Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies

EHocking said:
Although he misspelled misspelt. :p
Click to expand...

I am having trouble with his double negative statements.

Was he trying to prove that SR was inconsistent, or that SR is consistent?

I thought he was trying to disprove SR. So I pointed out a mathematical error that I thought he made. I reread his posts and got confused.

Just what was the OP refuting and why ?-!
 
Darwin123 said:
I am having trouble with his double negative statements.

Was he trying to prove that SR was inconsistent, or that SR is consistent?

I thought he was trying to disprove SR. So I pointed out a mathematical error that I thought he made. I reread his posts and got confused.

Just what was the OP refuting and why ?-!
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone knows. Probably not even the OP.
 
wogoga said:
...This can only happen if the relativistic mass m1 of the forward moving photon is higher than m2 of the backward moving photon:
Click to expand...
IMO: This is the biggest error in the post - photons have no rest mass in theory and a tiny upper limit experimentally.

wogoga said:
...In any case, this shows that ...
Click to expand...
That using SR you can derive SR :eek:
Mass-energy equivalence is a result from SR. It depends on "Lorentz-factor time-dilation" existing. No Lorentz invariance = no mass-energy equivalence.

Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not "proof" for the Lorentz transformation. Experimental evidence for Lorentz invariance are the experimental tests of Lorentz invariance: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 8. Recent Tests of CPT and Lorentz Invariance
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not "proof" for the Lorentz transformation.
Click to expand...

Slight correction in the wording.

Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not proof, the Lorentz invariance of the system being studied.

It is not evidence for 'the Lorentz transformation' because the Lorentz transformation is entirely mathematical. The Lorentz transformation per se does not have to relate to anything physical. The Lorentz transformation is applied to to numbers.


The physical assumption is that the dynamics of the system as determined in an inertial frame are not changed by a Lorentz transformation. The relativistic kinematics accurately describes the system in all inertial frames because the dynamics (i.e., forces) are Lorentz invariant.

Consider the experiment where muons that were rapidly moving in the laboratory frame decayed at a much slower rate than other muons that were stationary in the laboratory frame. This experiment demonstrates 'time dilation'. However, time is part of the kinematics. The important point is what special relativity says about the dynamics.

The decay of muons is mediated by the 'weak force'. Special relativity says that all forces, including the weak force, are Lorentz invariant. If the muons did not show time dilation, then relativity would have been shown wrong because the weak force is not Lorentz invariant.

Dynamics includes all forces between objects. Measuring instruments work because of their internal forces. A clock ticks because the forces inside the clock are making something oscillate at a certain frequency. The forces that make a clock tick satisfy certain force laws. Rulers measure length because the forces holding the ruler together maintain its shape and size. If the forces that maintain a rulers shape satisfy certain force laws. If the force laws are the same for all inertial frames, then the forces are Lorentz invariant.

The reason that the speed of light is Lorentz invariant is because all forces in the universe are Lorentz invariant. This includes the forces that hold the 'observers' together. However, different observers may observe forces of different magnitudes and directions.

Allow me to use an analogy from mundane geography. The surface of the earth has been known to be round by most educated people since about 300 BC. Yes, there were a few educated people who couldn't accept this until recently. However, people made maps based on a round earth anyway. The curvature of the earth's surface is not easily analyzed by Euclidean geometry. So maps were made using projective geometry that compensated for the curvature of the earth.

Navigators and surveyors have been using the kinematics of a spheroid earth years before Newtonian wrote 'Principia'. They did not know about the forces that kept the earth round. They cared even less about what kept the earth round. They used various mathematical projections to 'fit' a curved surface to a flat piece of paper.

Newton knew all about the round earth theory. Newton's theory does not contradict the round earth theory. In fact, his theory can be used to make better projections and better maps of the earths surface. The surface of the earth is kept round by forces. The shape of the earth was soon defined in terms of the forces that hold the earth together. For example, the shape of the earth is actually defined in terms of the Euclidean geodesic.

The surface of the earth is defined by the surface of constant gravitational potential that determines the general shape of the ocean's surface. It is not perturbed by the existence of waves. Sea level is a well defined surface that is determined by the gravitational and elastic forces.

'Round' is just geometry. You can always use geometry without know the details of the forces involved. However, round is a product of dynamics. The reason that the earth is round is because of forces. The shape of the earth is not determined by nonEuclidean geometry. NonEuclidean geometry is just the result of forces.
 
wogoga in #15 said:
For the moving observer, the relativistic Doppler effect leads to two photons of different frequency and energy:

f1 = f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5 f2 = f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5 E1 = h f1 = h f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5 E2 = h f2 = h f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
Click to expand...
Darwin123 in #16 said:
This is incorrect because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. You added the velocities linearly. However, you should have used the formula for relativistic addition of velocities. ... There is no u+c or u-c anywhere in the frequencies.
Click to expand...


It is true that later in #21 you recognized that you "got confused" when writing this. Nevertheless, you did not address your mistakes. Why? My above formulas are simply the formulas of the relativistic Doppler effect: Motion along the line of sight.

The relativistic Doppler formulas can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: receiver velocity relative to the medium vreceiver = 0. Thus v = vsource, and we get:

f[v] = f0 c / (c+v)​

The second premise is time dilation of the moving source (i.e. source time running slower) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:

f[v] = f0 c / (c+v) / y[v]
= f0 c / (c+v) x (1-v2/c2)0.5 = f0 (c2-v2)0.5 / (c+v)
= f0 ((c+v) (c-v))0.5 / ((c+v) (c+v))0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5​

The reasoning is not only formal, but also very concrete and intuitively accessible, e.g. by counting the wave periods received by an observer at rest.

Assume that a radio source, having a constant frequency f = 1 GHz at rest, moves at v = 0.8 c, passing observer 0 at x0 = 0 and then observer 1 at x1 = L = 1 LS (1 Light Second = 300 000 km). The "events" of crossing observer 0 and of crossing observer 1 are clearly defined in all inertial frames. In our rest frame, we also know that it takes for the source t = L/v = 1 LS / 0.8 c = 1.25 seconds to move from x0 to x1. (Light needs 1 second for the distance of 1 LS).

Let us now at first assume that frequency f of the source is not affected by the propagation speed v:

During the passage from x0 to x1, the source emits n = f t = f L/v = 1.25 x 10^9 periods. The wave periods before the source are obviously compressed from c/f to (c-v)/f (i.e. by factor (c-v)/c = 0.2). Thus frequency of forward moving waves is increased to f[v] = c/(c-v) f = 5 GHz. To get the frequency of backward propagating radiation we use –v instead of v (as movement of source is opposite to wave propagation): f[-v] = c/(c+v) f = 1/1.8 GHz​

From the case where a source is completely converted into radiation (see #15) we conclude that the frequencies f[v] and f[-v] must be reduced by the Lorentz-factor y[v] in order to satisfy energy conservation. This frequency decrease can be explained by time running slower by the same factor.

In order to confirm or refute the Lorentz transformation, we must check the opposite case: moving observer and stationary sources. According to common sense:

For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs faster than proper (own) time.​

And according to the Lorentz transformation:

For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs slower than proper time, as time dilation is mutual (leading to the so called twin paradox).​

Cheers, Wolfgang

A refutation actually satisfying the thread title: Light clock refutes constancy of c
 
Right after reading what wogoga wrote, my GPS stopped working.


Paul


:) :) :)
 
wogoga said:
It is true that later in #21 you recognized that you "got confused" when writing this. Nevertheless, you did not address your mistakes. Why?
Click to expand...

Because I am still confused as to your claims. There are three mutually exclusive claims that you made in this thread. At one point, you claimed to find a logical inconsistency in relativity. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity was inconsistent with experimental results. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity is not necessary to explain experimental results.

Your claims is unclear. I think that I may have been wrong about one of the claims that I made. However, that would probably mean that you are wrong in one of the three claims that you made.

I admit that I don't understand your argument as a whole. Therefore, I will just pick at specific hypotheses that you present in your argument, regardless of what your conclusions are.





wogoga said:
My above formulas are simply the formulas of the relativistic Doppler effect: Motion along the line of sight.
Click to expand...

You are right. This is the formula for a relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect. I may have have been wrong when I claimed this was wrong. You got me once. Fine.

You used the correct formula for relativistic longitudinal Doppler shift. This formula would apply as long as neither source or observer are accelerating due to external forces. If the observer is in an inertial frame, if the source is moving at a constant velocity relative to that observer, and if there is a vacuum between source and observer, then this formula is correct.

Note that both acceleration and velocity are vectors. So the source can maintain a constant speed but have a nonzero acceleration due to a change in the velocities direction. So this Doppler formula does not have to be true for a rotating frame of reference. It certainly won't hold for the accelerating twin during acceleration.

wogoga said:
In order to confirm or refute the Lorentz transformation, we must check the opposite case: moving observer and stationary sources. According to common sense:


For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs faster than proper (own) time.​
Click to expand...

I can't find this 'common sense' person. I looked for polls and surveys that asked peoples opinion on this topic. I could not find any polls or surveys.

I do know Newtonian physics as presented in Principia. I have found some people that claim 'Newton's physics are 'common sense'. , I know a bit about Galilean transforms. According to these preEinstein views of the universe, the clocks in a source should run at the same speed as ones own proper time. Newton hypothesized an absolute time that runs the same for all observers throughout the universe.

Newton did not assume that there was a local interaction that changed the rate of the clocks. The Galilean transformation does not effect the time component. So both Newton and Galileo disagree with your common sense.

However, I am not sure whether this is really the issue. So lets continue.

wogoga said:
According to the Lorentz transformation:

For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs slower than proper time, as time dilation is mutual (leading to the so called twin paradox).​
Click to expand...

Back to relativity. Neither Einsteinian nor Lorentzian relativity says anything that you claim.


The Lorentz transformation does not say all moving clocks have to move slower than the stationary clocks. In fact, a clock that is accelerating could be running faster than a stationary clock that isn't accelerating.

The Lorentz transformation of time has a term 'vx/c^2' term in addition to the gamma factor. This term becomes important when a force causes acceleration. In an inertial frame, 'v' can only be changed due to a real force. So the change has an asymmetry due to force.

The 'rate of time' has an explicit dependence both on dynamical acceleration and distance because of this 'vx/c^2' term.

Therefore, an accelerating observer will have a different 'rate of time than an inertial observer, even if the two are moving with the same velocity as long as the two are in different positions.

I predict that you will either ignore or blithely dismiss the 'vx/c^2' term in the Lorentz transformation no matter how many times someone else brings it up.


wogoga said:
Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah. You too.
 
What I've never understood, why should physics at the scales/energies/speeds where relativity theories become important make 'common sense' at all?

Common sense is something we develop by observation of cause and effect on the scales that our senses are evolved to deal with. It would have been nice and easy if this was directly scalable to any size and speed, but as it turned out nature does not work that way.
At which point it starts doing things that do NOT make 'common sense'. But the fact that we are too limited to observe those effects directly does not make them any less relevant.

It makes no common sense that an electron which has virtually no mass and size whatsoever is able to prevent two atoms from getting closer together when you push them. But they still do.
It doesn't make common sense that a clock on a fast moving sattelite runs slower than on earth. But it still does.
It makes no common sense that some small particles can be both a wave and a particle. But that is still how they behave.
Quantum tunnelling makes no common sense, but enzymes still use it for function.

Rather than be annoyed at nature for not being as simple as you want it to be, why not marvel at the intellect of humanity that we are unraveling how these things work?
 
wogoga said:
A refutation actually satisfying the thread title: Light clock refutes constancy of c
Click to expand...

I read your link. The link shows how you are wrong.

You are wrong about the speed of light always being constant according to relativity. The vacuum speed of light does vary significantly under specific conditions according to Einsteinian relativity.

The vacuum speed of light, c, is only constant in an inertial frame. The vacuum speed of light, c, varies greatly with distance in a non inertial frame.

The vacuum speed of light IS NOT constant in a gravitational field. The speed of light varies with position for an observer in a gravitational field. The vacuum speed of light is a effectively constant for local measurements, meaning for positions close to the point observer. However, the speed of light varies with the displacement of the point of measurement from the point of observation.

An observer in a non inertial field is under the influence of a gravitational field according to relativity.

I have no free link to the following article. All net copies are pay walled, so far as I know. However, I have a copy of the book in my hand. So I will merely quote from the essay:

On the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light' by Albert Einstein in 'The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H.Weyl. (Dover Publications, Translation published 1923).

Page 107 of the reference above:

c = c0 (1+[phi]/c^2) . . . . (3)

The principle of the constancy in the speed of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.'


The constant, c0, is the vacuum speed of light shown in textbooks and handbooks. For a linearly acceleration observer,
[phi]=a x,
where a is the dynamic acceleration of the observer and x is the distance to the observation point where the positive direction is the direction of acceleration.

Also note that acceleration is a dynamic quantity. It is defined by:
F=ma

where F is the strength of the external force acting on the observer in the observer in the collinear inertial frame and m is the mass of the observer.
 
wogoga in #26 said:
The relativistic Doppler formulas can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: receiver velocity relative to the medium vreceiver = 0. Thus v = vsource, and we get:

f[v] = f0 c / (c+v)​

The second premise is time dilation of the moving source (i.e. source time running slower) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:

f[v] = f0 c / (c+v) / y[v]
= f0 c / (c+v) x (1-v2/c2)0.5 = f0 (c2-v2)0.5 / (c+v)
= f0 ((c+v) (c-v))0.5 / ((c+v) (c+v))0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5​

The reasoning is not only formal, but also very concrete and intuitively accessible, e.g. by counting the wave periods received by an observer at rest.
Click to expand...


There is a second possibility to derive the same formula:

The relativistic Doppler formula can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: source velocity relative to the medium vsource = 0. Thus v = vreceiver, and we get:

f[v] = f0 (c/v) / c​

The second premise is time contraction of the source at rest (i.e. source time running faster) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:

f[v] = f0 (c-v)/c y[v]
= f0 (c-v)/c (1-v2/c2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v) (c2-v2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 (c-v)0.5 (c+v)-0.5 (c-v)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5​
So instead of derivation 1

  • classical Doppler shift: observer at rest, moving source
  • time dilation of moving source (with respect to receiver at rest)
we can also use derivation 2

  • classical Doppler shift: source at rest, moving observer
  • time contraction (i.e. running faster) of source at rest (with respect to moving observer)
in order to get the relativistic Doppler effect (in longitudinal direction, receiver = observer).

At least in case of time-dilation of objects moving around closed tracks in particle accelerators, derivation 1 cannot be applied to radiation emitted from accelerator-parts (assumed at rest) and received resp. observed by such a high-speed object. The reason is simple:

Insofar as time of the high-speed object runs slower with respect to the particle-accelerator, particle-accelerator time runs faster with respect to the high-speed object.​

And the application of the classical Doppler shift source at rest, moving observer in derivation 2 then shows that light propagation with respect to the moving high-speed observer cannot be c, but must be c+v or c-v in the longitudinal case.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Lorentz-Ether-Theory and SR Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion
 
wogoga said:
There is a second possibility to derive the same formula:

The relativistic Doppler formula can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: source velocity relative to the medium vsource = 0. Thus v = vreceiver, and we get:

f[v] = f0 (c/v) / c​

The second premise is time contraction of the source at rest (i.e. source time running faster) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:

f[v] = f0 (c-v)/c y[v]
= f0 (c-v)/c (1-v2/c2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v) (c2-v2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 (c-v)0.5 (c+v)-0.5 (c-v)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5​
So instead of derivation 1

  • classical Doppler shift: observer at rest, moving source
  • time dilation of moving source (with respect to receiver at rest)
we can also use derivation 2

  • classical Doppler shift: source at rest, moving observer
  • time contraction (i.e. running faster) of source at rest (with respect to moving observer)
in order to get the relativistic Doppler effect (in longitudinal direction, receiver = observer).

At least in case of time-dilation of objects moving around closed tracks in particle accelerators, derivation 1 cannot be applied to radiation emitted from accelerator-parts (assumed at rest) and received resp. observed by such a high-speed object. The reason is simple:

Insofar as time of the high-speed object runs slower with respect to the particle-accelerator, particle-accelerator time runs faster with respect to the high-speed object.​

And the application of the classical Doppler shift source at rest, moving observer in derivation 2 then shows that light propagation with respect to the moving high-speed observer cannot be c, but must be c+v or c-v in the longitudinal case.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Lorentz-Ether-Theory and SR Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion
Click to expand...
You might want to write a paper for peer review. Such a ground breaking addition to physics is bound to win you the Nobel Prize. Of course, you'll have a tough uphill fight just like Einstein did.

Then again, SR actually works in the real universe, if properly understood and applied.

So I'd stick to your day job, and not plan on the windfall of the prize purse to fund your retirement.
 
I am only willing to go so far as to title this:
Refutation of Special Relativity for People Who Do Not Understand It and Refuse to Try to Do So.

Even if we ignore the mistakes in the "refutation" itself one must wonder what credit is to be gained from a demonstration that a "Relativity for Dummies" book doesn't present all the details that an expert would know.
 
In this thread, we have a poster who presents all maths and no logic

Over in Waterbreather's thread, we have all logic and no maths...

Both are about relativity... hmmmm

What would happen if we combined the threads?
  • a big kaboom?
  • no logic and no maths, thereby removing the thread from existence
  • illogical mathematics, that manages to prove that the speed of light is potato
  • a breakthrough in human thinking, from which we wake up and go "...but it was only a dream."
  • string, pumpkins, and those tiny cocktail umbrellas describing eccentric elliptical orbits around all the bukkits ever taken from lolrusi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom