Relativity - can I really be older than my twin?

The Grave

Muse
T
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
647
I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-
  1. I don't know how to!
  2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.
Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...
 
Here's the link (I think). I don't have time for this nonsense now, but maybe someone wishes to have a go at it.

I'll limit myself to saying that if there is a mathematical error in SR, then almost all of mathematics comes down with it, because SR is isomorphic to hyperbolic geometry. In short, unless we want to abandon all of mathematics, then there is no way you can find mathematical errors in SR. The only way to attack this theory is to attack its postulates and the only way to do this is through experiment. Sadly for the crackpots, in the past 100 years SR has been verified to a much greater extent than any other theory in science. SR is more established now than newtonian physics 100 years ago.
 
Faith-the road to PERDITION!

Taffer said:
I think I'd trust all the physicists over Steve Bryant.
Click to expand...


What I said I wanted was views on the article not opinions .... and treasured beliefs.

From what I gathered the maths is not 'generalized' and A.E. picked and chose what he wanted...that makes SR fallible.

Griff...please take time to read stuff before giving opinion.
 
The author of that site is comparing apples with oranges. He claims that Einstein made a mathematical error based on comparing an equation that is a hypothetical that is rejected with the final equation. This lacks rigor. To be less polite, this individual is a crackpot and has manufactured evidence by deliberately misrepresenting Einstein's work; he uses the original German, untranslated, to obfuscate this and delude the unwary. The text of Einstein's paper, translated into English and that translation reviewed and approved by Einstein himself, appears here.

Relativity cannot be understood from an explanation that can fit on a cigarette pack. If you want an explanation that fits on a cigarette pack, you're not going to understand any more than you do now.
 
From the FAQ:
2. Why haven't these math errors been found before?

The main reasons the error in his 1905 paper has not been found before are that 1) many scientists accept Einstein's equations as correct, and 2) the problem is hard to detect.

I think that part of the reason that the 1905 mistake hasn't been previously discussed is because finding an objective way of detecting the problem has been elusive. In addition, even if one believes that an error exists; identifying the root cause requires one to review the time "function" as a function rather than an equation. Even after discovering Einstein's 1905 mathematical error and knowing "where" it occurred, it still took me another year to understand "why" it occurred.

In his 1912 paper and Relativity book, the errors are again hard to find. Understanding why it occurs requires one to understand the mathematical definitions surrounding implication and equivalence. In this case, Einstein uses an implication association, but treats the equations as if they have been shown as equivalent. This is extremely subtle, but mathematically verifiable.

Fortunately, we can rely on objective mathematics rules to confirm Einstein's mistakes, identify "where" they occur, and understand "why" they have occurred.
Click to expand...
"We can rely on objective mathematics" yet "finding an objective way of detecting the problem has been elusive"?

"The main reasons the error in his 1905 paper has not been found before are that 1) many scientists accept Einstein's equations as correct"? Right, no other physicists looked at Einstein's work, the fact the theory makes accurate predictions doesn't matter?

This isn't even a real challenge, it's more like someone with a fantasy that they have found something no one else has. Ideas of Grandeur is more likely than any substantive physics here.
 
If you're interested in "more than will fit on the back of a pack of cigarettes," try this. I'd suggest following the thread for a bit, because Yllanes posts some excellent criticism of my initial idea.

Here is a description that may help you imagine what it means to say that "time is a fourth dimension."

And here is some more, and a couple posts down I combine these concepts into a single entity. We see from this that what we perceive as velocity is actually a rotation in spacetime, and what we perceive as acceleration is actually a revolution (IOW a constantly changing rotation). Wrap your head around that and you should have a pretty good idea how relativity works.
 
Last edited:
The packet of cigs idea came from a quote by E's wife/cousin/concubine?

When told about some telescope unravelling the Universe she remarked:"My husband does that on the back of a packet of cigarettes"

Griff...Thanks all.
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-
  1. I don't know how to!
  2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.
Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...
Click to expand...
Then your GPS receiver doesn't work, or else is magic.

Relativity is more relevant than most people realize. Relativity explains magnetic effect, the guys who design modern CPU and graphics processors have to deal with quantum effects in making the chips.

This isn't stuff from the ivory tower that someone pulled out of his back side. Relativistic effects are real, and have been measured (and in the case of GPS) are measured everyday.

If you have a problem with relativity, then you are going to have to find something that explains all of the things relativity does. Pitching it out the window because it is wrong won't work - it is demonstrably NOT wrong.
 
Simplest way to enter a link;
1.At the page of interest, select and Copy the URL from the browser address box.
2.Open your post at JREF and Paste the URL.
This is easiest if both sites are opened simultaneously using tabs.

There is a "Help" item in the menu bar at the top of every page.

I share your gut feeling that many predictions of relativity theory are deeply counterintuitive. So does practically every human. This is most probably because human intuition evolved in a world where such effects are not sensible in either sense of that word.

It turns out that thinking with your gut is not always the best way to get at the facts.
The fact that these apparently improbable predictions are borne out daily makes relativity more impressive, not less.

Relativity contradicts our evolved expectations of reality. It comes as an affront to our understanding of reality that such things really happen: The conclusion to be drawn is that our understanding of reality is wrong.

Mathematics can be similarly counterintuitive to some people, of whom I am one. Square roots of negative numbers , for example, strike me as the merest word play; a ludicrous concept. Yet electronic engineers use them daily to get real answers.
Either I, in my ignorance, am wrong; or they, in their extensive experience, are wrong. I'm mathematician enough to grasp what the numbers are telling me in this case. Unpalatable, but there it is.
(I continue to badger people here on this in hopes of finding an explanation that resonates with the goo between my ears and the view thereof).
Being wrong is annoying, particularly when all our experience is saying we are right.
Sometimes the ugly facts just have to be faced.
 
Last edited:
polaristutoring@tisc said:
What I said I wanted was views on the article not opinions .... and treasured beliefs.

From what I gathered the maths is not 'generalized' and A.E. picked and chose what he wanted...that makes SR fallible.

Griff...please take time to read stuff before giving opinion.
Click to expand...

What gave you the impression I hadn't read it?
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish.
Click to expand...

I am not equipped to discuss the mathematics of SR and GR but I think the quote above is important.

Why should the universe conform to your preconceived notions? QM is weird, a round Earth seems to contradict common sense, and there is strong evidence for dark matter.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't scientists tested time travel? I believe that they took two syncronized atomic clocks put one on a space shuttle/station and left the other on Earth. The one in orbit feel behind the one on Earth because of SR.

And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't there be?
 
To answer the original question, yes, you can be older than your twin. In fact, every single twin that has ever been born is either slightly older or slightly younger than their twin.

Now, what exactly does this have to do with relativity?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Mathematics can be similarly counterintuitive to some people, of whom I am one. Square roots of negative numbers , for example, strike me as the merest word play; a ludicrous concept. Yet electronic engineers use them daily to get real answers.
Either I, in my ignorance, am wrong; or they, in their extensive experience, are wrong. I'm mathematician enough to grasp what the numbers are telling me in this case. Unpalatable, but there it is.
(I continue to badger people here on this in hopes of finding an explanation that resonates with the goo between my ears and the view thereof).
Click to expand...
Well, it's really simple: one times one is one, and minus one times minus one is one. So what times what is minus one? It can't be positive- the product of two positives is a positive. It can't be negative- the product of two negatives is a positive. So what is it? Well, we call the numbers, positive and negative, rational and irrational, the "real" numbers, so obviously the square root of minus one has to be an "imaginary" number. And for it to multiply up to a unit, the negative unit, it has to be a unit itself- it must be imaginary one!
 
polaristutoring@tisc said:
I recently read an article written by Steve Bryant "relativity challenge" and wondered what others thought of it...I noticed a lot of hostility towards it...even though, to me it made a lot of sense, by disproving a lot of the trash that SR and GR predicts.

I have not included a link as:-
  1. I don't know how to!
  2. I want to get views on this important topic and not get it banned or something because that's (apparently) what happened on another site.
Just Google on Steve Bryant and see what you think...it's not that hard...give it a try!

To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish. And why should there be a universal speed limit? Crazy!

Bryant puts a nail convincingly in that coffin and a stake through the
heart of that blood sucker!

Griff...Answers on the back of a cigarette packet, please...
Click to expand...

Perhaps some history would help.

At the time, actualy a little later, Einstiens theory was not well recieved. So the characterization that scientists just accepted it is rubbish!

Many scientists were very upset with the theory in fact and later under the Third Reich a whole culture of bashing Einstein developed. So you have a lot of the big brains at the time trying to disprove Einstiens theory and later you have a mountain of alternative theories.

So what happened, during an eclipse(1917?) Einstien's theory was shown to match the observable data, as it has been in many further trails and experiments. Particles aquire mass as they approach the speed of light, time relatively slows or speed in a given frame of reference and a while back they created Bose_Eistien Condensate.

So you have a bunch of really bright people who doubt it and play with it early on, they are slowly won over, they do not convert over night, despite what Bryant says, you have experimental verification, and lots and lots of people who try to disprove it but haven't.

Read some history of physics, it is rather interesting.

It's easy, you can do it!
 
Since I study physics I should be able to explain why I think SR is correct. (I didn't get GR in detail yet, sorry about that). If I can't do that I should be ashamed of myself.

The reason I believe Special Relativity (SR) is the fact that not only were its specific predictions verified, it also makes sense in combination with other verified theories in physics.

For instance, take Maxwell's laws

Maxwell's laws describe the exact relation between static/moving electrical charge, time dependant electric fields and time dependant magnetic fields in the macroscopic world (where quantum mechanical effects are negligible). Their predictions are implicitly being verified all the time. The workings of power generators supplying electrical power to your city *right now* can be fully understood using only Maxwell's laws.

Using Maxwell's laws you can calculate the speed at which an EM-wave (such as visible light) will propagate. This speed is 299,792,458 meters per second. The remarkable thing is that this speed does not depend on the velocity of the observer relative to the source of the EM-wave, for example a vibrating electrical charge. The wavelength does depend on observer velocity though.

It is this very result that SR is built on. Einstein managed to reconcile the observer independant lightspeed with classical mechanics by postulating that the time interval between 2 events is observer dependant. This dependancy is negligible at low velocity differences between observers, explaning why SR isn't noticable in every day life.

Experimental verifications of SR are abundant as well. An illustrative experiment is the rate of Muon decay. This rate is completely constant for Muons at rest relative to an observer and therefore a very good clock. Decaying events are events like any other, so SR predicts that if a group of Muons has a high velocity relative to an observer a greater time seperation will be found between decaying events, decreasing the decay rate. This is what has been found in actual experiments. (For instance: 'Various measurements of the lifetimes of muons' Redei, Phys. Rev. 162 no. 5 (1967), p1299.)



To refute SR you need to find a new way to explain the constant speed of light since this is not postulated by SR but used as a foundation for it. After that you will need to explain observer dependant particle decay rates and a list of other verified predictions of SR, which nobody has done so far.
 
Last edited:
Schneibster said:
Well, it's really simple: one times one is one, and minus one times minus one is one. So what times what is minus one? It can't be positive- the product of two positives is a positive. It can't be negative- the product of two negatives is a positive. So what is it? Well, we call the numbers, positive and negative, rational and irrational, the "real" numbers, so obviously the square root of minus one has to be an "imaginary" number. And for it to multiply up to a unit, the negative unit, it has to be a unit itself- it must be imaginary one!
Click to expand...

Trouble is, mathematicians say things like this with a straight face, so I never know if they are serious, joking, or completely crazy. My answer would be that if it can't be +ve or -ve, it can't be anything (unless we are prepared to unnecessarily expand the range of available entities. It could be"pink and invisible", which is, similarly imaginary).
Sam's Perversity Principle says that just because reality may be stranger than I can understand doesn't mean I have to like it!

What do you make of Bryant's reanalysis of Michelson, Morley and Miller's data? Does the recalculated result of ~ 30km/s orbital velocity imply his analysis is correct? If not, then why? I find it improbable that the people who designed the interferometry test gear did not know how to use it correctly.
 
Delusions_O_Grandeur said:
Their predictions are implicitly being verified all the time. The workings of power generators supplying electrical power to your city *right now* can be fully understood using only Maxwell's laws.
Click to expand...
Surely. But is that equivalent to "can be understood only using Maxwell's Laws"?
Incomplete, or even wildly wrong models can give correct results. Navigation by celestial sphere works just fine , despite being total hooey.

Or Newton's laws work fine until we start looking at the detail. Could there be even finer detail we have not found yet? If so, the difference in prediction might be undetectable by existing methods. I think folk with even less grip on mathematical physics than I expect a new model to somehow change the curvature of bananas. In fact, any refinement of / replacement for relativity will have to explain the curvature of bananas exactly as we see them, but infinitesimally more precisely.
 
I forgot to try answering the questions.

polaristutoring@tisc said:
To me the whole idea of objects shrinking, time travel and twins of different ages is straight out of the bible...i.e. rubbish.
Click to expand...

Question 1) Actually, objects don't really shrink. What happens is that the time seperation between the events of an object's front and back end passing by some measuring point changes. Object length can be defined as the distance between 2 simultaneous events at the ends of the object. These two events are measured by a certain observer. Any other observer will not measure these 2 events to be simutaneous, he will measure 2 other events to be simultaneous which have a nonzero time seperation in the first observer's frame and because of that a space separation different from the object's length. Since these events are used by the second observer to measure the object's length that length will be different.
Question 2) A human being can be seen as a biological clock, with each chemical reaction as a tick. Just like Muons taking a detour decay slower than Muons sitting still, so will the traveling twin age slower.

Soapy Sam said:
Surely. But is that equivalent to "can be understood only using Maxwell's Laws"?
Incomplete, or even wildly wrong models can give correct results. Navigation by celestial sphere works just fine , despite being total hooey.
Click to expand...

I should have pointed out that it is just one of a lot of different processes that implicitly verify it. A weak theory can only explain a very specific process, or cannot be falsified. Maxwell's laws explain loads of processes and its quantitative predictions just require one wrong number to falsify the whole shabang, and EM fields are so widely used a wrong number will be found easilly if it occurs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom