The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

[quantum quack]

Jos, it is the following quote from your post that makes no sense. IN relativity this simply does not occur. The moving observer sees no change in his time or length conditions it is only the stationary observer that sees these changes........ the odometer and clocks on board his ship will always be correct, he can not and does not beat them as you suggest.

 

How can you travel at a certain speed for a certain time and arrive much earlier than your odometer and clock states? It makes absolutely no sense

 

This is just showing how little you understand even the basic concepts of relativity. I do not mean it as an insult but you are simply showing how little you know about the theory and not that the theory is illogical.

 

I might add I myself have some grave reservations about SRT but certainly not for the reasons your are claiming as illogical.

What is illogical is to claim knowledge of a theory when this is obviously not the case....

[Damo2600]

Those of you who have read the explanation and are not totally marred by the ongoing conversation here is a quote from someone who has been studying Relativity for 50 years. No names as a lot of trashing can go on. This is a statement they made after they had read my explanation:

 

'Ah, now you are moving from "how" to "why", and that is a whole

different ballgame. Science can

give you explanations as a chain of cause and effect, but the bottom

line is what IS, and what can be demonstrated. As to WHY the speed of

light is 3 x 10^8 mps and not something else, and WHY it is constant in

every reference frame, cannot be explained at our present level of

knowledge.'

 

'Most likely it is to do with the very structure of spacetime itself. QT

predicts that space and time are quantised, and the clue probably lies

in just how they are quantised, but as yet we only have speculations

about this... . Will we ever have

the *whole* story? Probably not....'

 

Josephine

[Damo2600]

Hi Quantum Quack,

 

Is my understanding really that little.

 

If you and I decide to take a trip to Sirius C, some 8.6 light years away from Earth, and we take a spaceship that has a velocity of v = c/2. A modest speed.

 

The moment we take off we will notice the effects of space and time. Around half way we will look back at earth and toward Sirius C and find our calculations are off somewhat. The two celestrial bodies will appear to be much closer than 4.3 light years. Here's the hitch they ARE much closer. So a trip such as this will not only take less time than originally planned we will have covered less distance. The odometer and our clocks state that we have arrived much sooner than we planned. Yet we would not have travelled faster than we planned.

 

How does this make logical sense? It does not. Is this what my explanation was trying to get across? Yes it was. Is the universe extremely amazing? Yes it is.

 

Josephine

[UncleAl]

This is a simple thing. You are competent or you are incompetent. Either you understand the math or you do not. It s not a subject properly explored by prose in English class. There is a huge accumulation of mathematically precise interpretations of

 

Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

 

and its one contained error

 

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm

http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf

Longitudinal and transverse mass

 

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407022

Geometric basis of inertial frames

 

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

 

The Special Relativity metric is non-dynamical (unlike GR). It defines the coupling constants of your theory. If you change the metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An operation can only be called a symmetry of a special-relativistic (non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

 

Stuff like that. Galileo and Newton were wrong. "Common sense" is meaningless as a basis for theory.

[Damo2600]

Which makes complete understandable sense to the totally confused beginner.

 

Thanks for adding to this thread Infamous (edit: Uncle Al I mean. Sorry Infamous) .

 

Josephine

[nkt]

Which makes complete understandable sense to the totally confused beginner.

You may find this comment harsh, but at least he is right!

 

Sorry, but I agree with Tormud. You don't understand what you are trying to teach. This is made worse by my (fairly advanced) understanding of the subject.

 

I understand quite a lot of advanced physics, and have little difficulty getting to grips with the concepts of time dilation, frames of reference, energy conversion, etc. but then I did a 4 year degree, after years of study at school and home, and have been on the cutting edge of science for years. However, the maths is still beyond me. :D I am not good at tensor calculus. :eek: Therefore I would not try to explain it to another. (I might show them MathCAD however!)

 

I will happily explain the basics of any subject to the interested observer, but only if I am sure that they will get it, and that I know what I am telling is correct.

 

(I recall trying to explain what I was doodling to a B&B owner, she was about 80, and remembered the war. She was sharp and lucid, but in trying to explain the first symbol, we came unstuck. E. So I dropped back and explained that it was a contraction of "times ten to the power of". Still no good. So I dropped back to the idea of raising to the power. Still nothing. So I explained basic multiplication to her, and worked from there. Once we had a common place to stand, we could work in the right direction.)

 

Note that I mark my theories as such.

Thanks for adding to this thread Infamous (edit: Uncle Al I mean. Sorry Infamous) .

 

Josephine

 

Uncle Al is pretty infamous! I think it is the dislike of liberals, and his great way with words. :hyper:

[infamous]

 

 

Uncle Al is pretty infamous! I think it is the dislike of liberals, and his great way with words. :hyper:

 

He certainly has a way with words alright, and if you listen very closely you can learn much from Uncle, just don't let his abrasive demeanor ruffle your feathers. I must credit him with a vast store of knowledge second to none I've witnessed here at Hypography.

[Guest twistedlink]

haha...

 

How ironic...einstein was dyslexic hence he couldn't spell and we're fighting over the SPELLING of einsteins name

 

even in death he is still full of irony!

 

like him putting forward enough info to make an atom bomb which led to deaths even though he was a paccifist etc lol.

 

I havent read her paper though...just thought id point the irony thing out lol

[mojassty]

I rather liked the opening, about the drunk and the peanuts ;)

[geistkiesel]

Hi guys,

 

I know this is a long post but this is my conclusion on The Theory of

Relativity which you don't have to read.

 

 

 

The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

 

By Josephine Sage

 

 

 

Chapter 1 - What is the Theory of Special Relativity

Damo2600, Has it ocured to you there are some in this forum with the assigned task of defending Special relativity Theory? I had a dream last night that this is exactly what has happened. I really enjoy the attention don't you?

 

Here is one for you to consider:

 

1.There is a train 300,000 km long moving at 1/2 the speed of light with a target located on the front end.

On the embankment there is a light source with a target 300,000 km away. Just as the rear of the train is alongside the light source on the embankment a pulse of light is emitted in the direction of both targets.

 

Special relativity tells us the laws of physics are applied the same on both reference frames. The light will reach the target on the embankment in one second during which time the forward end of the train is 450,000 km from the original light source.

 

The embankment observer sees the moving frame light moving at c, the same speed has his light

 

By the time the light reaches the embankment target the moving target is long past the embankment target, meaning the light must move very much faster in orde to reach the train target in one second. Thus we have two sets of physical laws to manipulate.

 

The SRTists will cry foul and scream Lorentz contraction, but will this cure the contradiction?

(I picked up the numbering system from your example!!! Have we bonded yet? If so and we are truly as "one", then why do I feel so all alone?)

 

2. Let us assume the train is one continuous piece, one car. Further let us assume the train is open on both ends except for the target attached with a thin thread hanging from the ceiling of the train. Let us make the train, a circular piece of .0001mm thick tissue paper 100,000 km in diameter by 300,000 km long with the sorce of the light beam at the center of the rear opening . The observer on the stationary frame, the embankment sees the light arriving at his target in one second and sees the light in the train moving at the same speed of light, the same as his light beam. Will lorentz contraction be imposed on the tissue paper train, regarding the time of arrival of the light at the moving source?

 

 

Can you make any SRT calculations showing what the arrival times of the train centered light beam will make compared to the arrival time of the photon at the traget on the embankment? Will the light s arrive at both targets as observed by the stationary observer? After all she sees the light speed as c chasing the moving target moving at 1/2c.

 

3. What if we take the train using standard dimensions and use it to cover the embankment arrangement. The train is at rest wrt the embankment. Now the moving target is still connected to a high-tech frame, a 1 cubic millimeter in volume rocket-powered-uniform-motion-gadget with a thin thread attached to the target is moving at 1/2 c and is located at 300,000 km from the source of the emitted light which is emitted simultaneously with the light in the stationary embankment frame. The light reaches the target on the embankment in 1 second, during which time the light is chasing the moving target is also movng at c. From the stationary frame the light chasing the moving target must move at the same speed the light moves wrt the moving target, so in order to reach the moving target the light chasing the target must move very much faster, wait a minute, did I just contradict myself? Golly wolly pogs, how could Ihave done that? Let em run some numbersw and i'll get back to you. My numbers check out but Idon't want to dicuss the matter further. I have to go meditate on my "counter intuitivity'.

Does, or can, Lorentz contraction save the SR theory here? I sure hope so, otherwise I think both of us are in deeeeeep trouble.

 

geistkiesel

[Guest loarevalo]

Can I ask I question? I know, this energizes us, fuels our egoes.

 

Anyhow, I ask:

 

If one travels at the speed of light (hypothetically), how would one observe the others, who are not traveling at the speed of light?

 

If one travels at half the speed of light in a space ship, the one would observe people on earth as if they traveled at half the speed of light as well. Is that correct?

[arkain101]

Something about special relativity that I noticed was this.

 

Lets use Einstiens example where he wondered... What if I was to ride on a beam of light and hold a mirror in front of my face. Would I become invisible? what would happen.

 

First of all light does not emmit from a human body so we cant assume that that is where this "light" to show our image is coming from. The light has a source, and in this case we should call it the sun, with the traveler in space. If this person were to ride away from the sun on a beam of light facing away from the sun traveling at 300,000m/s the light would need to hit the mirror, bounce off and then bounce from the face back onto the mirror over and over to display an image. The problem here is light does not have a beginning. If this were tested you would be traveling inside a source field of light. Or in other words, there is no beginning of the beam the sun is constant, unless we went to the birth of its time. So as you reach the speed of light you are in fact not on the front of a beam but inside a beam from the sun that reaches past the outter solar system. So at this point you and light would be traveling the same speed from the sun. Now we humans pick up light from a virbration in our eyes to make a constant change with in the retina. Without a vibrating eye your vision will darken. So If you were traveling the same speed as this field of light there would not be a source directing light at your face, or fast enough at the mirror to start bouncing between your face and the mirror. Your vision would soon darken and all the light that you are with in, including the light that was bouncing off your field of reference would balance and everything would soon dim and become black excpet fr the light of the stars around you. This is the same for any direction you choose to face the sun, assuming nothing is traveling faster than you.

As for the observers on earth watching from a perpendiclar angle to your travel, the from the sun would cease to reflect off you to the observers. Although if we include a secondary light source like a planet for example.. there would be a field of light that is already ahead of your path, that has bounced off the planet and is traveling all infinite angles from the planet. So in this situation you would be visible as you would pass through the planets field of light. The planet acts like a mirror to reflect light everywhere light flash light. Eventually as you get far enough away from the angle of light coming from the planet, the angle of the light coming from the planet will match that of the light form the sun, causing a non reflection situation again.

The experiment with light floating between mirrors and two trains is not logical. Because you can not in reality see a light photon if it isnt coming into your eye. So unless we had a video camera that viewed the photon bouncing between the mirrors at the stationary frame and sent that video to the traveler going away from the light it would not be plausible. The signal from from camera would have to keep up to the recieve on the travelers train , speeding away, eventually reaching near the speed of the signal and ruining all transmission. As soon as you stop, there will a massive amount of signal data waiting to get to you. When you stop (and we assume you only saw 10seconds of the video before you reached speed C /speed of signal and caused the signal to pause) the video would then continue feeding you information. from the past even though the time is actually the same on the stationary observers frame.

[HIENVN]

Hi guys,

 

I know this is a long post but this is my conclusion on The Theory of

Relativity which you don't have to read.

 

 

 

The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

 

By Josephine Sage

 

 

 

Chapter 1 - What is the Theory of Special Relativity

 

 

 

 

Part 1/ Relativity in Gallilean Terms

 

 

 

 

A drunk in the bar, no matter how drunk he is, realises with

certainty that if someone throws a peanut at him it will take some

time before it actually hits him. If you see a woodcutter at a

distance there is a brief moment before the sound hits you. So we

realise sound travels at a certain speed. Finally light, travelling

from stars billions of miles away, has it's own delay between the

time the signal is sent and the time that it is recieved.

 

In gallilean terms we can register this logic in our own reference

frames.Although 300 000km/s is too fast for us to notice the effects

in our everyday life. If I am travelling on a train and a friend were

to be waving me off at the station there would be a time difference

between the first wave and the second wave. The distance is growing

so the light has further to go between each wave. The longer I travel

in a straight line, at a constant speed, the waves will be a constant

slower speed than the stationary observer. If I were accelerating the

time between each wave will become acceleratingly slower. This is

my 'friends waving' analogy.

 

 

 

 

Part 2/ Relativity According to Einstien

 

 

 

 

If we take a look into Einstien's world we see that time appears to

do many things our mind cannot comprehend. The speed of light is

astronomically fast which makes it even more difficult to grasp the

concept of relativity. For a moment, during this paper at least, we

will slow the speed of light down. We will make the velocity of light

equal to 4 metres per second. A bite size mouthful our brains can

chew.

 

Now we will have two obsevers OA and OB. OA will be stationed on the

platform and OB will be sitting on a train travelling at 2 metres per

second. Next to each observer will be two mirrors, two metres apart.

The light will travel, between the two mirrors, perpendicularly to

the ground. For ease we will title them LA (light A) and LB (light

:hihi:. We will compare each event by the two observers watches. In my

own working out of the Theory of Special Relativity I drew this

situation on a peice of paper many times and stared at the drawing in

order to understand what was happening in both reference frames. (I

might suggest that you do the same as a reference for reading this

paper.)

 

First we will consider the observations of OA: It will take LA one

second to complete it's full journey between the two mirrors and

reflect all the way back. The second light LB should be travelling in

the shape of an isoceles triangle in gallilean terms. According to OB

the LB travels for a 1/2 second, 2.236 metres down, then another 1/2

second, 2.236 metres up, and in one second the train travels 2m.

Considering the 'friends waving' analogy we logically would think

this journey of LB, according to OA, should take longer than LA.

Einstien understood for OA, due to time dilation and length

contraction, LB should take an equal 1 second. Einstien concluded

that time must be slowing down for OB in order for him to return an

equal 1 second time of LB.

 

So here we have our first difficulty in comprehension of Einstiens

theory. According to the 'friends waving' analogy time would ONLY

appear to be slowing down, for both observers, yet Einstien states

that two different observers are seeing the same light at exactly the

time. So we must have two different clock speeds, observing the speed

of light, in order for light to remain the constant it is considered

to be. We may decide due to length contraction that light appears to

be travelling straight up and down. That does not make sense, to the

logical mind, because appearances aside the distance is still

becoming larger between OA and OB. So here we have the obvious choice

that time on the train is slowing down.

 

Someone offered the suggestion to me that light actually is

travelling two different distances at two equal time speeds. I can

respect their comment, however, it is the same as the previous

statement whereby time slows down merely in reverse.

 

 

 

Part 3/ Length Contraction in Gallilean Terms

 

 

 

We all know that a full moon looks flat. How can this be? If we were

moving away from a ball the light from the closest point of the ball

will hit us first and, due to the movement of the train, the light at

the furthest point, at the circumference, should hit us later. Our

logical mind tells us this. However the length contraction Einstien

suggests we should think that the light from the circumference should

hit us much sooner than our logical mind says.

 

In gallilean terms the time should slow down yet the ball should

appear longer. Animation on TV seems to think that objects should

appear longer. When you slow down highspeed objects on camera footage

the object appears to elongate and not contract. Here we have another

contradiction between our logical mind and relativity.

 

Our minds should surely be spinning by now. I will leave this for now

and get back to the issue of time.

 

 

 

Part 4/ How Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity Are Unrelated

 

 

 

In the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving away relative to

you their time will appear to SLOW down. In Einstien's theory if

someone is moving away relative to you their time will appear to SLOW

down. Sounds like we are discusing the same issue here. In

the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving closer to you their

time will appear to SPEED* up. In Einstien's theory if someone is

moving closer relative to you their time will appear not to SPEED up.

(*By this I mean that at a distance your time will be a slower time

speed due to the distance light has to travel.) We certainly have

found another discrepancy our logical mind will not let go of.

 

If you speed toward an object then your time and the time of the

distant object are coming into line. In galillean terms the

acceleration will make the oncoming object appear to speed up (from a

slower time speed) and deceleration would also basically mean time

will also speed up from a slower clock speed. When you stop next to

the object your clock will tick at the same rate as the stationary

clock. This is true whether your clocks agree or not. This last

statement appears to be true of Special Relativity aswell.

 

We are getting to the crux of the matter. In relativity the problem

we have in understanding is in the object moving toward you at a

constant speed. The issue is far from being resolved.

 

Now, according to *you* stationed on the platform, you will observe

time, according to the train, moving from a slower time speed to

a 'slightly faster' slower time speed at a constant rate. This is

true of Gallilean Relativity. At the point where you are next to the

train your time will tick at almost the same rate as the train's

clock and will begin to slow down as the train passes you once more.

So we can understand relativity in the 'friends waving' analogy.'

 

The same situation in reverse is:

 

If you pass a clock at a train station you will notice on a very fine

level that the clock ticks are almost the same as your clock. When

you approach the station clock time will appear to speed up. When you

pass the clock time will appear to slow down once again.

 

 

 

Part 5/ Contradictions in Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity

Arise

 

 

 

We now understand relativity in gallilean terms however we do not

understand the contradictions of time dilation and length

contraction. How does LA and LB have the exact same 1 second speed

for both observers, OA and OB, attempting to do both calculations?

 

So we have the 'friends waving' analogy and the Einstienian theory.

The 'friends waving' analogy works both ways for the logical mind.

The Einstien theory only works one way because if time is actually

slowing down for OB then how can it also slow down in the reverse

situation. The mind boggles to comprehend this. For OA to measure LA

to be 1 second then how can OB, whilst experiencing a slower time

speed, observe LA to be 1 second as well.

 

To solve this problem we 'could' say that time for both observers is

slowing down but this would bring us back 'full circle' to the

problem we had in the first place. In this case both observers are

experiencing the same reference frame time although at different

distances apart.

 

So now we suggest another option perhaps the time slows down only

when we are looking at the light moving relative to us. Perhaps this

is not as absurd as it sounds. We can conclusively dispel this

option, though, due to the fact that if two observers, situated on

the platform, were recording the elapsed time of LA and LB from the

same clock the elapsed times would need to be unequal. Our mind is

obviously troubled on many levels.

 

The extra 'special' absurdity this theory contains is that if both

observers, OA and OB, calculate the time of both LA and LB for an

hour then all four calculations would equal 360 minutes and LA and LB

would have bounced exactly the same amount of times yet travelled

uneven distances. This goes against the 'friends waving' analogy in

an extremely wierd way. This suggests that no matter how fast the

train is travelling, for OA and OB, then there will be no delay

between the time it takes to observe LB and LA respectively and

reversedly. This would further suggest that the clock speed for both

observers would have to be equal.

 

Unfortunately it somehow equates to 'magic'.

 

I have been assured that this theory of Einstien's has been proven on

many occasions and that to this day it is still being proven. Yet if

we try to understand how this works we come up with a situation that

contradicts the physical nature of light taking time to travel over

distances. I have been rebuked on many occasions and told that I am

assuming an absolute reference frame. With my constant attempts at

trying to see the mental experiment without the absolute gallilean

reference frame the theory still remains contradictory.

 

So what does the logical mind do with this?

 

In Gallilean terms all times are accounted for and Special Relativity

does not account for all time. We will discuss this further in Part 6.

 

 

 

Part 6/ The Connection between length Contraction and Time Dilation.

 

 

 

Einstien uses the intrinsic connection, between length Contraction

and Time Dilation, in the following case in order to explain this:

 

OA and OB each time both LA and LB for one hour. We return with four

360 second times recording 360 trips that LA and LB make. So we will

throw off the Gallilean blanket with it's absolute reference frame

and see what happens. For OA he experiences time dilation and length

contraction with regard to LA. The mix of the above shortening of

time and space suggests that the LB could return a value of 360 trips

regardless of movement. This means that the distance between OA and

the train appears shorter and the time experienced by OB appears

shorter. We can see the logic in that.

 

So the isoceles triangle is closer to a straight line up and down.

Let us now suggest that in OA's time, for the rest of the isoceles

triangle, light appears to be going faster for OA and slower for OB.

Forget the absurdity of this. Let us state that the reverse is true

as well for OB. OA sees the train as shorter and OB sees the platform

as shorter.

 

So now we have an equal time for all observers regardless of

distance, direction or velocity. IT's absurd we know it however we

are assured emphatically and empirically this is true. Somewhere

along the line spacetime and our logical mind is playing tricks on

us. We can test the difference. We can measure the difference. But it

is impossible for the logical mind to understand the difference.

 

Our logical mind suggests it's impossible. Special Relativity says it

is 'actual'. Gallilean Relativity is an approximation whereas Special

Relativity is reality.

 

This is my first chapter in understanding Relativity for beginers the

next chapter will be entitled 'Testing the Theory of Relativity'.

 

 

Thank you

Josephine Sage

 

In 1921, Einstein rejected the value of quantum theory. He rejected his own relativity theory in his famous lecture at Stockholm-Sweden in 1923, when he received the Nobel Prize for Physics that the Royal Science Academy of Sweden gave to him in 1921 that not for his relativity theory. In 1923, Einstein confirmed the inadequacy of his relativity theory and proposed a better theory, which he called the unified field theory.

I know you have spent a long time to study for relativity theory. But I think you will sucessful if you study for Einstein's unified field theory. You can exchange email with me [email protected], I am studying for unified fied theory (since 2005) and we can successful in this theory.

[HIENVN]

Moved to the Strange Claims forum.

 

Josephine, you have not produced a theory but a confused paper. It has nothing to do with you as a person (I do not know you). It has something to do with the fact that you do not have a scientific theory, and you do not understand relativity.

 

I am not going to attempt to teach you anything - you have ignored any such attempt so far - but I could perhaps point out that you even spell Einstein's name wrong.

Hi, Tormod

I think you should not hungry with Josephine about some meaning of relativity theory.

I confirm with you that relativity theory is a lack theory that Einstein anounced in 1923. If you want to know more about Einstein's idea for his relativity theory, please contact me at email address [email protected]

Thank you

Hien Nguyen