Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity

[dafydd]

A very good account.Recommended. See link in adjacent post.

 

[dafydd]

Thanks for helping me make a point.

You statement shows your complete bia on this matter. For anyone that cares to look back my OP is of course post #1. No derogatory or snide comments in there.

Then we have posts #2 - #5 by members here that either cast negative innuendo or open insults. It wasn't until #6 that a rebuttal post was made without such content.

So much for your veracity and integrity here. Try actually addressing the relative velocity issue for a change. It is more productive than waving your arms to others saying "Hey look at me I'm being funny".

You would get on better here if you presented some evidence instead of waving your arms around and shouting 'Hey look at me I'm a genius and you are all eejits!'

 

[The Man]

Thanks for helping me make a point.

You statement shows your complete bia on this matter. For anyone that cares to look back my OP is of course post #1. No derogatory or snide comments in there.

Then we have posts #2 - #5 by members here that either cast negative innuendo or open insults. It wasn't until #6 that a rebuttal post was made without such content.

So much for your veracity and integrity here. Try actually addressing the relative velocity issue for a change. It is more productive than waving your arms to others saying "Hey look at me I'm being funny".

“No derogatory or snide comments in there”? What you mean besides these?

<snip>
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense". <snip>



<snip>
It is utter stupidity. <snip>



<snip>

This Texas Two Step just doesn't hold up because if I continue toward Alpha Centuri I will collide with it even if it were hidden behind an optical event horizon. Dare they argue you don't arrive when distance has been reduced to zero!!!!! <snip>

<snip>
Einstein would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 3 just because he can make a closed mathematical loop by ignoring physical changes created by his own theory. That is claim a clock ticks slow but then claim it has the same time standard as another clock hence space (distance) must have contracted to account for the differential in accumulated time in the same test. <snip>

That is just a quick scan of your OP for direct comments, not even including your other snide and derogatory inferences. You apparently have your own personal interpretation of snide and derogatory comments as you do relativity with both as clearly biased as they are incorrect.

 

[Darwin123]

Yes, guys, I know this is an abandoned post. However, I would love to discuss these issues with anyone who is interested. I doubt MacM is still there, although I hope he checks old post occasionally. However, anyone else could answer me if he wants to.

Hello Ben,

Thanks for your comments. It is a fudge factor in that relativists still want to claim mere relative velocity causes relavistic changes. Clearly relative velocity doesnot and cannot do anything in terms of physical change.

Scientists who use relativity do not claim that relativistic changes are caused only be relative velocity.

Dynamical acceleration also plays a role. Dynamical acceleration is the acceleration on a body caused by external forces that act on the body. The force on a body changes the rate at which clocks oscillate in many ways, some of them predicted by Newton. However, if a clock is made real small and sturdy, the Newtonian effects of external forces are removed by the clock. What is left are the effects the force has on time and space.

Dynamical effects are built into the definitions of inertial frame in SR and in geodesic path in GR. Merely by deciding which frames are not inertial, or which paths are not geodesic, one has partly taken into account the forces on the clocks and sticks.


There is an urban legend that relativity only contains kinematics. In this view, forces and interactions are not important in relativity. So some people work the converse. They show that a force is important, and then claim it contradicts relativity. This is false reasoning.

Relative velocity to the pillar was not mere relative velocity but force induced velocity; i.e the consequence of acceleration relative to the pillar in an absolute change sense.

You may not know the absolute velocity but acceleration is a change in that value and relative veocity to all things in the universe change as a consequence.

There is no absolute velocity in SR. However, there is an absolute acceleration in SR which is precisely what you describe. Acceleration caused by a force is very real. If a clock is acted on by an external force, then that clock can not be considered part of an inertial frame.

You have deduced part of relativity on your own. Yes, the acceleration that is caused by a force is absolute in the following sense. Newton's third law of motion applies to all objects in an inertial frame. That means that real forces have to be between two bodies. If a force is applied to an observer, then the observer can not be part of an inertial frame. So the Lorentz transformation can't be used to predict how that observer, acted on by a real force, will observe the rest of the universe. So acceleration caused by a force is very special in the sense that it removes observers from inertial frames.

In this way, SR is not different from Newtonian physics. SR has some features that are outside the realm of Newtonian physics. However, the same sort of reasoning is needed to define the 'absolute space' in Newtonian physics.