The Special Theory of Relativity is dead

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
On 3 Dec 2003 12:24:53 -0800, (smarter_than_you) wrote:

....
The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

In an instantaneous universe (simulated by using an array of synched clocks)
all frames record the same times for all events. Light is not used for
measuring purposes.

But we don't exist in such a Universe.


In other words, given a spacetime history in frame F,

Ugh!

Big words from a little boy - but 'spacetime history' is a contradiction in
terms.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. And why the bait? It
accentuates your crackpot nature.

we can always
transform it to frame F' through some simple trigonometry. For
convenience, we usually think of observing the world from whatever
frame of reference we happen to be in; but it is perfectly acceptable
to use some other frame of reference instead.

As for your 'paradoxes', you don't have it right. If two spaceships
do some symmetrical acceleration thing (like fly away fast, then turn
around and come back), of course their clocks match perfectly. The
paradox, such as it is, comes when they accelerate or decelerate, and
*choose* to view the Universe from their new frame of reference.

Perfect clocks are not affected by acceleration.

I suppose you could build a clock with an attached accelerometer, and
arrange things so it speeds itself up whenever you accelerate in a way
that exactly counteracts relativity. But that would simply be a clock
that shows what time it is at your present location, but in your home
planet's frame of reference. So it's just a clock tied to a specific
intertial frame. So what? It's like saying, "I didn't set my clock
back when I flew from NY to California, so I don't believe in time
zones."

Among other things, by doing this they may redefine the 'present'
moment on the other spaceship to be a year later (or earlier), for
instance. Once you comprehend the spacetime geometry transformations
of SR, it all makes perfect sense.

I comprehend them all right. That is why I know they are BULL!!!

If you mean BULL****, then you are wrong on two counts -- 1) You don't
comprehend them, and 2) they are not BULL****e.


The distortion occurs with you,
the observer, at the center; everything else is warped and modified to
make your 'present' stay continuous. But the important thing to
realize is, none of this implies that your actions have any effect on
other observers. They go through their own transformations, and
decide that you are shrinking, going slow, etc. and so on. If
everyone on both spaceships simply used clocks that were modified to
show the 'proper' time of their home planet, they would both see their
clocks slow down on the trip out, and speed up on the trip back. (in
this example I'm just talking about SR, so the clocks on the
spaceships end up synced with the one on the home planet. Note that
the twin paradox is really part of GR, not SR, but that's another
story.)

Hope this helps,
sty

To understand reality we have to get away from the notion that what we see
using light is what is actually out there.
It is posible to use synched clocks to perform all our experiments. If that is
done, relativity in all its forms becomes completely redundant.

What's amusing is, that is basically my point. Relativity just says
that it doesn't matter what frame of reference we use to do our
calculations. It is merely a convenience that we use the frame of
reference we are in ('proper time'); and the paradoxes arise when we
shift frames of reference.

To go back to my time zone analogy, we could decide that the whole
world will use Greenwich Mean Time. So if I live in California, I'll
go to work at 4 pm and come home at midnight, and the sun will go down
around 2 am. But then if I move somewhere else, I have to get used to
a different scheme. It's all a matter of conventions, nothing is
different physically.

-smy


[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Thanks, but I'll forego running your "harmless" .exe files. Rewrite
it in Java and I might take a look.

Everyone should know you for the phony you are. You have nothing to
say. You don't even know what an argument is. All you ever say is you
are wrong and then use a circular argument.


If you change your frame of referance to a moving one then the
strength of the gravitational field will increase. However an object
does not become a black hole because of the inensity of its
gravitational field. If the object is not a black hole in one frame
then its not a back hole in another frame. Changing frames does *not*
turn something into a black hole. In fact an object is not a black
hole because it has a certain amount of mass. Heck! You can have a
black hole which has a rest mass of a coffee cup.

[roberts and a few others will whine alot about what the term "mass"
means in relativity. But that's his own personal opinion on what a
term means. So you'll see him and others do a ton of whining about
it.]

It's not the intensity **** for brain it is the increase in mass you
mindless dolt.

Here is the reference which you ignored just like I said you would.
You did exactly what I said you would do because I am that much
smarter then you. Here again is the reference which you will ignore.


http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae161.cfm

The copy is below.

What is rest mass? How to explain it especially to the high school
students?

Asked by: Alper Akyurek

Answer

One of the consequences of Einstein's special theory of relativity
(1905) is that the mass of an object increases with its velocity
relative to the observer. When an object is at rest (relative to the
observer), it has the usual (inertial = tendency to resist an applied
force) mass that we are all familiar with. This is called the 'rest
mass' of the object.

As the speed of the object is increased, the inertial mass of the
object also increases. For speeds significantly less than the speed of
light, the increase in mass is nearly imperceptible, but as the speed
of light is approached, the mass starts to increase very rapidly
toward infinity. Theoretically, the mass would become infinite if the
object could be accelerated all the way to the speed of light.
However, because the acceleration of an object in response to a given
force is inversely proportional to its inertial mass, as the speed of
light is approached the force required actually to reach the speed of
light also becomes infinite. Therefore, it is impossible actually to
accelerate an object with non-zero rest mass to the speed of light.

Another way of expressing the fact that a massive object cannot be
accelerated to the speed of light is through the concept of energy.
That is, an infinite amount of energy would have to be expended, via
the accelerating force, to reach the speed of light.

So, quite simply, the 'rest mass' of an object is the inertial mass
that an object has when it is at rest.

Answered by: Warren Davis, Ph.D., President, Davis Associates, Inc.,
Newton, MA USA


Mass measures the amount of inertia an object has, with inertia
defined as the resistance the object offers to a change in its state
of motion. While we usually think of mass as being constant for an
object, Relativity tells us that energy and mass are interchangeable.
Any object in motion has, by definition, Kinetic Energy. That energy
has the effect of increasing the object's mass, so the MINIMUM mass of
an object is its mass when stationary, or its REST MASS.

Mathematically, an object's true mass is given by the expression:
where m0 is its mass at rest, v is its velocity, c is the speed of
light.

You can see that when v=0, square root of (1-0) equals 1 and m = m0.
As velocity increases, (1-v2/c2) becomes less than 1, so square root
of (1-v2/c2) also becomes less than 1, and m becomes greater than m0.
In fact, as v gets close to c, the square root of (1-v2/c2) value
becomes so small that when divided into m0, m represents an inertia
too great to overcome and actually attaining a velocity equal to c
becomes impossible. At that point, dividing m0 by 0 gives an infinite
mass.

Since c is over 186,000 miles/second, we are not accustomed to dealing
with objects travelling at velocities high enough to have a mass
noticeably greater than their rest mass. Experiments with subatomic
particles, however, confirm Relativity's prediction of increasing mass
at speeds near c. Devices from particle accelerators to TV picture
tubes must account for mass increase in order to work properly.






Pmb

Again your argument is vacuous. Your statement "However an object
does not become a black hole because of the inensity of its
gravitational field." is a circular argument. Why does it not become a
Black Hole. Only a baby answers it doesn't become a Black Hole because
it doesn't.

James Briggs

I see. You don't like the answer so you insinuate that I'm a baby? Bye bye.
Flame someone else. At least I know where you got your name.


What answer? The one that is based on ignoring the fact that mass
increases with velocity.

James Briggs

"Pmb" wrote in message ...
"EL" wrote in message
om...
"Mu-Pi" wrote in message
...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

snip
So the only valid question that remains is; how did Einstein manage to
fool
so many people for so long?

Hello Crackpot.

[EL]
If this is all that you could say after snipping his essay then it is
you who is an ignorant crackpot projecting your state of ignorance on
the OP.

If you have nothing to say, it is always better to shut the **** up
and leave others, who have something to say, say it.

He can't. Its in his nature to flame rather than stick to physics. All
scumbags have that defining characteristic

It clear you have the same problem with everyone not just me. They
make a point and you say you are wrong. When asked to defend you use a
circular argument. ("You are wrong because what you say wouldn't
work," that's all you got.) Of course you get flamed because you only
use circular arguments.

James Briggs

"Paul R. Mays" wrote [nonsense]

Yes paul. Your parents should be ashamed of you. Do they know you're
using their computer to be a pest?

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"Paul R. Mays" wrote [nonsense]

Yes paul. Your parents should be ashamed of you. Do they know you're
using their computer to be a pest?

No.. But the next time you commune with the dead
let me know, so you can pass a note or two...

(Gauge) wrote in message . com...
"Mu-Pi" wrote [flame]

Well it now appears that this loser mu-pi is now obsessed with me.

'The brown function': to troll this newsgroup and remain a source of derision.

Get a life mu-pi or seek professional help

LOL. Take your own advice goofball.

(flamestar) wrote

It clear you have the same problem with everyone not just me.

That's what is known as a "load of crap"

They make a point and you say you are wrong.

And 99% of the time they either don't know what they are talking about
or have chosen a definition which they like better which contradicts
the normal definition

When asked to defend you use a circular argument.

Another lie.

("You are wrong because what you say wouldn't
work," that's all you got.) Of course you get flamed because you only
use circular arguments.

Wrong. You sure love to lie. However it seems that you're the one
getting flamed here not I.

You've made a fine addition to my killfile - a nice mechanism for me
never to see any contributions to other threads which you will pollute
with your childish flaming

(flamestar) wrote [childish flames]

What answer?

The answer that a black hole is a geometric object whose structure is
not frame dependant. I told you that but you refused to listen.

The one that is based on ignoring the fact that mass
increases with velocity.

I didn't ignore the fact that mass increases with velocity. You've
made the commong and serious mistake of thinking that an object is a
black hole because of the amount of mass it has. WRONG!

I'll explain this once again. A black hole has the property that any
beam of light which crosses its event horizon will not come back out.
That fact is not frame dependant.

E.g. Suppose I have a silver ball which has a 1 meter radius and a
mass of 100 kg. If I'm in the rest frame of the ball and I shine a
light on it then that light can bounce back to me. As such I can
detect that light beam. This will happen no matter what the source of
the light is doing. If I'm now in a frame of referance in which the
ball is moving and I shine a light on the ball then the moving ball
will reflect the beam of light as well and that beam will also be
detectable from the moving frame. Since this will happen for all beams
of light and all velocities of the ball it follows that there is no
speed at which the ball can move such that a light beam hitting it
will *not* bounce off. Therefore there is no frame of referance in
which the ball is a black hole since it lacks the definining
characteristic of a black hole - no event horizon.

If you're not willing to keep an open mind then there is no reason to
expect that you're able to learn

"smarter_than_you" wrote in message
om...
"Robert Calvert" wrote in message
...

While of course your contention that SR is 'wrong' is itself quite
wrong (if it weren't, we wouldn't have made it to the moon, or have
DirecTV, or planetary probes, etc.).

Why do we have to assume that only Einstein's version of Relativity
would be
required for this?

If you mean Einstein's interpretation, we don't. However, the
observable implications of SR (at least at scales above the quantum
realm) are correct, so we need some theory that is identical to SR in
terms of experimental predictions. We might as well call such a
theory relativity, since non-observable factors (such as philosophical
interpretations) are not scientific attributes of a theory.

However, I will fault Einstein
and other scientists for one important thing that has led to much
confusion. Perhaps they didn't have the proper foundation to state it
any other way (in fact, most scientists would still do it this way),

Could this mean that most scientists don't really understand SR
themselves?

If you mean the interpretation, then yes, I believe most scientists
haven't really given proper thought to the implications of SR.
However, again in the end all that really matters is that the math
works -- it describes what we observe. 'Most scientists' are not
particuarly concerned with the (presumably) non-scientific aspects of
the theories they work with, ie the philosophical implications,
metaphysical explanations, and whatnot.

But do they ever concern themselves with what actually makes sense? I can
think of many examples in which "the math" appeared to work on the surface
but led me to an absurd and unrealistic conclusion. But this didn't mean
that I ignored the existence of objective reality and believed "the math".
In order to make my figures come out right I had to rethink the problem and
come up with a mathematical solution that accurately represented the reality
of the problem. This is obviously something that Relativists have neglected
to do for quite some time. Just look at your own point below if you have any
doubts.

They consider that to be
either crackpot material, or the egghead musings of philosophers, both
of which are irrelevant to most day-to-day work. However, such
musings often have an influence on future research, and become
relevant later, when new experimental techniques may be available that
can differentiate between two interpretations of the same original
theory. Then we have two legitimately different theories, and the
distinctions suddenly become important.

but IMO there is a gravely misleading aspect to the way relativity is
usually phrased. Pay attention now:

Einstein's formulation of relativity: "There is no preferred inertial
frame of reference."

The correct formulation: "All inertial frames of reference where the
velocity is less than the speed of light, are mathematically
equivalent, and there is no a priori reason to prefer one over the
other."

Any theory that asserts that one twin can return home younger than the
other
requires a preferred inertial frame of reference. This is why every
intelligent person that I know of has a problem with SR.

This is where you are dead wrong. The math of SR makes it perfectly
comprehensible how two people can go off on different trips (that
means with different accelerations, not just symmetrical trips in
different directions) and come back having aged differently (btw I
made a mistake on this point later, I will correct it here).

In other words, given a spacetime history in frame F, we can always
transform it to frame F' through some simple trigonometry. For
convenience, we usually think of observing the world from whatever
frame of reference we happen to be in; but it is perfectly acceptable
to use some other frame of reference instead.

Sure, we can use any frame of reference we want. But if we want to
invoke
SR, then we're also forced to declare our preselected frame of reference
the
privileged frame of reference.

No, we're not. We can do the computations in *ANY* frame of
reference, and they come out the same. What makes one frame of
reference 'priveliged'?

As for your 'paradoxes', you don't have it right. If two spaceships
do some symmetrical acceleration thing (like fly away fast, then turn
around and come back), of course their clocks match perfectly.

But this is exactly where the paradox comes into play. Read this again:

If we want to extrapolate this experiment to the extreme, we
could imagine a scenario in which both clocks have been traveling
toward
each other at 86% of the speed of light relative to each other for
the
past
10 billion years and are only recently about to meet. If clock (a)
"decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame of reference of
clock
(b),
should we conclude that clock (a) has lost 5 billion years compared
to
clock
(b)?

yes.

What if clock (b) "decelerates" in two seconds to enter the frame
of
reference of clock (a)? Should we now conclude that clock (b) is the
clock
that has lost 5 billion years?

yes.

To make a long story short, Who's to say which clock accelerated and
which
clock didn't?

The one that undergoes a huge amount of acceleration (or
'deceleration', they're the same thing) to catch up to the other is
the one that loses time (ie its clock goes very slow for a while).

Are you kidding? The clock that reverses direction would have to lose 5
billion in 2 seconds. Either that or the clock that doesn't reverse
direction would have to zip forward in time 5 billion years in 2 seconds. As
I said, "absurd and unrealistic conclusion".

Robert


The
paradox, such as it is, comes when they accelerate or decelerate, and
*choose* to view the Universe from their new frame of reference.
Among other things, by doing this they may redefine the 'present'
moment on the other spaceship to be a year later (or earlier), for
instance. Once you comprehend the spacetime geometry transformations
of SR, it all makes perfect sense.

Only if you presuppose the existence of a privileged frame of reference.

wrong.

The distortion occurs with you,
the observer, at the center; everything else is warped and modified to
make your 'present' stay continuous. But the important thing to
realize is, none of this implies that your actions have any effect on
other observers. They go through their own transformations, and
decide that you are shrinking, going slow, etc. and so on. If
everyone on both spaceships simply used clocks that were modified to
show the 'proper' time of their home planet, they would both see their
clocks slow down on the trip out, and speed up on the trip back.

In a strictly Newtonian universe, a clock would appear to slow down on
the
way out and appear to speed up on the way back in so that, by the time
one
clock reaches the other and decelerates, both clocks will have recorded
the
same elapsed time. It is true that the twin paradox would be resolved
even
if we did assume that time is literally slowing down using this formula.
But, then again, this is not the Special Relativity that I'm familiar
with.

(in
this example I'm just talking about SR, so the clocks on the
spaceships end up synced with the one on the home planet. Note that
the twin paradox is really part of GR, not SR, but that's another
story.)

Correction: the twin paradox is part of SR. My bad. GR simply adds
gravity to the picture, which we're not discussing here.

Why don't you tell it.

I don't know GR well enough to teach it. I'm very comfortable with SR
because it is simply trigonometry. Check out this page, it has what I
consider to be one of the best explanations of why SR works.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

Robert

Hope this helps,
sty

[snipped immature lambasting of Einstein and others]

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
(flamestar) wrote

It clear you have the same problem with everyone not just me.

That's what is known as a "load of crap"

No... it is the truth PMB. Looking back on your interactions in this group
and in general it is clear that you like to whine... harass... moan and
argue.


They make a point and you say you are wrong.

And 99% of the time they either don't know what they are talking about
or have chosen a definition which they like better which contradicts
the normal definition

Oh the irony! PMB... this describes YOU. How on Earth can you say the
things you do with a straight face?


When asked to defend you use a circular argument.

Another lie.

Another truth PMB.


("You are wrong because what you say wouldn't
work," that's all you got.) Of course you get flamed because you only
use circular arguments.

Wrong. You sure love to lie. However it seems that you're the one
getting flamed here not I.

You've made a fine addition to my killfile - a nice mechanism for me
never to see any contributions to other threads which you will pollute
with your childish flaming

I have also noticed that when you say you have killfiled a person, you in
fact don't and always respond to them.
You are a crackpot Brown... pure and simple.