Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies

[Trebuchet]

Just for fun:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedian_relativity

 

[Peregrinus]

"An electron and a positron at rest..."

Ahem?

 

[wogoga]

Do you really think that SR ignores its postulate that the speed of light is c according to all inertial observers?

I only want to show that also from the alternative premise "speed of light is c only for observers in a privileged frame assumed at rest" (non-mutual) time-dilation can be derived. In general I try to understand why Special Relativity is such an efficient and useful theory despite being fundamentally flawed.

Take for instance the twin paradox:

"In 1911, Paul Langevin gave a 'striking example' by describing the story of a traveler making a trip at a Lorentz factor of y = 100 (99.995% the speed of light). The traveler remains in a projectile for one year of his time, and then reverses direction. Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth. During the trip, both the traveler and Earth keep sending signals to each other at a constant rate, which places Langevin's story among the Doppler shift versions of the twin paradox."​

We can understand why such a Doppler-shift resolution actually seems to work. For the twin at rest we get the relativistic shift using these premises:

• signals move at c (relative to himself)
• time of travelling twin runs slower

From this we derive by "normal" logic that the following is valid for the travelling twin:

• signals move at c relative to twin at rest
• time of twin at rest runs faster

The SR derivation of the Doppler shift for the travelling twin however is based on these premises:

• signals move at c (relative to himself)
• time of twin at rest runs slower

Both derivations for the travelling twin lead (by math-magic) to the same Doppler shift. The first derivation (implying a signal-speed from c-v to c+v relative to himself) obviously violates Special Relativity. Yet also the second derivation with "normal" application of SR leads to a serious problem which becomes evident by introducing a light-clock on Earth.

The light-pulse in the clock is assumed to move orthogonally to the movement of the travelling twin. Without time dilation of this clock by Lorentz-factor 100, with respect to the travelling twin, the speed of this light-pulse would be not c but around 1.4 c (hypotenuse of right triangle with c and 0.99995 c). Thus, with respect to the travelling twin, during 1 year (proper time) before reversing direction, only 0.01 year can pass in the light clock at rest (otherwise the light-pulse would be superluminal). Also during the return trip of 1 year, only clock cycles corresponding to 0.01 years can be accomplished in the light clock at rest.

Thus we have to conclude: During reversal of direction, with respect to the travelling twin, clock-cycles corresponding to 199.98 years must be accomplished in the light-clock. During these 199.98 years, the light-pulse in the clock moves a distance of 199.98 light-years. And a light-pulse moving 199.98 light-years during an arbitrarily short time of direction-reversal quite obviously violates the very principle SR is based on.

Do you really think that scientists are so stupid that they do not test SR - including the speed of light from moving sources?
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

Please choose the experiment which according to you most convincingly contradicts what I have written. Then I can demonstrate that the experiment is either irrelevant or simply wrong.

Cheers, Wolfgang
The assumption that a theory as complex as Special Relativity is either true or false is unduly simplistic

 

[Reality Check]

wogoga: Please show how the "Operation of FLASH" SR test is wrong

I only want to show that also from the alternative premise "speed of light is c only for observers in a privileged frame assumed at rest" (non-mutual) time-dilation can be derived.

You are wrong, wogoga. To derive time dilation you need to use all of SR. That post was silly - it starts with the relativistic Doppler formula to arrive at relativistic time dilation.

In general I try to understand why Special Relativity is such an efficient and useful theory despite being fundamentally flawed.

That is a bit hypocritical, wogoga. You acknowledge that SR is a "efficient and useful theory " which is why it is not flawed! And then have the fantasy that SR is fundamentally flawed. While using SR in the post starting with the relativistic Doppler formula!

The twin paradox was resolved 80 years ago. We do not need fairy stories to resolve it.

Please choose the experiment which according to you most convincingly contradicts what I have written. Then I can demonstrate that the experiment is either irrelevant or simply wrong.

So you know that you can show that any experiment in
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources is wrong, wogoga.

18 August 2015 wogoga: Please show how "Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser" is wrong.

 

[fuelair]

Oddly we have two ongoing threads with one person in them who apparently has no education on Einstein, light, time, observers/their locations etc. and think they know better than actual theoreticians/academics in the field. At the same time with essentially the same againsts!!! Like fish in a barrel this is!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Right here as a matter of fact: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10826567#post10826567

 

[marplots]

Right here as a matter of fact: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10826567#post10826567

That thread is relatively better.

 

[Kid Eager]

jeez, guys - keep up!

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

 

[fuelair]

jeez, guys - keep up!

Sorry, I just note the parts with nutty goodness!!!

 

[wogoga]

Please choose the experiment which according to you most convincingly contradicts what I have written. Then I can demonstrate that the experiment is either irrelevant or simply wrong.

Please show how "Operation of FLASH, a free-electron laser" is wrong.

This experiment is irrelevant, as my arguments have nothing to do with any form of ballistic theory of light.

Quote from the summary of the experiment:

"... relativistic electron beam … generates the X-rays … speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv … observed … upper limit on k of 2.5×10⁻⁷…"​

In the same way as Einstein, I assume that k is exactly zero. Nevertheless, I assume that Einstein has been fooled into believing that this is caused by the Lorentz transformation. In reality however, this is caused by ether dragging according to the inverse-square-distance law.

The refutations of this ether-drag hypothesis are as wrong as Einstein's "resolution" of the twin-paradox.

Cheers, Wolfgang
pandualism.com/d/lightclock.html

 

[Kid Eager]

This experiment is irrelevant, as my arguments have nothing to do with any form of ballistic theory of light.

Quote from the summary of the experiment:

"... relativistic electron beam … generates the X-rays … speed of light emitted from the moving electrons is c+kv … observed … upper limit on k of 2.5×10⁻⁷…"​

In the same way as Einstein, I assume that k is exactly zero. Nevertheless, I assume that Einstein has been fooled into believing that this is caused by the Lorentz transformation. In reality however, this is caused by ether dragging according to the inverse-square-distance law.

The refutations of this ether-drag hypothesis are as wrong as Einstein's "resolution" of the twin-paradox.

Cheers, Wolfgang
pandualism.com/d/lightclock.html

Oh really? So how does your interpretation of aether dragging reconcile the failure to accommodate stellar aberration, whilst relativity does?

 

[Reality Check]

wogoga: Show that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox is wrong

This experiment is irrelevant, a...

Wrong, wogoga.
Your assertion that you "can demonstrate that the experiment is either irrelevant or simply wrong." is not supported by an link to the irrelevant ballistic theory of light.

Ignorance about special relativity does not support your assertion either, wogoga.
Einstein was not aware of the Lorentz transformation which did not exist until Poincaré 's 1905 paper published before his paper. The Lorentz transformation is derived from the postulates of SR, it is not a postulate of SR.
Einstein alone did not resolve the twin paradox.

Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[2] Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[3] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[4]

Special relativity has the postulate that the speed of light is c for inertial observers. That means that SR assumes that k = 0. Scientists are not dumb and so they test to see if k is actually zero. They find that the upper limit on k is very small.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
What makes all of these experiments irrelevant is your agreement with SR's postulate that k = 0.

In reality all ether dragging have been invalidated by empirical evidence.

Which leaves the remaining non-science as a result of ignorance of SR in the "Take for instance the twin paradox" post!

20 August 2015 wogoga: Show that Einstein's resolution of the twin paradox is wrong.
Start with citing his paper that you should have read.

 

[wogoga]

Oh really? So how does your interpretation of aether dragging reconcile the failure to accommodate stellar aberration, whilst relativity does?

All aberration-based arguments against dragged ether start with the premise that light is a continuous phenomenon analogous to the propagation of sound, where propagation direction is orthogonal to the wave-front.

If the photon hypothesis already had been generally accepted then such a strange hypothesis as "length contraction" probably would not have been taken seriously in the first place. The alternative hypothesis "wave-fronts breaking-apart" is simpler and much less mind-boggling.

A photon emitted by the sun simply follows the direction of inertial movement when it adapts its speed more and more to the average velocity of the particles constituting the mass of the Earth. This complicates a little bit further the already complicated question of coherence-of-light, but it fully explains the fact that sun-light is "aberrated".

Ether dragging according to the inverse-distance-square law means that every particle in the universe drags the ether according to its mass (in the same way as every particle generates gravitational attraction). In order to calculate the movement of the ether at a given point, we simply use weighted averages of these effects (if interested see). Gravitational time dilation due to lost gravitational potential, and light bending due to gravitation show that masses are capable of influencing photon behavior.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[AdamSK]

Thus we have to conclude: During reversal of direction, with respect to the travelling twin, clock-cycles corresponding to 199.98 years must be accomplished in the light-clock.

Not at all, no. In fact, the SAME observation of the light-clock is made both immediately before and immediately after the reversal of direction. It's just that the observed pulse is now understood to have originated much further in the past then before. The rest of the light pulses will still be received at the appropriate intervals.

 

[Kid Eager]

All aberration-based arguments against dragged ether start with the premise that light is a continuous phenomenon analogous to the propagation of sound, where propagation direction is orthogonal to the wave-front.

If the photon hypothesis already had been generally accepted then such a strange hypothesis as "length contraction" probably would not have been taken seriously in the first place. The alternative hypothesis "wave-fronts breaking-apart" is simpler and much less mind-boggling.

A photon emitted by the sun simply follows the direction of inertial movement when it adapts its speed more and more to the average velocity of the particles constituting the mass of the Earth. This complicates a little bit further the already complicated question of coherence-of-light, but it fully explains the fact that sun-light is "aberrated".

Ether dragging according to the inverse-distance-square law means that every particle in the universe drags the ether according to its mass (in the same way as every particle generates gravitational attraction). In order to calculate the movement of the ether at a given point, we simply use weighted averages of these effects (if interested see). Gravitational time dilation due to lost gravitational potential, and light bending due to gravitation show that masses are capable of influencing photon behavior.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Perhaps I'm being dense today, but you response doesn't appear to address the issue that aether dragging fails to explain observed phenomena.

In other words, it's not your perceived shortcomings with conventional theory that need further explanation, but why your pet theory fails to match observation.

 

[wogoga]

To derive time dilation you need to use all of SR. That post was silly - it starts with the relativistic Doppler formula to arrive at relativistic time dilation.

As long as you do not understand the simple reasoning shown in post #33, you cannot judge #43.

And what do you consider wrong with my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox (Lorentz-factor 100; one-way travel distance of 100 LY)? Let us use two light-clocks (with light-pulse moving orthogonally to direction of relative movement) instead of twins: one clock at rest (R-clock) on Earth and the other clock (T-clock) travelling at v = 0.99995c.

1. Distance of 100 light-year is reduced for T-clock to 1 LY during both outward and return journey.
2. Both trips need each 100 LY / 0.99995c = 100.005 year, resp. 1 LY / 0.99995c = 1.00005 y.
3. During 1.00005 y of one way, pulse in T-clock moves 1.00005 LY relative to T-clock.
4. During 1.00005 y of one way, pulse in R-clock moves 1.00005 LY relative to T-clock.
5. This 1.00005 LY path of R-clock pulse relative to T-clock is only a 0.0100005 LY path relative to R-clock.
6. During 1.00005 y of inertial motion, 0.01 y pass in R-clock (corresponding to the 0.01 LY).
7. During two times 1.00005 y of inertial motion, 0.02 y pass in R-clock.
8. When both clocks meet again, 200.01 y (corresponding to light-pulse path of 200.01 LY) have passed in R-clock.
9. During direction-change, pulse in R-clock moves 200.01 LY – 0.02 LY = 199.99 LY.

Which point do consider invalid? Or do you think that the light-clock principle itself is not consistent with SR, or that SR-simultaneity cannot be applied to the inertial motion of the travelling clock?

The contradiction is obvious:

• For the travelling clock, time of the clock at rest is running slower by factor 100 during both inertial movements.
• For the travelling clock, time of the clock at rest runs on average faster by factor 100 over the whole round trip.
• Yet running faster by factor 100 is the opposite of running slower by factor 100!
• The confusion between "slower by 100" and "slower by 0.01" as the opposite of "faster by 100" has helped SR to prosper.

Cheers, Wolfgang

 

[Darwin123]

As long as you do not understand the simple reasoning shown in post #33, you cannot judge #43.

And what do you consider wrong with my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox (Lorentz-factor 100; one-way travel distance of 100 LY)? Let us use two light-clocks (with light-pulse moving orthogonally to direction of relative movement) instead of twins: one clock at rest (R-clock) on Earth and the other clock (T-clock) travelling at v = 0.99995c.

1. Distance of 100 light-year is reduced for T-clock to 1 LY during both outward and return journey.
2. Both trips need each 100 LY / 0.99995c = 100.005 year, resp. 1 LY / 0.99995c = 1.00005 y.
3. During 1.00005 y of one way, pulse in T-clock moves 1.00005 LY relative to T-clock.
4. During 1.00005 y of one way, pulse in R-clock moves 1.00005 LY relative to T-clock.
5. This 1.00005 LY path of R-clock pulse relative to T-clock is only a 0.0100005 LY path relative to R-clock.
6. During 1.00005 y of inertial motion, 0.01 y pass in R-clock (corresponding to the 0.01 LY).
7. During two times 1.00005 y of inertial motion, 0.02 y pass in R-clock.
8. When both clocks meet again, 200.01 y (corresponding to light-pulse path of 200.01 LY) have passed in R-clock.
9. During direction-change, pulse in R-clock moves 200.01 LY – 0.02 LY = 199.99 LY.

Which point do consider invalid? Or do you think that the light-clock principle itself is not consistent with SR, or that SR-simultaneity cannot be applied to the inertial motion of the travelling clock?

The contradiction is obvious:

• For the travelling clock, time of the clock at rest is running slower by factor 100 during both inertial movements.
• For the travelling clock, time of the clock at rest runs on average faster by factor 100 over the whole round trip.
• Yet running faster by factor 100 is the opposite of running slower by factor 100!
• The confusion between "slower by 100" and "slower by 0.01" as the opposite of "faster by 100" has helped SR to prosper.

Cheers, Wolfgang

The answer is reincarnation.
Reincarnation resolves every paradox in SR!

Some call it synchronization. However, synchronization is just another word for reincarnation!

Observers under the action of forces are reincarnated in different inertial frames! Both observers are moving 100 times slower than the other, but one incarnation was born 100 times earlier than the other.

Einstein proved reincarnation!


If reincarnation is a trivial scientific fact, then SR is obvious logical outcome!

It is reincarnation all the way down!

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped insults...
And what do you consider wrong with my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox (Lorentz-factor 100; one-way travel distance of 100 LY)?

I consider it wrong because it is relativity gibberish, wogoga. Making it more complex relativity gibberish does not make it better.
Twin paradox

Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main reason...".[2] Max von Laue argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial frames, one on the way out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not the acceleration per se.[3] Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[4]

You do neither. All you do is repeat Langevin's original twin paradox as if no one here can read.

In 1911, Paul Langevin gave a "striking example" by describing the story of a traveler making a trip at a Lorentz factor of γ = 100 (99.995% the speed of light). The traveler remains in a projectile for one year of his time, and then reverses direction. Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth. During the trip, both the traveler and Earth keep sending signals to each other at a constant rate, which places Langevin's story among the Doppler shift versions of the twin paradox. The relativistic effects upon the signal rates are used to account for the different aging rates. The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration, is used to explain why there is any difference at all, because "any change of velocity, or any acceleration has an absolute meaning".[A 6]

There is no contradiction about observers measuring that each others clocks tick slower. That is what SR states !

• For the travelling clock, the clock at rest is running slower during any inertial movements.
  This is standard SR.
• The clock at rest after the whole round trip reads less than the travelling clock.
  This is the twin paradox - the at home twin is younger than the travelling twin!

 

[AdamSK]

And what do you consider wrong with my treatment of Langevin's twin paradox (Lorentz-factor 100; one-way travel distance of 100 LY)? Let us use two light-clocks (with light-pulse moving orthogonally to direction of relative movement) instead of twins: one clock at rest (R-clock) on Earth and the other clock (T-clock) travelling at v = 0.99995c.

You're not paying attention to what each of the two observers will actually see.

The T-clock isn't close to the R-clock during the experiment; at the time it makes the transition, it's 100 light-years away. So at the time that it makes the transition, it sees a signal from the R-clock (now moving toward it at almost-c and 1 ly away) having counted 100 ticks. When does it see the next signal (marking 101 ticks) from the R-clock? What do these ticks tell it about the speed, position, and time of the R-clock?

 

[fuelair]

Show your research and your math or give up. You won't win this because you are wrong.