Problems with Special Relativity

[Roy]

Everything you say is correct up until this point.

Doesn't he go wrong earlier, when he writes

L/t = v

by conflating the length of an object and the distance it has moved?

[Leonhard]

Doesn't he go wrong earlier, when he writesby conflating the length of an object and the distance it has moved?

Distances are length contracted as well.

Actually there is a subtler error in that he uses the wrong method to calculate what the velocity would have been after the transformation.

He should use the velocity addition formula.

[Leonhard]

So far nobody has attempted to resolved problems 1-4.

Interesting.

JM

Uh, I just wrote three posts dealing with problems 1-3.

[JohnMartin]

JM, You have repeatedly shown that you cannot do math or understand any but the simplest arguments. So I'll try to make this as simple as I can.

I use and rely on special relativity (SR) every day. It works.

In an RF electron accelerator as used in cancer therapy, electrons are accelerated through a string of RF cavities. (I'll try to attach a sketch from US patent 7005809.) The first RF cavity is generally about half of the normal cavity length. The next few "buncher" cavities get progressively longer, because the electrons' velocity is increasing. But after three or four cavities, the cavity length becomes fixed and no longer increases. Why? Because the electron velocity effectively reaches a limit. The electrons still gain energy, but do not gain velocity.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]15840[/ATTACH]

If you reject SR, why do these devices work? How do you explain it?

On one of the accelerators that I work with, the RF frequency is 2998 MHz. The normal-length cavities are exactly 5.00 cm long. The RF electric fields alternate direction from cavity to cavity, so for an electron to be accelerated in each cavity, it must transit each cavity in 1/2 of an RF cycle. Can you calculate from these numbers what the limiting speed is for the electrons?

Note: You may complain that electrons never actually reach a velocity limit, but gain a slight amount of velocity in each cavity. This is true, but after a few cavities the velocity increase is negligible. These accelerators generally accelerate electrons to an output energy of 4-20 MeV. Can you calculate (using the equations of SR) at what energy an electron will have a velocity of 0.95 c? 0.99 c? 0.999 c?

You have only made a claim that SR is used in the accelerator, without demonstration. As far as I understand the claim concerning SR theory with particle accelerators (PA) is the energy used to accelerate a particle increases without the particle ever reaching c. The PA experiment results infer an upper limit of particle velocity of c. Such does not verify SR's required time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase, as

1) the test results can only be said to be consistent with the predictions of such ideas. Consistency of ideas with predicted outcomes does not mean the ideas are sound. An unsound idea can also produce predictive outcomes which would fit the outcomes of the PA.

2) SR theory still assumes much which simply cannot be tested inductively by tests such as the PA. For example, mass increase cannot be tested, for mass can only be measured in the mass rest frame. If mass of a particle is measured in the earth frame, mass is only ever indirectly measured by assuming SR theory is correct, and then measured from the earth frame. As SR theory is assumed, the means of measuring particle mass from the earth frame is tied into length contraction and time dilation. Such multiple dependencies of variables within one theory makes the claims of measuring one variable, almost impossible to verify. Its like saying a particle mass increases, but we never experience such change in the particle rest frame, so we measure the particle velocity and deduce from the SR equations that particle mass increase is real within the PA test. If this, or a similar manner in measuring particle mass is used, such is simply not apodictic, as the method is 1) indirect, and 2) assumes too much.

In fact SR theory claims mass increase, time dilation and length contraction can never be measured in any rest frame. Such then means these SR concepts are only ever measured by assuming the SR equations are true, then applying the SR equations to the PA data. This method assumes what is real cannot ever be measured in any rest frame, but only indirectly by applying equations in the rest frame to the data, which is assumed to be derived from the moving frame. This method does nothing to establish the reality of SR within the PA experiment, but only serves to re-affirm a belief in SR theory. Belief is required to use the PA to verify SR, and belief is required to use the method and belief is required to believe the PA results are consistent with SR. The entire SR system with its empirical results is a belief based system, which is never apodictic.

3) A limited acceleration of a particle within a test only demonstrates a particle will move at a limited velocity with a limited energy. Such does not provide evidence for SR theory, when other causes of the particle velocity limit can be posited. For example, you can posit light is at c+-v, lengths do not shrink, and time does not dilate, and space is a substance. You can also posit the earth is either 1) stationary, or 2) moving, and add those velocities into the equations. Then posit the cause of the particle velocity limit is the substance of space, as either the firmament, or a local aether. Then you have one, or two, or several other theories, with predicted experimental outcomes which would match the results.

4) Time dilation and length contraction are difficult, or almost impossible to test inductively, for the test results are never given in the particle rest frame. Hence time dilation and length contraction are merely SR claims projected into the test results by using the SR equations. If the test results match what the SR equations predict, then scientists merely claim the test shows forth evidence for time dilation and length contraction.

To claim PA uses SR, is merely a claim. Come up with another theory that matches the PA data and make another claim abut the other theory. Then make up another theory and so on. The almost endless use of theory and data is both a strength and weakness of the inductive method. The weakness means an experiment only ever produces results that are consistent with a theory, without ever providing evidence for the claims made within a theory.

To provide evidence for concepts such as time dilation and length contraction, one must know what the natures of time and length are. Once it is established via the deductive method that such can occur from the nature of time and length, then and only then can such concepts be considered as legitimate ideas within a theory. This is the job of the philosopher, who goes to natural philosophy and asks questions such as 1) What is the nature of a body? and 2) what is the nature of time? Then once these questions are correctly answered, we know that time cannot dilate and lengths do not contract because of the motion of a body.

As SR theory never proves from the nature of time and length, and mass that such changes can occur, then SR theory has no basis in nature for its claims. SR theory merely assumes equations generated from a thought experiment are enough to posit that time dilation, length contraction and mass change can really happen from the nature of time and bodies. Such a simplistic notion of reality, means SR theory relies upon the naivety of its proponents to believe the simplistic arguments and the equations, to then make a poorly founded conclusion that time dilation, length contraction and mass change really do occur for velocities close to c.

SR theory is simply not a robust measure of reality and any thinking person should reject it, even in spite of its apparent experimental verification as proposed by SR adherents.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Uh, I just wrote three posts dealing with problems 1-3.

So you did. And it seems I'm still not quite awake yet.

JM

[JohnMartin]

o disprove relativity lets assume it is not true.

We will have one space ship traveling at 1/2 the speed of light traveling between two destinations 1 light year apart.

destination 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- destination 2.
So they detect each others clocks one year in each other's past.

When the ship > passes destination 1 it will be 1 year before destination 2 sees the ship pass destination 1.
It will take the ship 2 years to reach destination 2.
And destination 1 will not see the ship reach destination 2 for 3 years.

Now when destination 2 sees the ship pass destination 1 it will see the ship arrive at their destination 2 in 1 year, since 1 year has already passed and the ship is half way there.

Now the ship as it passed destination 1 will see destination 1 as only one year latter when it passes destination 2.
And the ship will see 3 years pass as it sees destination 2.

Destination 1 sees the ship's clock after it passes running 2/3 speed. (2 years to travel to 1 year in the observed past. Destination 1 will see the ship arrive at destination 2 in 3 years)
The ship sees destination 1's clock after it passes running at 1/2 speed. (2 years to see what was past 1 year in the past.)

Destination 2 sees the ship's clock running 2 times faster. (2 years pass in 1 year)
And the ship sees destination 2's clock running 1 1/2 times faster. (3 years pass in 2 years)

Now if we plug in the relativistic equations. Both the destinations and the ship see each other's clocks at the same rates. The clock disparity is gone. The traveler's clock was running slower all along.

JM,

Take the time to work this out not assuming SR. As you will find, the traveler sees two destinations clock rates differently than the two destinations see the travelers clock rate. The only way for the traveler and the destinations see the clock rates the same for each other is SR. BTW in SR the travelers clock runs slower. And the time for the traveler to travel between the two destinations 1.732 years instead of the 2. Even though it still takes 2 years between the destinations for the two destinations views.

Your example is too complicated, long winded and has no equations to show the conclusions you claim. I suggest you rewrite the argument, making each step clear and providing the equations.

JM

[JohnMartin]

By "if we can show that v > c" I think you mean "if we can show that something can have a v > c", as v is just a quantity, and it can have all sorts of values. I think you meant the latter so I'll go with that.

Everything you say is correct up until this point.




You made a mistake here. Its right that the length contraction is given by expression you gave but you forgot to take time dilation into account.



After this is done, there is no contraction.

You have only made a claim without demonstration. Show how including the time dilation is to be used correctly and how it resolves the problem.

The second and deeper problem is that you don't calculate what a velocity would be in two different frames of reference this way. You can't transform velocities with the lorentz transformation, because a velocity is not a spacetime coordinate, rather its a quantity that indicates direction, and a rate of change of position. This does change between reference frames, but its handled differently.

SR theory is a bundle of contradictions under the guise of being counter intuitive. You statements are merely claims made without any evidence presented. The problem remains unanswered.

v'>c. Hence SR is invalid.
JM

[Leonhard]

You have only made a claim without demonstration.

No, I quite clearly demonstrated a straightforward error. You forgot to take time dilation into account. There's no doubt about that.

Because of this, the rest of problem proceeds on a faulty premise and so it can be dismissed.

If you think there is still a contradiction, then its up to you to show one.

Show how including the time dilation is to be used correctly

I might work out the example tomorrow. To show you how its done correctly.

Or do you want the textbook proof for the velocity addition formula?

You statements are merely claims made without any evidence presented. The problem remains unanswered.

John Martin, you can't use the lorentz transformation to get what a velocity would be in one frame of reference vs another.

For that you must use something like the velocity addition formula. This is standard textbook material. Its something you should be expected to know, if you are proposing errors in the theory.

If you want I can show you the proof of it, but this is the basics of the theory. If you don't understand this, then sure you can probably derive all sorts of contradictions, but they will be based on your misunderstandings, and will therefore be strawmans.

v'>c. Hence SR is invalid.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

[JohnMartin]

Again I assume that (x₁, x₂) and (x^'₁, x^'₂) are two x coordinates, along the same axis, in two different reference frames... and that you mean to say that there is one reference frame where x₁ < x₂ and one where x^'₂ < x^'₁, with x^'₁ = x₂ and x^'₂ = x₁.

I'm afraid that's impossible. There is no lorentz transformation of coordinates that will swap coordinates like that. You're proceeding on a faulty assumption.

We can prove this can't be done. For simplicity I'll only deal with motion along one axis, but extending the proof isn't difficult (left as an exercise).

For the lorentz transformation we have



We'll do the proof by a classical reducto ad absurdum argument. We assume the theorem is false, and if this leads to contradiction, then the theorem must be true.

Postulate: There is a lorentz transformation such that for x₁ < x₂, their values after the transformation will fulfill x'₁ = x₂ and x'₂ = x₁.

From the identities we get



However this is a contradiction, since our starting assumption was that x₁ < x₂. Ergo no lorentz transformation will cause the flip indicated in your example.

Let an object move from x1 to x2

x₁ (same as x'₂)----------------------------------->x₂ (same as x'₁)

x₁ and x₂ are Newtonian coordinates, equivalent to the relativistic, stationary reference frame.

x₂ - x₁ is a location change. t₂-t₁ is time change. v= x₂-x₁/t₂-t₁.

x'₂ and x'₁ are the equivalent Relativistic co-ordinates and what x₁ and x₂ see in the stationary reference frame.

The length x₂-x₁ is that of the observer in the x axis. Length x'₂ -x'₁ is the relativistic length observed by the observer at x₁.

When x₁ =0 length x₂ - x₁ = x₂.

When x₁=0 the relativistic length x'₂ = x₂/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

then substituting x₂ = v/t₂

x'₂ = v/t₂/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

etc, etc

v<v.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I've further explained Problem 3 as shown

Problem 3


Let an object move as

x₁ (same as x'₂)----------------------------------->x₂ (same as x'₁)

where x₁ and x₂ are Newtonian coordinates, equivalent to the relativistic, stationary reference frame.

x₂ - x₁ is a location change. t₂-t₁ is time change. v= x₂-x₁/t₂-t₁.

x'₂ and x'₁ are the equivalent Relativistic co-ordinates and what x₁ and x₂ see in the stationary reference frame.

The length x₂-x₁ is that of the observer in the x axis. Length x'₂ -x'₁ is the relativistic length observed by the observer at x₁.

Following on Problem 2, we have length

L = x₂-x₁

and

L' = x'₁ - x'₂

but

Eq 2) x'₂ = x₂/(1-(v²/c²))^1/2

when v>0, then x'₂ > x₂

which means for a motion from

x₁ --------------------->x₂

x'₂ is a starting point behind x₁, where

x'₂ --------->x₁ --------------------->x₂

Also, the time required for x'₁ to reach x₁ would cause x'₁ to move to x₃ to the right of x₂ as

x'₂ --------->x₁ --------------------->x₂ (same as SR x'₁)---------->x₃(same as SR x'₁)

Whereby x₃ >x₂.

Such motions only cause confusion within such a simple example. As SR theory quite easily leads to such confusion, the terms within the theory are poorly defined, hence causing such confusion. The confusion arises when more than one understanding of a premise can be used to arrive at confused, contrary outcomes. As the outcomes above are not possible with such a simple motion from x₁ to x₂, SR theory must be unsound according to poorly defined premises found in either the definitions, and/or the SR equations.

SR theory is sophistic as demonstrated by the above confusion within the theory.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

This thread will be dedicated to exposing problems with Special Relativity Theory.

Problem 1

In Einstein's Paper entitled - On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies²/c²)^1/2

v = v'/(1-v²/c²)^1/2

Let v = 0.8c

0.8c = v'(1-0.8c²/c²)^1/2

0.8c = v' (0.6c)

v' = 1.333c

therefore v' > c which contradicts statement (1) above.

Hence SR theory is invalidated.

JM

With all the various eyes looking at this, I'm just a little shocked this has been missed:

Regardless of what mistakes john made setting up the equation or using the terms:

John starts using v = v' / (1-v²/c²)^1/2, but then, right where he substitutes the value of v, throws away the division operator (effectively reversing the meaning of v and v', but scrambled), and then continues on as if nothing happened.

The solution should have proceeded:

0.8c = v' / (1-0.8c²/c²)^1/2

0.8c = v' / (0.6)

.48c = v'


v' in this case then is not > c.


Jim

[Sea of red]

Just some general advise to the members that keep responding to him.

Don't bother trying to educated him and help him understand his mistakes. He's not interested in hearing what anyone else has to say - much less changing his views. No matter what you say, no matter how much effort you put into helping him understand his mistakes, he will never give in and change his mind. I've dealt with this kind of 'visionary' before, and you just frustrate yourself to the point of getting PO'd.

To continue responding to him at this point only enables his arrogance. Each response feeds him a little bit more, and if you guys keep it up, you'll create another monster that becomes addicted to trolling this forum that we can't get ride of.

Ignore the threads, ignore the posts, and just ignore him altogether.

[shunyadragon]

Just some general advise to the members that keep responding to him.

Don't bother trying to educated him and help him understand his mistakes. He's not interested in hearing what anyone else has to say - much less changing his views. No matter what you say, no matter how much effort you put into helping him understand his mistakes, he will never give in and change his mind. I've dealt with this kind of 'visionary' before, and you just frustrate yourself to the point of getting PO'd.

To continue responding to him at this point only enables his arrogance. Each response feeds him a little bit more, and if you guys keep it up, you'll create another monster that becomes addicted to trolling this forum that we can't get ride of.

Ignore the threads, ignore the posts, and just ignore him altogether.

In other words; 'Do not feed the Trolls.'

[Kbertsche]

You have only made a claim that SR is used in the accelerator, without demonstration.

I don't know how to demonstrate a particle accelerator in a web posting. If you make a visit to an accelerator lab you can see a demonstration.

As far as I understand the claim concerning SR theory with particle accelerators (PA) is the energy used to accelerate a particle increases without the particle ever reaching c. The PA experiment results infer an upper limit of particle velocity of c.

Correct. We experimentally observe a limit to the particle velocity, at the value "c".

Such does not verify SR's required time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase, as

1) the test results can only be said to be consistent with the predictions of such ideas. Consistency of ideas with predicted outcomes does not mean the ideas are sound. An unsound idea can also produce predictive outcomes which would fit the outcomes of the PA.

True, but what other theory predicts the observed velocity limit of c? If you reject SR, you need to propose an alternate theory which explains the data.

2) SR theory still assumes much which simply cannot be tested inductively by tests such as the PA. For example, mass increase cannot be tested, for mass can only be measured in the mass rest frame. ...

False.

I didn't mention it, but we can measure mass increase fairly easily in a particle accelerator. All we need is a bending magnet or steering coil to deflect the particle beam. (And every accelerator has a few steering coils.)

{Here are the details. A magnet as mentioned above imparts a transverse momentum "kick" to the particles; this momentum kick depends only on particle charge, magnetic field strength, and magnetic field length (it does NOT depend on particle velocity). This momentum kick gives an angular deflection to the particle beam. The angular deflection is the ratio of the transverse momentum kick to the longitudinal momentum of the particle. The longitudinal momentum depends on particle mass and velocity. A higher energy electron moving at nearly the speed of light will have a higher effective mass and will deflect less than a lower energy electron that is also moving at nearly the speed of light.}

In fact SR theory claims mass increase, time dilation and length contraction can never be measured in any rest frame. ...

??? I don't know what you are trying to say, but this is nonsense. We can measure mass increase as I explained above. We can measure time dilation with muons, as was explained earlier.

3) A limited acceleration of a particle within a test only demonstrates a particle will move at a limited velocity with a limited energy. Such does not provide evidence for SR theory, when other causes of the particle velocity limit can be posited. For example, you can posit light is at c+-v, lengths do not shrink, and time does not dilate, and space is a substance. You can also posit the earth is either 1) stationary, or 2) moving, and add those velocities into the equations. Then posit the cause of the particle velocity limit is the substance of space, as either the firmament, or a local aether. Then you have one, or two, or several other theories, with predicted experimental outcomes which would match the results.

If you have an alternate theory to predict a limit of c for particle speeds, please put it forth and show how it gives a limit of c. What you just said in the previous paragraph is NOT a theory that has any physical motivation or predicts anything; it is just a bunch of hand-waving and a nonsensical jumble of word salad.

4) Time dilation and length contraction are difficult, or almost impossible to test inductively, for the test results are never given in the particle rest frame. ...

Nonsense again. In a particle's rest frame the particle is at rest, by definition. So it will have no time dilation or length contraction. A particle will only have time dilation and length contraction when measured in a moving frame with respect to the particle (e.g. A relativistic muon measured in a fixed reference frame on earth.)

SR theory is simply not a robust measure of reality and any thinking person should reject it, even in spite of its apparent experimental verification as proposed by SR adherents.

JM

No, a thinking person should NOT reject the only theory which explains experimental data, even if the theory seems strange and counterintuitive. I know of no other theory which explains what we see. Do you have one that you wish to propose?

[JohnMartin]

With all the various eyes looking at this, I'm just a little shocked this has been missed:

Regardless of what mistakes john made setting up the equation or using the terms:

John starts using v = v' / (1-v²/c²)^1/2, but then, right where he substitutes the value of v, throws away the division operator (effectively reversing the meaning of v and v', but scrambled), and then continues on as if nothing happened.

The solution should have proceeded:

0.8c = v' / (1-0.8c²/c²)^1/2

0.8c = v' / (0.6)

.48c = v'


v' in this case then is not > c.


Jim

It looks like problem 1 is solved thanks to Jim's correction.

JM