Theory of Special Relativity is wrong

[RossFW]

GMB,

I don't have anything like the Maths or Physics skills of the learned Gentlemen posting here, but I was able to construct a laymens woring model of SR based on one premise-

As energy and matter are different forms of the same thing, a body with a higher energy state has more apparent mass than a body at rest.

If you accept that (and astronomy as we know it would pretty much collapse if it wasn't so) the entire theory flows from that consequence, PRECISELY BECAUSE velocity is relative and not absloute.

Do you accept the concept of apparent mass? If so, I think I can explain the whole thing to you (in PLAIN ENGLISH).

 

[simdude]

My limited understanding is that the constancy of c is a proposition of SR, not a proven conclusion. The validity of the proposition has been demonstrated (repeatedly) by experiment. Time dilation, on the other hand is a direct mathematical consequence of a constant c. As a fellow engineer, I share with you my appreciation of the elegance and simplicty of the time dilation argument. As has been mentioned repeatedly, time dilation has also been verified experimentally (and productively ).

Actually everything I said before? Let's just go with this instead. Much more eloquent and correct.

Uh, I got 5 mph as the relative velocity, unless the truck was also moving backwards. 10-5 (direction difference) rather than 10+5. Vector summing.

And this is what I get for trying to think even at a basic level before coffee in the morning...

 

[quarky]

Is it not possible that a whole different 'model' might fit the data? Or find compatible data?

That there are two or more 'solutions' to our perceptions?
A single naughty particle that violates C because it preceeds C is all it would take.

 

[Jimbo07]

Is it not possible that a whole different 'model' might fit the data? Or find compatible data?

That there are two or more 'solutions' to our perceptions?
A single naughty particle that violates C because it preceeds C is all it would take.

It's certainly possible.

Feel free to get to work on demonstrating it.

 

[Dancing David]

Like that there is no aether.
...
Then there was time dilation which is absolute rubbish as well.
...



" Einstein first considered this aether; the privileged frame matter, as superfluous...." Thats a silly consideration right there.

Amazing how the theories that Einstein elucidated receive the same treatment the theory of natural selection does.

 

[Dancing David]

Is there a reason GMB, why you are so utterly vile?

Because 'V', the vile constant is is the same in all frames of reference.

 

[sol invictus]

Because 'V', the vile constant is is the same in all frames of reference.

There is actually such a thing as Weyl invariance, which is pronounced "vile invariance"...

 

[Dancing David]

There is actually such a thing as Weyl invariance, which is pronounced "vile invariance"...

That states that somebody will always sing 'Mack the Knife' when enough alcohol is consumed....

 

[calebprime]

Bobby Darin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dDs_N3kGQk&feature=related

I'm reaching for the Glenlivet


Ella blows them all away, even though she forgets the lyrics in the second chorus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF4J45Mn5s

 

[Lennart Hyland]

For the third time: imagine you're inside a laboratory floating far out in space, very far from any stars or other form of matter. The laboratory is sealed and has no windows, so you cannot see out or in any way interact with anything outside, but it is fully equipped with optical tables, a particle accelerator, a greenhouse, an electronics lab, and everything else you might need to do laboratory experiments. You know it also has no engines or rockets on the outside, so you're sure it's moving at constant velocity. It also has zero rotation.

Question: is there any experiment you can do inside the lab that will tell you what its velocity is? If you'd like we can specify a coordinate system - say galactic coordinates - and I'm asking whether there's an experiment you can do to determine the velocity vector of the lab in those coordinates.

Yes or no?

So what is the answer?

 

[sol invictus]

So what is the answer?

That would take all the fun out of it, wouldn't it?

Let's give that troll another day to respond, and if he stays gone I'll explain the answer and why I asked.

 

[Jimbo07]

Well I think he already is banned

Atleast it says so under his nick.

Just to be clear (since my post wasn't)... I have already answered the question. Glibly.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Question: is there any experiment you can do inside the lab that will tell you what its velocity is? If you'd like we can specify a coordinate system - say galactic coordinates - and I'm asking whether there's an experiment you can do to determine the velocity vector of the lab in those coordinates.

I would break the seal of the lab, stick my finger out and estimate the velocity based on the sensation of wind on my finger.

 

[Jono]

Well I think he already is banned

Atleast it says so under his nick.

Den glider in i mål. Den glider in i måååål!!

 

[sol invictus]

Make that a fortnight. Isn't he off on a 10-day sabbatical?

Ah. Well, in that case - if anyone requests I'll explain where I was going. Otherwise I'll wait and see.

I would break the seal of the lab, stick my finger out and estimate the velocity based on the sensation of wind on my finger.

I'm not sure how much wind there is in interstellar space...

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Well you could send me a PM with the answer if you dont want to spoil it

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Nah - any kind of reasoned exchange with GMB was completely impossible, so it probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Here goes:

The truth is that as far as we know it is impossible to determine the speed of the lab from the inside. Had GMB claimed it was possible, I would have asked how, and then on from there.

Had he agreed it isn't possible, the next step is to point out that that implies that the speed of light is always equal to c as measured by someone inside, no matter what the speed of the lab (because otherwise by measuring the speed of light, maybe in different directions, you could determine the speed of the lab).

Therefore, the laws of physics are identical inside all such labs, and the speed of light is the same (which really follows from the first statement, as you can see). But those two postulates are precisely what Einstein used to derive special relativity - including everything GMB was objecting to.

If you're GMB that leaves you with these options:

a) retract your answer to the question,

b) claim that Einstein made a mathematics mistake, so that it's not true that the various bizarre consequences of SR follow from those two postulates,

c) spew angry abuse in all capitals, or

d) all of the above.

I'm sure you can guess what GMB would have done...

Wow nicely planned of you! To be honest... I was disappointed with the answer.

I thought there would be some tricky-quantum-mechanic-thingy you could do to actully measure the speed of the lab. Though I guess I wouldnt have understand it anyways.

 

[Gregory]

Had he agreed it isn't possible, the next step is to point out that that implies that the speed of light is always equal to c as measured by someone inside, no matter what the speed of the lab (because otherwise by measuring the speed of light, maybe in different directions, you could determine the speed of the lab).

Therefore, the laws of physics are identical inside all such labs, and the speed of light is the same (which really follows from the first statement, as you can see).

Stupid question probably, but can you explain this in more detail? Specifically, suppose that the speed of light isn't constant; how do you determine the speed of the lab from that if you're inside the lab? Because it seems to me that even if the speed of light isn't constant, so to an outside observer the light is traveling at c + whatever mph (and therefore deduce the speed of the lab), it will be constant in relation to everything in the lab, and there won't be any way of measuring the difference.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

I'm not sure how much wind there is in interstellar space...

Well there must be a lot because of the huge ELECTRIC FIELDS required to keep all the chunks-o-matter from bumping into each other.

 

[Perpetual Student]

N/A