# Special Relativity nonsense

There's no reason that both situations can't be true. (Your insertion of the word "simultaneously" in that last sentence is a mistake, by the way, since simultaneity is relative.)

Your observers A and B will both agree that the collapsing dominos meet in the middle. But they do not have equal distances to travel to get to the middle in bothframes. The only way they can meet in the middle in B's frame is if one end is started before the other.
My use of the word 'simultaneously' is perfectly legitimate. The end result of what happens abord airplane A must SIMULTANEOUSLY be true for both airplane A and airplane B. Otherwise, we have conflicing realities when only one can be correct. I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that the collapsing dominos meet in the middle of airplane A according to both airplane A and airplane B. From the reference frame of airplane B there is a difference of 0.75 seconds between each end of the domino chain starting, therefore the meeting point of the collapsing dominos will be closer to the end that starts later.
The only way they can meet in the middle in B's frame is if one end is started before the other.
This I don't understand.

Let's assume that plane A has a missile attached to the underside of its tail and plane B has a missle attached to the topside of its tail.
From A's viewpoint...
Code:
``````T------------------------------N     M      plane A
M               <---       N---------T      plane B``````
From B's viewpoint....
Code:
``````T----------N   -->              M         plane A
M    N--------------------------T         plane B``````
So which plane gets blown up and which survives?
From your images, I assume you mean that each airplane fires its tail missile at the other plane when its own tail passes the nose of the other plane.
Then you have the following situations for Plane's A and B
With plane A the sequence of events goes like this:

The tail of plane B passes A's nose before The nose of B reaches the tail of A

For plane B, you get the following

For B, the tail of A reaches the Nose of B before the Nose of A reaches the tail of B

While at first glance, this reversal of event ordering between the two would appear to lead to a physical contradiction where each plane concludes that it is destroyed and the other plane isn't, no such physical contradiction can arise.
There are actually only two possible outcomes, either both planes are destroyed or neither of them is. Which of these two outcomes come into being depends on how exactly each plane decides on whether to fire his missile or not.

First option: The missile is fired from the tail of each train when the tail detects the nose of the other plane passing. According to each plane this will happen after the other plane has already launched it missile. In other words, according to plane A, it nose would be ht by a missile before it fires its own missile. However, the effects of the explosion of the nose of Plane A, cannot propagate through the plane faster than c, and will not reach the tail of plane A until the Nose of plane B reaches the tail of plane A. The destruction of the Nose of plane A cannot prevent the Tail of Plane A and the Nose of Plane B from passing each other and the missile being fired by the tail of plane A.
For Plane B, its nose is destroyed first, but again, the effects of this cannot reach the tail of Plane B before the Nose of plane A reaches it and the missile is fired from the tail of plane B. So in this case, both planes are destroyed by the missile fired by the other plane.

Second option: The missile at the tail of each plane is fired only if they conclude that in their frame, their plane's Tail passes the other plane's nose before the other plane's tail reaches the nose of their plane. Since each plane concludes that the other plane's tail passes their nose first, neither of them will fire their missiles, and neither plane will be destroyed. The point is that each plane decides on where or not to fire its own missile based on its determination and with no regard to what the other plane determines, and there is no way to cause the two planes to see different final outcomes.

Thank you for the response Janus58. However, it looks like complete insanity. You have people that, when viewed from another frame of reference, are doing things that they have not yet decided to do in their own frame of reference.
For example, let's say there is a line of dominos that are standing up and close to each other and it runs from one end of airplane A to the other. At time 0, the person at each end starts the domino chain going. From the viewpoint of airplane A, the ends are started at the same time and the dominos are lying over each other in opposite directions until they meet in the middle. From the viewpoint of airplane B, the tail is started first before the nose. This leads to a paradox. Both situations can't simultaneously be true.

No paradox. In the case of the dominos, each plane measures the "waves" of the falling dominos of its plane as starting at the same time, moving at the same speed and meeting in the middle of the plane. The waves of the dominos in the other plane will start at different times but also due to the relativistic addition of velocities will travel at different speeds with respect to the other plane. The wave that starts later will move faster than the one that started earlier and the waves will still meet up in the middle of the plane.

You are not going to be able to produce any contradiction in Relativity with these types of examples. If it were that easy, Relativity would have been relegated to the dust bin of failed ideas a century ago.

Really?

A bolt of lightning hits the transformer next to my house. I see a huge flash and simultaneously hear a blast of thunder.
My friend calls me from a mile away, and tells me he saw a bolt of lightning hit near me, and then heard a peal of thunder five seconds later.

Is this a paradox? Both situations can't simultaneously be true?

.

You wrote it yourself:

"From the viewpoint of airplane A..."
"From the viewpoint of airplane B..."

Viewpoints are not objective Truth. Viewpoints are dependent on your frame of reference. There is no objective truth.

"Zeno" wrote... "and the dominos are lying over each other in opposite directions"

that is incorrect.

considerations =
1. mirror effect
2. time factor actuation of theory requiring dominos to not all fall over at once
3. something i forgot

All of the clocks are synchronous aboard airplane A according to the reference frame of airplane A. According to the reference frame of airplane B, the clocks on the ends of airplane A are showing a difference of 0.75 seconds. If we have two people aboard airplane A, one at each end, that are holding up a board with a ball in the middle and then lower the board to the ground when their clocks display, say 15 seconds, the ends will be lowered simultaneously and the ball will stay in the middle, according to airplane A. From the viewpoint of airplane B, the ball will roll towards the end that is lowered 0.75 seconds before the other end. Again there is a paradox. I suppose the response will be that the ball will refuse to roll even though one end is lowered before the other.

Last edited:
All of the clocks are synchronous aboard airplane A according to the reference frame of airplane A. According to the reference frame of airplane B, the clocks on the ends of airplane A are showing a difference of 0.75 seconds. If we have two people aboard airplane A, one at each end, that are holding up a board with a ball in the middle and then lower the board to the ground when their clocks display, say 15 seconds, the ends will be lowered simultaneously and the ball will stay in the middle, according to airplane A. From the viewpoint of airplane B, the ball will roll towards the end that is lowered 0.75 seconds before the other end. Again there is a paradox. I suppose the response will be that the ball will refuse to roll even though one end is lowered before the other.
Why do you keep avoiding to give a straight answer to my #34? Clear the air.

Yes. I do believe in absolute space and time based upon just logic alone. Are you committed to an Einsteinian worldview of space and time? For some particular reason?

Yes. I do believe in absolute space and time based upon just logic alone. Are you committed to an Einsteinian worldview of space and time? For some particular reason?
Yes because it is both logically consistent and verified to extremely high accuracy experimentally and observationally. So there is no theological component to your rejection of SR?

No. There is no theological component to my rejection of SR. Since SR is logically consistent, you should have no problem responding to the problem posed in #44.

No. There is no theological component to my rejection of SR. Since SR is logically consistent, you should have no problem responding to the problem posed in #44.
So what's observed in the frame of B is that yes one plank end drops ahead of the other. A short moment later both ends move down at the same speed but with a slight plank inclination angle. The ball in the middle thus briefly accelerates downward then attains a steady vertical velocity component. In SR that vertical acceleration component will also have a horizontal one in frame of B, and further what remains a vertical reaction force of plank against ball in A is not perfectly vertical in B.

Look up relativistic transformation of acceleration and force, or alternately 4-acceleration and 4-force. There are numerous online articles that derive such and give the formulas to apply. Then just apply to your case. I'm not interested in working through the tedious details for your given scenario, but trust me or not that kind of 'paradox' has been dealt with many times without once ever showing up as a true flaw in SR. Non-intuitive maybe but never inconsistent.

All of the clocks are synchronous aboard airplane A according to the reference frame of airplane A. According to the reference frame of airplane B, the clocks on the ends of airplane A are showing a difference of 0.75 seconds. If we have two people aboard airplane A, one at each end, that are holding up a board with a ball in the middle and then lower the board to the ground when their clocks display, say 15 seconds, the ends will be lowered simultaneously and the ball will stay in the middle, according to airplane A. From the viewpoint of airplane B, the ball will roll towards the end that is lowered 0.75 seconds before the other end. Again there is a paradox. I suppose the response will be that the ball will refuse to roll even though one end is lowered before the other.

so you are suggesting time is not longitudinal ?
or that there is such a thing as spacial or quantum duality ?
just because the front of the plane is going faster through time than the back does not mean the time differential should be different.
quantum super positioning of the time field fits well with quantum duality.
the ball its self is a median variant of the over all time variance.
no different to people travelling in an airoplane.
they do not arrive back on earth younger than when they took off.
though, they do travel faster through time.(i think the actual explanation of this is yet to be discovered by science).

how this is worked out mathamatically i do not know as i am a very long way short from being a mathamatician.

so you are suggesting time is not longitudinal ?
or that there is such a thing as spacial or quantum duality ?
just because the front of the plane is going faster through time than the back does not mean the time differential should be different.
quantum super positioning of the time field fits well with quantum duality.
the ball its self is a median variant of the over all time variance.
no different to people travelling in an airoplane.
they do not arrive back on earth younger than when they took off.
though, they do travel faster through time.(i think the actual explanation of this is yet to be discovered by science).

how this is worked out mathamatically i do not know as i am a very long way short from being a mathamatician.
Try and contain your urge to further pollute this thread with such word-salad nonsense!

All of the clocks are synchronous aboard airplane A according to the reference frame of airplane A. According to the reference frame of airplane B, the clocks on the ends of airplane A are showing a difference of 0.75 seconds. If we have two people aboard airplane A, one at each end, that are holding up a board with a ball in the middle and then lower the board to the ground when their clocks display, say 15 seconds, the ends will be lowered simultaneously and the ball will stay in the middle, according to airplane A. From the viewpoint of airplane B, the ball will roll towards the end that is lowered 0.75 seconds before the other end. Again there is a paradox. I suppose the response will be that the ball will refuse to roll even though one end is lowered before the other.

So far, all of your scenarios which you think show a problem with SR involve misrepresentations of what the theory actually predicts or leaves out an important factor. In other words, they all have been straw-man arguments.
This one is just another. You are assuming that the boards is a perfectly rigid object. But there are no perfectly rigid objects. Thus when the people at the end of plane A lower the end of their boards, the middle of the board where the ball is does not lower immediately. This effect has to propagate from the ends of the board to the middle at the speed of sound for the material of the board. Even with the most rigid material even theoretically possible, this will not exceed the speed of light.
So what happens according to plane A is that when each person at the end lowers his end, a wave will travel through the board from each end meeting at the center. Even if we assume that this wave could travel at c through the board, the ball at the middle would not lower until the clock at the middle read 0.15+0.433 = 0.583 sec.

So what happens according to plane B?
The board at the tail end lowers first when the Clock at the tail read 0.15 and the clock where the ball is reads -0.225. The wave travels towards the middle of the plane at c relative to plane B (c is an invariant speed in SR). Since the ball at the middle of the plane is moving in the same direction at 0.866 c, and has a ~0.2165 light sec head start, it will take 0.2165/(1c-0.866c) = ~1.1616 sec for the wave to catch up to the ball, during which time the clock at the middle advances ~0.808 sec (time dilation) starting from -0.225 this puts the time at the middle clock of plane A where the ball is at 0.583 sec (exactly as what happened according to plane A)

The wave at the nose later lowers when its clock reads 0.15 sec, and the clock at the middle reads 0.525 sec. The wave in the board moves towards the middle at c, again relative to plane B, this time the wave and the middle of plane A are moving is opposite directions and are rushing to meet each other, so the time it will take according to plane B for them to meet will be 0.2165/(1c+0.866c) = 0.116 sec, during which time the clock at the middle of plane A advances 0.058 sec to read 0.583 sec Again exactly the same as according to plane A. Both plane A and plane B see the waves from the lowering of the ends of the board meeting at the center of plane A, and neither see any tendency for the ball to roll in one direction or the other.

If the wave moves at some speed less than c, then you have to use the addition of velocity theorem to find the speed of the wave relative to B and measured by B, this is:

W= (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2)
If u is the relative velocity between the planes and v is the speed of the wave traveling through the board as measured by the board.

You will end up with the same agreement between plane A and B as to whether or not the waves meet at the center of the board.

In essence, this is no different than your earlier domino example, or even your missile example. The resolution of all of them lies in the fact that effects can only propagate at a finite speed from the source and how these speeds are measured from different frames depends on the addition of velocities theorem.

You have not poked any holes in the theory, you've only exposed holes in your own grasp of the theory.

Yes. I do believe in absolute space and time based upon just logic alone.
Yet, all you've displayed so far is straw-man logic. You haven't presented any real logical argument against SR, just arguments based on what you "think" or "believe" is true.
Newsflash: The universe does not care what you think or believe. It operates by its own rules and doesn't require your approval or understanding of them.
Are you committed to an Einsteinian worldview of space and time? For some particular reason?

You mean other than the fact that it is supported by every bit of experimental and observational data collected to date?

Yes. I do believe in absolute space and time based upon just logic alone. Are you committed to an Einsteinian worldview of space and time? For some particular reason?
Just a few reasons, off the top of my head:
• It is one of the most thoroughly tested and validated theories in the history of science, and it passed with flying colours every single time. It has never once failed a test.
• It's been validated with experiments that have budgets of zillions of dollars, using clocks in high-flying jet planes.
• It's been validated with experiments that have budgets of nothing, using borrowed clocks in the back seat of a camper van by a guy on vacation to Mt. Ranier with his family. (i.e. it is demonstrable by the hobbyist)
• It is integrated into every GPS device on the planet. If Einsteinian relativity were not factored into their equations, every single GPS device would not only show incorrect coordinates, but the error of those coordinates would increase rapidly over time.
In science, observations beat out expectations every time.

The atomic clocks aboard the GPS satellites tick faster than the atomic clocks on the ground. So, prior to launch, the clocks are adjusted to run a little bit slower so that once in orbit, the clocks will remain in synch with each other and those on the ground. Nowhere is the Lorentz factor used in the GPS. If all of these clocks in space are moving in space relative to each other and those on ground, then why isn't the Lorentz factor used to keep the clocks in synch with each other?

Zeno:

Why do you flail around from one example to another? It's like you're desperately casting about at random for something to tear down the theory of relativity, but you never stop for long enough to consider the explanations that are given to you that demolish each of your "disproofs". Could you not better use your time trying to learn something about the theory? You have had years now of patient tuition on this in different forums, yet you refuse to stop and do any personal study. Why is that?

The atomic clocks aboard the GPS satellites tick faster than the atomic clocks on the ground. So, prior to launch, the clocks are adjusted to run a little bit slower so that once in orbit, the clocks will remain in synch with each other and those on the ground. Nowhere is the Lorentz factor used in the GPS. If all of these clocks in space are moving in space relative to each other and those on ground, then why isn't the Lorentz factor used to keep the clocks in synch with each other?
If you want to, it's quite possible to separate the components of time dilation of GPS clocks into a component due to the difference in the heights of the ground and the clock, and a second component due to the orbital velocity of the satellites with respect to the ground. The first effect means that satellite clocks tend to run faster than ground clocks. The second effect means that satellite clocks tend to run slower than ground clocks. The second effect is smaller than the first, so when you combine both effects the net result is that satellite clocks run faster than ground clocks. This is why they adjusted before launch to run a little slow, so that when they are in orbit they are synchronised with clocks on the ground.

If you want to see the Lorentz factor, specifically, it comes in when you calculate the time dilation due to the satellites' orbital speed. You are just wrong to say it is used "nowhere".

The atomic clocks aboard the GPS satellites tick faster than the atomic clocks on the ground. So, prior to launch, the clocks are adjusted to run a little bit slower so that once in orbit, the clocks will remain in synch with each other and those on the ground. Nowhere is the Lorentz factor used in the GPS. If all of these clocks in space are moving in space relative to each other and those on ground, then why isn't the Lorentz factor used to keep the clocks in synch with each other?
The equation for determining the time dilation for an orbiting clock is sqrt (1-3GM/rc2) where r is the radius of the orbit, which is a direct result of combining the equation for gravitational time dilation and the the Lorentz factor of sqrt (1-v^2/c^) where you use sqrt(GM/r), the orbital velocity at for an orbit of radius r, for v. So to claim that the Lorentz factor is nor used is patently false and yet another straw-man argument. And like James R. I'm beginning to wonder when you are go to man-up and even acknowledge it when your other argument are debunked.

I will end this thread with the following:
Ship1 at rest at top.
Code:
``````                 T--------------------N
<-----           N----------T``````
Ship2 at rest at bottom.
Code:
``````                    T----------N    ----->
N--------------------T``````

The moment when T of ship1 is lined up with N of ship2 must be the same moment in both frames of reference because there is only 1 moment when this occurs. If someone is at T of ship1 and they look down through a porthole and see someone at N of ship2 looking up back at them through a porthole this must be the same moment for both of them. At this moment, for someone at N of ship1 to see T of ship2 they have to look in 2 different directions simultaneously. This is impossible.

N of ship1 has both passed and not passed T of ship2. Let's assume that someone is at N of ship1 and is looking down through a porthole and someone is at T of ship2 and is looking up through a porthole. According to the person at N of ship1 they have already passed the person at T of ship2. So at the moment they passed each other according to the person at N of ship1, according to the person at T of ship2 he hasn't yet reached the person at N of ship1. How is that possible? How can I look and see you but yet you can't look and see me because you haven't reached me yet?

How is that possible?
By not having a misunderstanding of how simultaneity works.
Your model, above, is incorrect, so of course you get nonsensical answers.

Best that can be suggested is that you pick up a book on it and read it with your "But, but, but..." alarms turned off.

That's a better way to end this thread.

I will end this thread with the following:
Ship1 at rest at top.
Code:
``````                 T1--------------------N1
<-----           N2----------T2``````
Ship2 at rest at bottom.
Code:
``````                    T1----------N1    ----->
N2--------------------T2``````

The moment when T1 of ship1 is lined up with N2 of ship2 must be the same moment in both frames of reference because there is only 1 moment when this occurs. If someone is at T1 of ship1 and they look down through a porthole and see someone at N2 of ship2 looking up back at them through a porthole this must be the same moment for both of them. At this moment, for someone at N1 of ship1 to see T2 of ship2 they have to look in 2 different directions simultaneously. This is impossible.
Okay so far. I have changed your labelling a bit to make sure I don't get the Ns and Ts of the ships confused.

N1 of ship1 has both passed and not passed T2 of ship2.
According to ship 1, it has passed. According to ship 2 it has not. These observations are made in two different frames, at the time in that frame when T1 and N2 are aligned. Since the two frames do not share the same idea of which events occur simultaneously, or even necessarily the same time-ordering of events, this is not a problem.

Let's assume that someone is at N1 of ship1 and is looking down through a porthole and someone is at T2 of ship2 and is looking up through a porthole. According to the person at N1 of ship1 they have already passed the person at T2 of ship2.
You mean, according to N1, at the time that T1 and N2 are aligned, T2 has already passed N1. That is correct.

So at the moment they passed each other according to the person at N1 of ship1, according to the person at T2 of ship2 he hasn't yet reached the person at N of ship1. How is that possible?
Wait a minute. What is this "moment they passed each other" event that you're referring to? Be specific. Are you talking about the moment when T1 and N2 are aligned, or the moment when N1 and T2 are aligned? Those are different moments, in both frames.

It is true to say that "at the moment that T1 and N2 are aligned, T2 has already passed N1, according to an observer on ship 1". It is also true to say "at the moment that T1 and N2 are aligned, N1 has not yet passed T2, according to an observer on ship 2".

There is no inconsistency in this, because observers on ship 1 and ship 2 do not share the same notion of simultaneity.

You were doing okay for a while there, but then you lost track and started mixing up the two reference frames. That's why you're confused.

How can I look and see you but yet you can't look and see me because you haven't reached me yet?
You can't. There's only a single event in each frame where N1 and T2 are aligned (call it event A), just as there is only a single event where N2 and T1 are aligned (call it event B).

If you're on ship 1, you see A occur before B. If you're on ship 2, you see B occur before A. There's no problem with that.