Relativity acceleration paradox?

[EWright]

No, you won't discuss your theory. However, the relativity of motion is the basis of SR, which is actually what we were talking about.

-Will

I'm going to bed. Let's resume our hospitible discussion in the morning, shall we? :xx:

[adjective]

Whether a test can be done concerning the two persons riding meteors that are approachign each other is irrelevant. The FACT is that each is moving according to the source that set it in motion and any factors that have affected its position or speed since that time. The apparent inability of modern physics to measure this does not change that fact.

 

Thus far your statements show a fundamental misunderstanding of SR's core concepts. I would suggest you go back and learn it backwards and forwards before you try to claim that it is wrong. If you don't understand something, you can't say anything regarding its nature.

 

I would even suggest you go back and *gasp* learn the math. It's relatively simple (gosh am I punny) in derivation and, to an extent, interpretation. Of course, the interpretation of the equations comes a lot easier if you already have experience in interpreting the meanings of equations.

 

How much more of the universe must we remove to make relativity work?

 

It is common practice in thought experiments to simplify everything as much as possible. It is the only way to create a completely solvable problem. For instance, the hydrogen atom is the only one that can be fully explained because it consists of simply a proton and an electron. Introducing another particle makes it impossible to fully solve it.

 

The results of the thought experiment can then be extrapolated and tested for in real-world situations.

 

How much more metaphisical do we have to make this?

Again, the fact that you can not measure it, does not mean it isn't so

 

I juxtapose these so that you can see the absurdity of your statements.

 

Guess what? In science, if you can't test something, that does make it not so. Unless you have extremely good reason for putting it there, it is unnecessary. I could claim that the earth is rotated by three-feet tall bunnies. However, these bunnies are invisible and undetectable. My theory accounts for what is observed and I can easily extend it to explain other things (e.g. the wind is the bunnies' breath from working so hard). Is this unscientific? It most certainly is. If anything, it belongs in the realm of philosophy.

 

Just like your alleged theory.

 

So, since you refuse to disclose your theory, let's try something. Propose an experiment that tests one of your postulates against SR's. For instance, how can we measure if there is an absolute velocity vs. SR's relative velocity claim.

[Qfwfq]

Sorry EWright, I couln't keep up over the weekend.

For the falling observer, the whole universe is accelerating, instead of him, the opposite way. Why is his point of view wrong and the other one right?

It is different. It is a matter of force. If SR is right, I can stab a man but tell the judge that I was just holding the knife and that he and the rest of the universe shifted, causing him to suddenly move into the blade. I just hope the judge is brushed up on his modern day physics. Hmmm... maybe a career as a defense attorney is a good idea.

There is an anecdote about a physics professor who had been fined for going through a red light, telling the judge about the Doppler effect and saying the he saw a green light instead of red. The judge wasn't sure what to think, until a student, that had been flunked by that professor, gave the judge a quantitative calculation. At that point the judge was ready to pronounce, he sentenced that instead of a fine for the red light, it would be a fine for speeding.

 

Your judge would find you guilty for having kept the knife still all the way till the guy reached it. Arguments about forces and such would likewise be irrelevant if you think about it properly. If you say you didn't see the guy coming and couldn't know that he was, the judge would still say you were being careless with the knife, exactly as if you had been moving forward with it and not watching out.

 

Apparently you are still mentioning a theory of yours that you do not illustrate. In the initial post you made it a question and asked for answers but this thread is getting to be more like a strange claim (see the Strange Claims forum).

[Bobby]

First, let me say that I believe Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to be wrong. For this reason, I have signed up for this forum to challenge both my own thinking and yours. Allow me to start by proposing what appears to me to be a paradox of Einstein's perceptions.

 

I'm currently reading Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos". In it, Greene makes reference to Einstein's concept of acceleration (I believe acceleration applies moreso to GR but this makes no difference to the apparent paradox). He explains that if someone is free falling towards the earth that from Einstein's perspective, it is the earth that is accelerating towards him; not him towards the earth (p. 67 if u have the book).

 

Now, although I don't buy into this concept, it can be conceived (on an extreme stretch of the imagination) that either of the two statements can be true relative to one another. HOWEVER, if two people make the same jump at the same time from opposite sides of the earth and for good measure, let's say from the stratosphere (no, not the Vegas casino), then how can one argue that it is the earth accelorating towards both of them? This is paradocical because the earth would then have to stretch in both of their directions in order to 'reach' them both. Even in the context of one jumper, this position would assume that person somehow had the ability to remain stationary and by some force attract the earth towards him.

 

I do admit that I do not have a full understanding of Relativity theories. So if someone can explain to me how this is not a paradox, I would appreciate it. (And then I'll post another challenge.)

 

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is not correct. The Special Theory of relativity says all non-acellerated motion is relative. According to this, someone falling toward the Earth might think it was the Earth moving, but they would be disregarding the fact that they are being acellerated by the gravity of the earth. The General Theory of Relativity handles gravity and acelleration, so a free falling body is governed by the rules of the general theory, not the special theory.

Regards, BP :shrug: