity, it forms the fundamental underpinnings behind what I just spent the last 6 years doing. You're not dealing with people who have to Google to find out what relativity says (which is what you are obviously doing), you're dealing with, quite literally, professional physicists.

You've assumed Euclidean geometry, the space-time of special relativity is not Euclidean. The spacial components are but when you construct the spacetime version of Pythagoras then you get something different.

If you have a point in 3 dimensional space at (a,b,c) then the distance from the origin to that point, s, is such that \(s^{2} = a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}\). If you have 4 dimensional spacetime then the 'distance' from the point (0,0,0) at T=0 to the point (a,b,c) at time T=t then you have \(s^{2} = -c^{2}t^{2} + a^{2} + b^{2} + c^{2}\). That is not Euclidean, the distance can be zero and yet a,b,c,t all be non-zero.

You have failed to realise that Euclidean geometry is not the only possible geometry which can be consistently constructed. Non-euclidean geometry forms the underlying structure of relativity.

I know what I'm talking about. And its clear to everyone that you don't. You are simply asserting that since Euclidean geometry doesn't imply what relativity implies then relativity is wrong. The problem is special relativity doesn't use Euclidean geometry so its pretty much tautological that it won't say what Euclidean geometry says.

Euclidean geometry doesn't match experimental observations so the fact SR isn't based on Euclidean geometry is a necessary feature for SR to avoid instant falsification. The mismatch between Euclidean geometry and SR would only be relevant if the universe were Euclidean. It isn't.

You keep saying everyone else doesn't know what they are talking about. Would you care to explain why we shouldn't make the same conclusion about you? What evidence would be required for you to accept that someone does know what they are talking about? If its simply "They must agree with me" then you're just trolling. Please outline, in principle, the criteria a reply to you would need to meet such that you would say "Okay, turns out I was wrong". You must have such criteria if you're trying to be honest and scientific, you must have a standard of evidence which, when met, you accept you are mistaken. For instance, I'll accept I'm wrong if you can provide experimental evidence SR is inaccurate in its predictions. You've already demonstrated you consider physical reality insufficient to accept you're wrong so I just want you to spell out where you draw the line.

 

I think your equation would make more sense without the two different "c" variables, like this:

\(s^{2} = -c^{2}t^{2} + x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2}\).

Or am I missing something?

 

No, you're right. I didn't want to use x,y,z because I wanted to refer to a point and although generally (x,y,z) is used I got the suspicion that Smell might get confused about coordinates and points, plus in schools Pythag is usually written using a,b,c etc.

Technically it should be done in terms of line elements, \(ds^{2} = -c^{2}dt^{2} + dx^{2} + dy^{2} + dz^{2}\) and you obtain a path length s by integrating ds over some curve but that would certainly go over Smell's head.