Proving einstein wrong in 2 simple steps

[stereologist]

i completely agree with

It's not a matter of agreeing, it's a matter of understanding.

 

this is what i object to

The crux of the matter is that no matter what you think should happen, that is not what is observed.

 

You are assuming that the observers see the events occurring in the same order. Wrong. In number 2 you claim that the clocks start at the same time. Which observer sees this? Some observers see that. Some observers will see one before the other. Also in two, which lengths are you using? The observers see different lengths.

 

READ A BOOK. I know you can do it. This entire thread is about you stating "I don't get it" and people keep saying go learn something and you won't so I can't help you any more. READ A BOOK.

[freeztar]

the train observer would conclude his light beam is traveling toward the stationary receiver at 1.6*c, and the ground observer would conclude his light beam is traveling at c toward the same receiver. yet your claiming that each would see the others light beam traveling at the same speed. :)

 

The bolded text is not true.

 

This is how I like to envision it. Imagine traveling at 99.999% the speed of light. In this thought experiment, an onboard laser is fired towards the direction of travel.

 

You are saying that it should be 0.99999c + c, and we are telling you that you can not add the velocities like that in relativity. It's all *relative*.

 

The ground observer will see the light coming in and going out as c. Same for the train passenger. Yet, they will not agree on when the light reached one another. This has major implications. We would normally think that distance=rate X time. What Einstein figured out was that time is not a constant. Furthermore, distance and rate are not constant. When you have three mathematical terms described in a formula and all constants are found to be defined variables, how else would you reconcile observable reality? If you can answer this question, you haven't necessarily proven Einstein wrong, but you will have started a new epoch in physics, much like Einstein did with Newton's ideas.

[modest]

"As measured in an inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

that is light is always the same speed for all observers, so if your going 90% of the speed of light, and a stationary receiver fired a light beam, you would see it pass you at not 10% of the speed of light, but light speed.

this is what i object to, because accepting it as true creates three self contradicting paradoxes.

It's experimentally confirmed.

the first is length, according to you, the train going 60% speed of light would see the ground as shorter, but the ground observer would see the train as shorter.

Do a google search for "length contraction".

 

Consider: If you and I are in an empty filed standing next to each other and we start to walk away from each other then from my perspective you will start to appear smaller (perspective makes you appear smaller as you get further away). Imagine how funny it would be if I assumed that since I saw you getting smaller then you must see me getting larger. No: it's a reciprocal situation... we both can get smaller from the point of view of the other.

 

Why would you have it in your mind that length contraction should be any different? I don't know. You're the only person I've ever encountered who has thought of reciprocal length contraction as a paradox so without a further explanation I don't know what else there is to say. To most people it's very intuitive. If a moving ruler is length contracted compared to a stationary ruler then your ruler is length contracted compared to mine from my perspective when you are moving relative to me. At the same time (from your perspective) I'm moving relative to you so my ruler will be length contracted relative to yours.

 

This is the essence of "relativity". You are moving relative to me and I'm moving relative to you. We both can consider ourselves at rest even as we are moving relative to one another.

 

in particular, in the example you provided, you have the back of the train well past the ground receiver when the light hits the train receiver, from the ground perspective. yet from the train perspective, the back of the train has yet to do so.

 

Relativity of simultaneity

 

"when" something happens in one frame will not automatically equal "when" it happens in another frame. Once again, this is not an actual paradox, it is just you assuming the universe works one way (assuming both observers will agree on what time it is when an event happens) when, in fact, the universe does not work the way you assume. That doesn't make a paradox, it just makes your assumption wrong.

 

the second is time. according to you, the ground observer would see both light beams reach the train receiver after 2 minutes, and the train observer would see them both reach the same position after 1 minute. once again i don't see how both can be right if their clocks start at the same time. if light travels at a constant speed, no matter your velocity, then either both should see it reach the same position after 1 minute, or both at 2 minutes. otherwise light is covering the exact same distance in two different periods of time.

If Newtonian mechanics were correct then you would be correct. As I've said: a constant speed of light is *incompatible* with Newtonian mechanics. In the description above you assume two things which are incorrect:

1. Clocks in one frame tick at the same speed as they do in another frame
   
2. Rulers in one frame measure distance the same as rulers in another frame
   

We know, experimentally, these assumptions (which seem very intuitive) are not true.

the third is velocity. once again, the train observer would conclude his light beam is traveling toward the stationary receiver at 1.6*c, and the ground observer would conclude his light beam is traveling at c toward the same receiver. yet your claiming that each would see the others light beam traveling at the same speed. :naughty:

The train observer sees the light and the detector approach each other at 1.6c. The light is going c. You are assuming that the train observer can add the velocities (1 + 0.6) and apply the result to the ground observer. It is not paradoxical that you are wrong. It just means that the physics that you think (intuitively) will work—does not in fact work. Both the ground observer and the train observer see the photon move at c and if you want to add velocities you have to use the formula that both Freeztar and I gave you yesterday.

 

What you are stumbling upon here, Phillip, is that an invariant speed of light is not compatible with Newtonian mechanics. This is not a problem with relativity as you assume (because you know nothing about relativity). This is a problem with Newtonian mechanics.

 

The speed of light is invariant. There can be absolutely no doubt about that. It has been confirmed experimentally to extraordinary precision. Einstein created special relativity so that physics would be compatible with an invariant speed of light because without special relativity there would be paradoxes (the same ones you are having issue with ironically)

 

~modest

[phillip1882]

all right i'll list my assumptions one at a time as you can say agree or disagree. lets see how well this works out.

initial conditions

speed = distance/time.

the train is 1 lm long, and is traveling at a speed of 0.6*c.

the ground receiver is 1 lm away from the ground emiter.

the train observer would see his light beam traveling at c.

he sees his light beam hit the train receiver after 1 minute.

he would see the ground receiver traveling toward him at 0.6*c.

he would conclude that his light beam is traveling 1.6*c with respect to the ground receiver.

the ground observer sees his light beam traveling away form him at c.

he sees the train moving away from him at 0.6*c.

he would conclude that his light beam is traveling toward the train at a speed of 0.4*c.

 

okay, so far?

now lets try adding relativity.

the train observer would see the ground as length contracted.

given that speed = distance/time, if the ground is a shorter length, then either the trains speed has increased, or time is also shorter. since the speed of the train must be constant, that leaves time. in this particular experiment, if the train traveled the distance of 1 lm, he would see it as 0.8 lm, and would therefore cover it in 1.333 min rather than 1.667 min.

any one see any problems with the above assumptions yet?

the ground observer would see the train as length contracted, and would therefore cover the distance in the same time (1.333 min) as well.

now lets add the time paradox. the ground observer would see the light beam reach the front of the train in 2 minutes. yet according to our initial assumptions, the light is traveling 0.4*c with respect to the train. which given that the train is 1 lm long means that the light should reach the front of the train after 2.5 min. not only that, but the train observer would see the ground light beam hit the front of the train after 1 minute. and no one honestly sees a problem with this?

i think i've gone over my third objection enough by now.

[Janus]

all right i'll list my assumptions one at a time as you can say agree or disagree. lets see how well this works out.

initial conditions

speed = distance/time.

the train is 1 lm long, and is traveling at a speed of 0.6*c.

the ground receiver is 1 lm away from the ground emiter.

the train observer would see his light beam traveling at c.

he sees his light beam hit the train receiver after 1 minute.

he would see the ground receiver traveling toward him at 0.6*c.

he would conclude that his light beam is traveling 1.6*c with respect to the ground receiver.

the ground observer sees his light beam traveling away form him at c.

he sees the train moving away from him at 0.6*c.

he would conclude that his light beam is traveling toward the train at a speed of 0.4*c.

 

okay, so far?

now lets try adding relativity.

the train observer would see the ground as length contracted.

given that speed = distance/time, if the ground is a shorter length, then either the trains speed has increased, or time is also shorter. since the speed of the train must be constant, that leaves time. in this particular experiment, if the train traveled the distance of 1 lm, he would see it as 0.8 lm, and would therefore cover it in 1.333 min rather than 1.667 min.

any one see any problems with the above assumptions yet?

the ground observer would see the train as length contracted, and would therefore cover the distance in the same time (1.333 min) as well.

now lets add the time paradox. the ground observer would see the light beam reach the front of the train in 2 minutes. yet according to our initial assumptions, the light is traveling 0.4*c with respect to the train. which given that the train is 1 lm long means that the light should reach the front of the train after 2.5 min.

You forgot that according the ground observer, the train is 0.8 lm long not 1 lm long, and .8 lm/0.4c = 2 min. No contradiction.

not only that, but the train observer would see the ground light beam hit the front of the train after 1 minute. and no one honestly sees a problem with this?

 

 

No, I see no problem with this, Because the train and ground observers measure time and distances differently. You can piss and moan about this doesn't make sense to you all you want, but that is how the universe works.

 

You haven't posted anything that shows that things can't be this way, all you've done is complain that Relativity doesn't behave in a way in the way that you think things should work. You, however, are not the one who decides what reality is, and the universe will continue to behave as it does without your approval.

[Qfwfq]

isn't that exactly what Einstein is doing? he assumed classical physics is in general correct, that is space time velocity wouldn't be different for any observer at any speed, but light has its special property.

Firstly, it isn't light that has a special property; the velcoity c is a property of space-time and anything massless travels at this velocity in vacuo.

 

In the mechanics pioneered by Galileo and Newton, space and time are described the way our everyday exerience suggests: two separate concepts. Coordinate transformations between inertial moving observers are the so-called Galilean ones; those which you are intuitively reasoning upon. Galileo first stated the principle of relativity, which Newton then has following as a consequence of his three axioms (principles of dynamics) which he concieved in terms of 3D vectors; the third is well known as:

 

[math]\vec{F}=m\vec{a}=m\frac{d}{dt}\vec{v}=m\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\vec{x}[/math]

 

Einstein's relativity, once sorted out and streamlined by Minkowski, is founded on all these grounds except the structure of space-time, which instead is descibed as one 4D concept in which the so-called Lorentz coordinate transformations give the relation between measurements by inertial moving observers. Newton's third axiom becomes:

 

[math]f_i=m\frac{d}{d\tau }u_i=m\frac{d^2}{d\tau ^2}x_i[/math]

 

with the subscript [imath]i\in\{0,\,1,\,2,\,3\}[/imath] indicating any of the 4 components and [imath]\tau[/imath] being the so-called proper time. This is perfectly consistent with c being a Lorentz-scalar (i. e. the same for all inertial observers) and thus solved the tough riddle posed by Maxwell's equations (which assume their canonical form when set in Lorentz-covariant notation).

[lenvanzanten]

Stereologist is correct Lenvanzanten, I dont know what information you are following in your first post but M&M definitely found that the speed of light is the same no matter which way you measure it. They spent a great deal of time trying to prove themselves wrong, but were unable to.

 

 

I will take my hat off to anyone competent to correctly correlate the radial velocity of stars to my correct post in here. Since Einstein never got anything right in his life, the sooner we scrap him the sooner we will learn something about physics. Everyone is welcome to ridicule my true statements since it will be so anyway, only I am not one to sell out facts for speculation. It is very easy to prove Einstein wrong but not to closed minds.

[stereologist]

It is very easy to prove Einstein wrong but not to closed minds.

 

Laughable comment.

[modest]

the ground observer would see the light beam reach the front of the train in 2 minutes. yet according to our initial assumptions, the light is traveling 0.4*c with respect to the train. which given that the train is 1 lm long means that the light should reach the front of the train after 2.5 min.

I agree with Janus.

 

The guy on the ground figures that light is moving c and the train is moving .6c, so the light is moving .4c relative to the train in the ground observer's frame of reference. The train is .8 light-minutes long, so the light should traverse the train in (.8/.4 = 2) 2 minutes in the ground frame.

 

not only that, but the train observer would see the ground light beam hit the front of the train after 1 minute. and no one honestly sees a problem with this?

i think i've gone over my third objection enough by now.

 

You seem intelligent enough to understand this if you put your mind to it. Saying "no one honestly sees a problem with this" is not a logical objection. Special relativity is an internally consistent system which agrees with nature and agrees with observation. Your assumptions about how nature behaves are conflicting with the way nature actually behaves. You must realize that that does not present a problem with Einstein's relativity. If anything, it shows a problem with your assumptions about nature.... In particular, classical mechanics is incompatible with a constant speed of light.

 

Like I said, I do think you are intelligent. If you set aside a couple hours to read the following website (the links under "Special Relativity: Index"), I think it would help tremendously:

Special Relativity

If that site doesn't explain things in a helpful way then perhaps try the wikibook on SR:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/3/3b/Special_relativity.pdf

To go with those sites a spacetime diagram of this train situation might be helpful. Event A is the detection of a photon at the ground detector and event B is the detection of a photon at the train detector:

 

Or, from the train's perspective,

 

~modest

[Haech]

I'm curious modest, what are you using to make these amazing graphs?

[modest]

Sometimes Adobe Illustrator, sometimes Corel Draw. The diagrams above were in Corel.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

I spent a considerable amount of time analysing the first graph. I tried to use that knowledge to understand the second graph. Apparently, I'm missing something. Can you explain the second graph, por favor? :hyper:

 

The lines are mostly what is throwing me off. Why are there two light lines in the train diagram? Why does one light line go off the graph? Etc...:)

[watcher]

And you likely will never hear of such an experiment because nobody knows how to add velocity to light. In fact, it's currently, and most likely forever, an impossibility.

 

in principle, the linear velocity of a spinning particle will always add up to the angular velocity of the particle whenever the linear velocity is in the same direction of the spin velocity. if the angular velocity is c, the quarter part of the spin that moves along with the linear velocity of the particle will be slightly greater than c.

 

I don't think that's the problem. We would be able to detect light traveling faster than c. It's not a limitation imposed by our instruments.

 

it could be a limitation of our instrument if the same particles' motion of our instruments are made of is either equal of less than c. the said instrument cant detect speeds greater than c.

[freeztar]

in principle, the linear velocity of a spinning particle will always add up to the angular velocity of the particle whenever the linear velocity is in the same direction of the spin velocity.

This does not make sense to me. Can you point me towards a reference that elaborates on this please?

it could be a limitation of our instrument if the same particles' motion of our instrument is equal of less than c.

 

*Massless* particles travel at c in a vacuum. Baryonic particles do not travel at c.

What limitation are you speaking of?

[modest]

I spent a considerable amount of time analysing the first graph. I tried to use that knowledge to understand the second graph. Apparently, I'm missing something. Can you explain the second graph, por favor? :hyper:

 

The lines are mostly what is throwing me off. Why are there two light lines in the train diagram? Why does one light line go off the graph? Etc...:)

 

Sorry, Freezy. I probably could have labeled things a bit better. There's no need for the left-pointing light ray. It does not represent anything from the thought experiment. Things might make more sense with this:

 

 

From the train's perspective the ground is moving left. The two red lines are the left and right side of the ground apparatus. They have a velocity of 0.6c so you'll notice when they rise one minute on the diagram they move left 0.6 light-minutes. The light ray moves to the right at one light-minute per minute. The two green lines are the left and right side of the train. They are not moving spatially in this frame of reference so they are pointed straight up.

 

The black grid lines are the train frame's coordinate chart and the blue lines are the ground's coordinate chart. The Lorentz transformations will transform from one to the other. Notice when the ray of light hits the right side of the train (when the gray line hits the rightmost green line) at event B we can locate the event in both coordinate systems. According to the train it is one light-minute away (follow the green line down to the train's x axis). It is also located at 1 minute (follow B left to the green line which is the time axis). So, the train observer (who is on the left side of the train) thinks event B is one light-minute away and happens at T=1 minute.

 

Doing the same with event B for the ground frame of reference follow the thick blue line down to the X axis of the ground frame and it is at 2 light-minutes. Following from B to the leftmost red line (which is the ground's time axis) the event happens at T=2 minutes.

 

Is this at all helpful?...

 

~modest

[freeztar]

It helps very much! :)

[watcher]

This does not make sense to me. Can you point me towards a reference that elaborates on this please?

 

imagine a helicopter rotor blade as it rotates and the helicopter moves forward. the rotation of the blade is not balance. the rotor rotates faster when the spin of the rotation is in the same direction with the helicopter's forward motion. because there is a portion on the cyclic motion of the rotor that the spin velocity of the rotor add up to the forward motion. the same phenomena are true with tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

i think it is also true to an electron with a spin, orbital and linear velocities . if the orbital velocity of an electron is c, then there are portions in its cycle that all the other velocities add up and a greater than c speed is present.

 

*Massless* particles travel at c in a vacuum. Baryonic particles do not travel at c.

What limitation are you speaking of?

we use frequency to measure velocity. a particle vibrating at say 2c will never interact with a c frequency. a 2c frequency will be "invisible" to the measuring device that uses c frequency. and since nothing surpass c , instrument and all , those greater than c particles will be invisible to us. although their presence can be felt or inferred, since their presence should affect our universe.