Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity

[Perpetual Student]

Is there no end to these characters?

 

[MacM]

An example of the errors in your OP: "Loretnz Contraction of space" does not exist.

The Lorentz contraction of lengths of a moving object relative to an outside observer does exist. This does not state that the distance that an object travels contracts. It states that the length of the object contracts according to the outside observer. All observers in SR agree on the distance that an object travels.

You are only partially correct. A mass's dimension is claimed to contract but so is distance of space. If you don't know that then you are not in any position to challenge me.

 

[Tubbythin]

You basless assumptions are going to be your downfall. Let me suggest you quit while you are ahead. But just so you know if your attitude and innuendo persists I'll simply not reply to your BS.



You have shown that it is you that are inept. You clearly cannot read or lack reading comprehension. You are one of those that tag along pretending to understand just because you read a book, listened to a lecture or perhaps even memorized some course in college but don't have an independant thought of your own. No actual grass roots understanding of physics.

You can tell he's a newbie...

My OP was not confrontational.

I beg to differ:

They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.

It is utter stupidity

It was invitational to discuss certain issues. I'm not intersted in hearing recitals of the theory. I have done that far to many time.

Still not sunk in yet though, huh?

However, when other seem to think they can just cast innuendos or make blatantly false accusations with respect to my understanding then you bet I will become confrontational. Most here seem to be under the false concept if you question relativity you don't understand it.

Nope, see my other post.

I challenge you to point out any statement I have made about what relativtyasserts that is inconsistant with it.

He already did. And to think you said he "clearly cannot read or lack reading comprehension".

 

[dasmiller]

Your confusion here is understandable. You do not recognize an absolute frame and hence do no see how a relative veloicty to that frame is absolute.

Let me see if I can give you a simpler example. One that you might equate to.

1 - Assume the state trooper parked along side the highway is at absolute rest.

2 - You are racing your friend down the highway and are breaking the speed limit by a ticketable amount.

3 - We'll let you be winning the race since I sense you are likely sensative to winning. You are going 10 Mph faster relative to your friend.

4 - But guess what that did not protect you from the fact that you were going "Absolutely" 110 Mph "Relative" to the state trooper.

So where is there any mutually exclusive statement here???

If you take that scenario and remove the words "absolute" and "absolutely," the scenario doesn't change one whit. So it appears that the absolute reference frame is not relevant for that scenario.

I don't think that anyone's questioning whether you can define an absolute reference frame - of course you can. They're questioning the utility of doing so.

 

[Tubbythin]

Your confusion here is understandable. You do not recognize an absolute frame and hence do no see how a relative veloicty to that frame is absolute.

Let me see if I can give you a simpler example. One that you might equate to.

1 - Assume the state trooper parked along side the highway is at absolute rest.

2 - You are racing your friend down the highway and are breaking the speed limit by a ticketable amount.

3 - We'll let you be winning the race since I sense you are likely sensative to winning. You are going 10 Mph faster relative to your friend.

4 - But guess what that did not protect you from the fact that you were going "Absolutely" 110 Mph "Relative" to the state trooper.

So where is there any mutually exclusive statement here???

Urm. I think most people would just say "...the fact that you were going 110 Mph "Relative" to the state trooper".

 

[MacM]

I think I understand what MacM is trying to suggest. His claim is that the effects in Relativity that are generally considered to be caused by relative velocity, are actually delayed effects of the accelerations needed to impart those relative velocities in the first place.

However, it gets dicey from there. If a spaceship flies past a space dock at 2/3 C (both of them on inertial courses, neither of them accelerating) and the spaceship observes that the space dock is too short for the ship to fit into, and the space dock workers observe that the dock is plenty long enough for the ship to fit into, how is this explained by the fact that at some indeterminable time in the past, the ship (or maybe the dock) accelerated? Isn't it more straightforward to interpret the cause of that difference in measurement as being due to the difference in velocity that exists at the time the measurements are made -- that is, due to Lorentz contraction as currently understood in Special Relativity?

MacM, perhaps it would clarify the gist of your claim if you were to describe an experiment for which your theory would predict a different outcome than Relativity theory. Or, if there are no such experiments, explain why your interpretation of what's "really going on" in such cases is more useful or a better explanation than offered by current physics.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Wholly crap. An actual intelligent member here. Thank God - Oh I forgot I don't beleive in God(s) either - LOL.

You are the first to actually understand the issue. But to keep it simple - not dicey - Understand I am not questioning measurements while in motion. Neither contraction or time dilation, just the issue of time dilation as demonstrated by synchronized clocks where one is accelerated and returned for direct comparison at common rest and has accumulated less time.

That in my opinion is the only true measure of dilation . The observed dilation whuile in motion is caused by doppler, is recipocal (symmetrical) and is not supportede as permanent change when at rest.

Although I do not believe in contraction as it is presented in SR. And the fact is contraction has never been measured to date by any experiment. I do believe in some spatial contracton but I merely assume it to be 1/c^2 what SR would predict. Maybe that is why they haven't measured it yet - LOL.

If it is possible to get the relativists here back down off the celing and laking common sense and not shouting insults and rhetoric, I think this could be interesting and perhaps collectively we might derive a test.

 

[MacM]

You're much too polite - you make the rest of us (i.e., me) look bad.

Anyway, good luck.

Thats better - LOL. Keep up the good work Myriad.

 

[Reality Check]

You are only partially correct. A mass's dimension is claimed to contract but so is distance of space. If you don't know that then you are not in any position to challenge me.

Lorentz contraction does not apply to space. It applies to lengths.
If you don't know that then you are not in any position to challenge me.

 

[Tubbythin]

If it is possible to get the relativists here back down off the celing and laking common sense and not shouting insults and rhetoric, I think this could be interesting and perhaps collectively we might derive a test.

You don't think this is at all hypocritical?

 

[dasmiller]

2 - GPS computes orbit relative to the center of the Earth a preferred rest frame - Not relative velocity to surface clocks.

Sort of. The GPS satellites broadcast a nine-element ephemeris message (6 Keplerian elements and then 3 smaller terms to deal with the fact that the universe doesn't consist of a point mass at the earth's center).

5 - Given the "Relative Velocity" between orbit velocity minus surface velocity using SR you get a velocity lose of 5.58 micro-seconds/day.
That is an INCORRECT value.

Given the complexity of the relative motion between the ground user and the GPS satellite, some of us are still unclear on how you can simply subtract one earth-centered speed from another and use that as a "Relative Velocity" for time dilation.

 

[Reality Check]

If it is possible to get the relativists here back down off the celing and laking common sense and not shouting insults and rhetoric, I think this could be interesting and perhaps collectively we might derive a test.

There has been a test and so we do not have to derive it.

Time dilation has been measured to not depend on acceleration up to 10¹⁸ g :
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 10¹⁸ g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

• Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17. He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~10¹⁶ g) and depends only upon velocity

 

[MacM]

I think he's already offered one. From the OP:


Of course, the math appears to be gibberish (and to be based on a whole slew of oversimplifying assumptions; for example, he's ignoring the fact that both the satellite and the ground-based clock are under gravity, so SR is not appropriate) but I'll let sol clearcut that particular forest....

Ah. We are not completely in disagreement. The gibberish part is because you apparently are unfamiliar with the Taylor series but for my purposes here is is far easier than running SR with these low velocities.

We agree because I said and showed that SR IS NOT used. This is in contrast to many physicists and relativist (some here) that want to argue otherwise. Go ahead read one of your own's comments about GR and SR BOTH being required.

You and I agree SR is not used. Do you agree that Lorentz is? I hope so. As far as gravity I stated it is used and has an affect as well. I'm only addressing the aspect that SR is not and does not produce correct results if used.

I acknowledge my statement that GPS proves SR wrong is a sucker punch since it isn't used and cannot be used, the comment merely brings out those that don't know better and lets them show their flags.

Now we know who does and does not know GPS, if not perhaps SR.

 

[ben m]

There seems to be a disconnect here. People seem to associate the discussion regarding time and space in absolute terms to mean I do not understand the time-space of relativity. That happens to be untrue.

A common phenomenon in physics classes is that if you ask a student if they understand X, they say "yes". If you ask them to demonstrate their understanding by (say) answering a question, they're lost. It means nothing to me that you can tell us that you understand relativity.

The point here is that to make relativty function one must accept the duality of physical change from a common cause and it is against Osccam's Razor to do that.

It is far more logical and physics is more sensable (i.e. - not counter intuitive) to view things in the alternative. So I am not debating what relativity says but the veracity of the concept.

That did not make any sense.

The term Fudge factor was used because initially Einstein claimed equivelence between frames and asserted that either observer with relative motion can be assumed at rest.

Yes, either inertial observer can be assumed at rest.

That view is false and is no longer used. GR broke the symmetry of inertial SR. So my point is that SR is invalid in that respect. You cannot claim you use SR to determine a clocks relative accumulated time or it's time dilation when compared to a resting clock without knowlwedge about how that relative velocity was achieved.

Wrong---even in GR, inertial frames are well-defined; any inertial frame has exactly the same local, comoving physics as any other; any inertial observer measures the same speed of light. The only difference is that "inertial" no longer means "having a constant velocity with respect to other inertial frames".

1 - Given two clocks "A" & "B" that by whatever means have been synchronized while both are at relative rest.

2 - These two clocks now have an inertial relative velocity.

3 - Given the relative velocity value, when they are brought together, one hour later according to clock "A", at a common rest; which clock will have accumulated lesser time?

"These clocks now have an inertial relative velocity" does not just magically happen. The way in which it happens is detectable via local measurements. If clock A accelerates, it will know if without needing to measure a series of velocities and see those velocities changing. (If you're sitting in a car with your eyes closed, you can tell that the car is accelerating. You can't tell if it's braking from 65 to 55 mph or from 10mph to 0, or even if it's getting towed backwards from 0 to -10mph.)

This is built into SR already, just as it was built into Newtonian mechanics, by the use of Newton's 1st Law to define inertial reference frames. You keep saying it is not---well, maybe you are saying you don't want it to be, or that it shouldn't be. But the system that Einstein wrote down, the system that I learned in school, the system that we teach to the students, and the system we're talking about when we say "SR works", is this one in which inertial frames can be defined by local measurements. The system you're talking about may have some sort of paradox here, but that system isn't SR. Sorry.

This has nothing special to do with GR.

 

[MacM]

Oh my God.

Please find someone to introduce you to the concept of vectors.

Not required and it is less cumbersome to use the Taylor series for the purpose at hand. You do know the Taylor series do you not?

DSo you disagree with the calculation results? If not I suggest you move on to something of importance and stop casing innuendos.

 

[ben m]

Not required and it is less cumbersome to use the Taylor series for the purpose at hand. You do know the Taylor series do you not?

What are you talking about? In the calculation Thabiguy quoted, you did not in fact use a Taylor series; Taylor expansion had nothing to do with it.

And you did subtract two velocities as though they were scalars. Since the whole thing was wrong I can't even say "... when you should have used vectors" because I can't discern why you wanted to subtract those things to begin with.

 

[MacM]

I confess that I didn't follow a lot of the logic, but are you saying that there really is an absolute reference frame, and it's centered on the Earth?

NO. But GPS does use what is called a "Common Preferred Rest Frame" and it is the "Local Absolute Rest Frame " for both the surface clocks and the orbiting clocks but is not a universal rest frame.

Well, no . .. as the other poster said, it's all about the vectors.

No it is about how GPS actually works and GPS uses (among many other things) orbit veloicty to the center of the earth. A Lorentz Relativty clculation not anSR calculation.

If GPS was in equatorial orbit, the relative velocity between a spot on the ground and a GPS satellite would be constantly changing - sometimes they'd be moving the same direction, sometimes opposite directions, usually something in between.

Agreed, indeed regardless of equitorial position clocks at different latitudes will have dfferent veloicties but those changes are moot since they are precisely offset by GR due to the oblate sphereoid geometry of the earth.

That is one reason SR IS NOT USED GUYS.

Of course, GPS isn't in an equatorial orbit. It's inclined 55 degrees, which makes the relative motion more complicated and dependent on the relationship between the specific ground location and the RAAN and Anomaly of the orbit.

Correct but irrelevant since position on earth's surface does not affect GPS except by altitude due to the reason stated above.

"Relative speed," which is what you seem to be talking about, would be the magnitude of the relative velocity vector. It would be constantly varying.

Correct, which is one reason it is not used even if SR were valid in this case which it is not.

ETA: Actually, for that last bit, it depends on what we mean by "relative speed." The magnitide of the relative velocity vector would be one meaning, but the rate that the two things are moving closer/farther is another perfectly good meaning. For the GPS sat/ground station, the magnitude of the relative velocity vector will always be a few km/s; the rate at which they're closing/separating will pass through zero from time to time. Just for completeness.

Correct again and why it is not used. GPS uses the LORENTZ Relativity principle employing the local common preferred rest frame. In that frame both orbit and surface clocks maintain constant values.

The GPS solution ends up being the differential between surface velocity Lorentz gamma and orbit velocity Lorentz gamma and not relative velocity between clocks based on the preferred frame.

They could have taken each velocity relative to the common rest frame and used SR but they would have gotten my 5.58 micro-second loss per day which is incorrect.

 

[MacM]

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Geocentrism returns.

I wish I were being sarcastic in the paragraph above.

Never said that at all. You are showing your lack of reading comprehension or flippant consideration of anything not to your preferred way of thougt.

 

[sol invictus]

Not required and it is less cumbersome to use the Taylor series for the purpose at hand. You do know the Taylor series do you not?

I suspect you're the only poster in this thread that does not know what a Taylor series is. Now that you've revealed you don't understand high school mathematics, should we move on?

So far, your argument boils down to this: if I do a wrong calculation, I get the wrong answer. OMG, special relativity is wrong!!!!!!

FYI, Lorentz invariance (which is precisely the same thing as special relativity, a fact which many physics cranks seem to find surprising) is one of the most thoroughly and precisely tested facts the human race has ever come across. The best constraints on it are from relativistic quantum field theory, so they rely on much more than just relativity - but without relativity it's inconceivably unlikely that they would work.

 

[MacM]

As I've already tried to point out to him twice already, he's actually saying that there's an abosolute reference frame relative to the center of the earth.

Another JREF member's credability bites the dust.

I have said no such thing. I have referred to apparently facts you are not aware of which means you should shut up and learn rather than pretend to being an know it all.

For all other here since I cannot yet post URL's "Google" ECI Frames.

That is the frame of reference (one they use another is the "Barycenter of the solar system).

ECI stands for Earth Center Inertial and it is the key rest frame of GPS. It is the "Local Absolute Rest Reference" common to both earth's surface and orvit.

So shut up and listen now. You have made it clear I am more knowledgeable about this than yourself.

 

[dasmiller]

They could have taken each velocity relative to the common rest frame and used SR but they would have gotten my 5.58 micro-second loss per day which is incorrect.

So you're asserting that if you found someone who believed the conventional relativity models were computationally correct, and asked them to calculate the relativity-related drift of the GPS clocks relative to UTC, they'd do it like that? And they'd get 5.58 microseconds?

If not, it's a strawman argument. If so, do you have any citations?