Arguing Einstein

[EWright]

Not even worth of a response, Tormod. I've stated my points and they stand.

[xersan]

Human mind had believed that the Sun turns around the Earth. It was a powerful axiom (*). Galileo had been perceived how a menace for the social order is.

 

It never provides to be right, 99 of 100 persons say that it is right for a wrong idea.

 

In my opinion we must use our personal mind more, instead of being a fanatic for a theory.

 

Especially SR has very wrong points for persons who know to scrutiny like Galileo.

 

The interpretations about the first perceiving may be wrong. It may be an alternative expression for the same event. And the alternatıve thinking may be very appropriate.

 

Two basic results for SR are following:

 

1-The light is never affected by the motion of its source. (I exactly join) I have not any objection.

2-The light travels by the fixed value of < c > in every coordinate system. {In my opinion, this expression for the reality of event is imperfect. I have an alternative expression for this point of SR; it is a key like Galileo’s idea. This alternative idea will be the end of the theory of SR like old axiom (*). And everybody will sorry for the human mind.}

[Tormod]

Human mind had believed that the Sun turns around the Earth. It was a powerful axiom (*). Galileo had been perceived how a menace for the social order is.

 

Not sure what you are saying, but Galileo was not the one to discover that the Earth orbited the Sun. That was Copernicus.

 

In my opinion we must use our personal mind more, instead of being a fanatic for a theory.

 

This is what science is all about. It is in fact on of the key differences between science and religion. Any scientists who is unable to see beyond his or her theories, and who is stubbornly defending a theory without acknowledging problematic issues, has turned his science into a religion.

 

Especially SR has very wrong points for persons who know to scrutiny like Galileo.

 

This sentence makes no sense to me. Can you please try to rephrase it?

 

The interpretations about the first perceiving may be wrong. It may be an alternative expression for the same event. And the alternatıve thinking may be very appropriate.

 

That is why experiment is key to the scientific method.

[xersan]

Not sure what you are saying, but Galileo was not the one to discover that the Earth orbited the Sun. That was Copernicus.

 

 

 

This is what science is all about. It is in fact on of the key differences between science and religion. Any scientists who is unable to see beyond his or her theories, and who is stubbornly defending a theory without acknowledging problematic issues, has turned his science into a religion.

 

 

 

This sentence makes no sense to me. Can you please try to rephrase it?

 

 

 

That is why experiment is key to the scientific method.

 

 

Thank you for your polite warning. Yes, Copernicus adduced that the Earth orbited the Sun. The real reason of the old axiom is the appearance of the turning of the Earth around its own axis by the observer in the event. Galileo had supported Copernicus’s ideas; and it is preferred to call <Galileo Event> because of his famous judgment.

 

Experiment is very important for science inevitably. Theories are registered by experiments and they become < knowledge>.

 

But, at first, we must success the logical fiction for SR exactly. Why do we still discuss the theory ? Because it has some inappropriateness. Some of us do not support it. They have different vision. If the vision is appropriate, the failures of the theory SR will become transparent very easily. I have a vision at this meaning.

 

Mystic and infected wisdoms will not perceive the naked genuine. And they will protest the persons who say that " King is naked".

[Tormod]

Why do we still discuss the theory ? Because it has some inappropriateness.

 

Granted, all theories need to be discussed. But first you need to supply us with what you think is wrong with SR, so that we can discuss those issues. Merely stating that SR is a myth gets us nowhere - it is successfully implemented in many practical applications, which implies that relativity theory is correct to a large degree.

 

But will it ever be surpassed? Let us hope so. It would be very sad if it took another hundred years.

[xersan]

But first you need to supply us with what you think is wrong with SR, so that we can discuss those issues.

 

 

One of them (Well-known):

 

Everything has a motion in universe. We don’t know an absolute stationary system.

The speed of any material is relative and significant according to a selected reference system.

Pioneer 10 goes on its voyage.

Vw is the speed of Pioneer 10 according to world.

Va is the speed of Pioneer 10 according to Galaxy A.

Vb is the speed of Pioneer 10 according to Galaxy B.

Vc is the speed of Pioneer 10 according to Galaxy C.

……

……

Vx is the speed of pioneer 10 according to Galaxy X.

……

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer w % because of the value of Vw.

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer a % because of the value of Va.

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer b % because of the value of Vb.

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer c % because of the value of Vc.

……

……

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer x % because of the value of Vx.

 

But these different time dilations are never realized in Pioneer simultaneously.

[Buffy]

One of them (Well-known):

 

Everything has a motion in universe. We don’t know an absolute stationary system.

The speed of any material is relative and significant according to a selected reference system.

Pioneer 10 goes on its voyage.

...

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer c % because of the value of Vc.

……

……

The theory SR requires time dilation in Pioneer x % because of the value of Vx.

 

But these different time dilations are never realized in Pioneer simultaneously.

But you're making the assumption that its *Pioneer 10* that's perceiving the dilation, when its not! All of these observations of time dilation are from the respective points of view and all will indeed be perceived simultaneously. There is no inconsistency of SR shown by this at all. If its seems counter-intuitive, it is, but you have not shown any inconsistency.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Dark Mind]

I read something on this in a book, "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" By Albert Einstein. I have the thing sitting right in front of me as I type, actually :). The book is "Copyright © 1961 by the Estate of Albert Einstein" and one of the wordiest physics books I've ever mucked through... there was rarely ever a single paragraph I didn't have to read through twice to get the full meaning of what he was trying to say (Having the same problem with Buckminster Fuller's Synergetic's right now too :)). But as confusing as the book was, you all are making it this much more confusing : :):xx::). That's a three out of five :).

 

And I thought I had it all understood, I could even read the book without rereading every paragraph :evil:. Oh well...

[xersan]

you can put the earth instead of Pioneer 10. We never perceive time deformation. Different tempos are required on the world by SR according to every cluster of galaxies. And they must become simultaneously. It ıs impossible.

 

If you want to say that; Only the observer on the reference system can perceive the time deformation, these different values of time dilation are fictive/sanal. Time dilation can not be autenthic.

[Southtown]

I'd just like to chime in to this interesting discussion as I'd like it to continue. I've heard the SR postulates stated in many different ways, and I'm wondering what the exact wording is to date. As I understand them:

 

1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and

2) the observed speed of light is the same for any inertial frame of reference.

 

Can anyone amend?

[EWright]

I'd just like to chime in to this interesting discussion as I'd like it to continue. I've heard the SR postulates stated in many different ways, and I'm wondering what the exact wording is to date. As I understand them:

 

1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and

2) the observed speed of light is the same for any inertial frame of reference.

 

Can anyone amend?

 

"same for all observerse." interesting concept. seems to me the whole argument is based on the varied perceptions between observers. hmmm. twin A leaves earth at fast speed, returns younger than twin B. "same" for all? i'm not saying these things don't happen, just that its an interesting way to phrase an axiom. oh, wait, semantics, nevermind.

[Tormod]

"same for all observerse." interesting concept. seems to me the whole argument is based on the varied perceptions between observers.

 

It is. The point is that the basic assumption of relativity is that the laws of physics *must* be the same for everyone, all over the universe. If it is not, then relativity fails, or at least will suffer a major setback.

 

Perception is what makes certain things seem like paradoxes when they are not. The finite speed of light is one of those "paradoxes" - it seems to violate the addition of speeds.

 

It is not a semantic discussion at heart. It turns into a semantic discussion when we start arguing what Einstein meant by this and that.

[Tormod]

you can put the earth instead of Pioneer 10. We never perceive time deformation. Different tempos are required on the world by SR according to every cluster of galaxies. And they must become simultaneously. It ıs impossible.

 

If you want to say that; Only the observer on the reference system can perceive the time deformation, these different values of time dilation are fictive/sanal. Time dilation can not be autenthic.

 

I think you need to reread your books. We can measure time dilation. It is used to correct signals in GPS satellites. We do indeed perceive time dilation, too - the Hafele and KEating experiment verified this.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

[xersan]

 

1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and

2) the observed speed of light is the same for any inertial frame of reference.

 

Can anyone amend?

 

there is not inertial frame of reference. But the observer on the world suppose himself in the an inertial frame. World has a motion too.

 

This is an important point of theory. Because he measures the light's way between S1 and O1.

 

S1 = The point of the source at the moment of T1

O1 = The point of the perceiving the light which is in procedure at the moment of T1

S0 =The starting point of the light or the point of the source according to most external reference system (rails according to the train) at the moment of T0

 

The flash light had flashed at the moment of T0. The point of So must be marked on the most external reference system.

 

The flashlight had travelled the distance S0O1. The autenthic reality is this case. The persons in the relative system use the distance S1O1. This procedure is false because the light had travelled to O1 from S0 not from S1.

 

We outer observers can perceive this real case. But If you use S1O1 for light's way you will arrive the fantastic conclusions like the theory SR.

 

2) the observed speed of light is the same for any inertial frame of reference.

 

This expression is imperfect. If you follow me, I will set perfect wording about fixed velocity of light.After my article published.

[Erasmus00]

I'd just like to chime in to this interesting discussion as I'd like it to continue. I've heard the SR postulates stated in many different ways, and I'm wondering what the exact wording is to date. As I understand them:

 

1) the laws of physics are the same for all observers, and

2) the observed speed of light is the same for any inertial frame of reference.

 

Can anyone amend?

 

The first only holds in an inertial frame as well. "the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers."

-Will

[Southtown]

The first only holds in an inertial frame as well. "the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers."

-Will

Ah so it is. Interesting... o_O Thanks, Will.

[xersan]

I think you need to reread your books. We can measure time dilation. It is used to correct signals in GPS satellites. We do indeed perceive time dilation, too - the Hafele and KEating experiment verified this.

 

ONE STEP BEYOND (1)

 

Thanks for your information. Also Einstein had claimed that the deformations of dimension are real; even he had some subatomic interpretation how become the FitzGerald contraction.

 

Yes some efforts go on to prove the theory by GPS (http://www.newscientist.com/news.jps?id.ns.99996552). These measurements are about gravitational time deformation. But, Special Theory analyses only light kinematics.

 

If time dilation is real on our world and we can measure it. It must become different values of time dilation on the world according to Cluster of Coma, Virgo, M 81, M 87, Abell 2246, 3C273, NGC 4536……..etc. simultaneously. Of course this case is impossible.

 

If you analyzed the essence of the theory SR like Einstein or more I want to appear a new evidence. Because it is required a paradigm one step beyond for arguing.

 

The experiment is set in a room.

The source is at the point So, and the observer is at the point Oo at the moment of To.

The room has a motion with the world together by the speed < v > toward (===>).

The source flashes at the moment of To.

 

.........So

_________________________

........*

 

 

 

...........................................................=====> v

 

 

______v______

 

............Oo

 

The flashlight which starts to travel from the point of So at the moment of To, arrive to the observer at the point of O1 at the moment of T1 . The flashlight has traveled the way SoO1, but the observer supposes that this way is SoOo or S1O1.

 

Due to fixed value of < c > :

 

.........So.........S1

...........____________________

.....................*

.............

...............

.................

...................

.....................

.........._______V____________

.......................O1

 

 

S1O1 = c .t’ SoO1 = c.t SoS1 = v.t

 

Pisagor relation : (c.t)2 = (c.t’)2 + (v.t)2

 

===> t’ = t {1 – (v/c)2}1/2 Here is the formula of the time dilation.

 

Tempo of time become slower.

Do you join since here ?