Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:25 pm

More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Roshi » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:18 am

Why is the speed of light the speed limit? Because of "mass dilation caused by speed we would reach infinite mass". That is absurd. I have 1000 different speeds in relation to 1000 objects in the universe right now. Do I have 1000 different masses? I certainly have a speed equal to almost the speed of light in relation to some particle somewhere. Am I close to "infinite mass"? Also - if mass is dependant on speed, what is the "rest mass"? Everything is moving...

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_s ... istic_mass
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m / 1 − v2 / c2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948


So - why is there still a "speed limit"? Maybe light has a speed limit. I believe there is no speed limit for big objects, like spaceships, and no "mass dilation caused by speed". Also no "time dilation" or "length dilation".

http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Electro » Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:47 am

Roshi wrote:Why is the speed of light the speed limit? Because of "mass dilation caused by speed we would reach infinite mass". That is absurd. I have 1000 different speeds in relation to 1000 objects in the universe right now. Do I have 1000 different masses? I certainly have a speed equal to almost the speed of light in relation to some particle somewhere. Am I close to "infinite mass"? Also - if mass is dependant on speed, what is the "rest mass"? Everything is moving...

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_s ... istic_mass
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m / 1 − v2 / c2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948


So - why is there still a "speed limit"? Maybe light has a speed limit. I believe there is no speed limit for big objects, like spaceships, and no "mass dilation caused by speed". Also no "time dilation" or "length dilation".

http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/


If light was the universal speed limit, how would a galaxy stay together? How would the farthest stars still be attracted to the central plasmoid to form spiral galaxies?

Furthermore, Einstein and His disciples made time a "thing" and a fourth dimension. Time and space are concepts, not "things". They cannot be bent, nor created. If the Universe was expanding, new space would be continuously created. What happened is the past, the future has not happened yet. There is only now. Time travel is therefore impossible. If I travel to a distant star 5 light-years away at the speed of light, people on Earth will see it as 5 years, and I will also see it as traveling for 5 years. It will not be instantaneous for me.

Recent "celebrations" for those magical gravitational waves are BS. People will not question physicists. They are too brilliant to be questioned. We are only uneducated idiots.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:49 am

I think the speed of light has been measured, and confirmed.

My solution to the spaceships problem:
There will be no meeting in the middle.
At that speed they would not be able to see each other.

They wouldn't be at the planet in one year either.
The spaceship would have to slow down to meet the planet,
and a deceleration period would add to the time of the journey.
And there is the time it took to get your spaceship up to light speed.

The problem is lightspeed spaceships.
There will be mechanical reasons, limitations, why that is not possible.
If we ignore that anyway, and presume they are possible,
then light cannot leave the front of your spaceship to signal your presence to those in front,
you are going as fast as light can travel.
The spaceship will be invisible.

I presume there must be mechanical reasons, at the quantum level, why photons travel at c.
That light also doesn't go slower must be a clue.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Roshi » Wed Jun 22, 2016 3:03 am

It does not matter that the spaceships do not see each other at the point of passing. And they don't need to slow down, they can just pass by the planets.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm
It’s unlikely that any scientist would insist that the validity of relativity theory, or any physics theory, requires the presence of life forms in the universe. Still, given the present state of science, one can never be sure. So for those who require that the clocks be compared side-by-side, see parts 2 to 5 of this challenge.


About light not being able to leave the spaceship, the postulates of relativity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate ... relativity
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body


I recommend this link:
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/

The speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body, but not independent of the state of motion of the observer.
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:00 pm

It does not matter that the spaceships do not see each other at the point of passing. And they don't need to slow down, they can just pass by the planets.

To a third party observer, the spaceships passed each other at the half way point, in 6 months.

If he does his transforms right.

light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body

Correct.

Now, that is presuming your emitting body is not doing c.
Because , while light goes at c, it is accepted that no light emitting body can go at c.

But even if we ignore that, and have a lightspeed spaceship.
Relative to your ship, any light that bounces off the front of the ship,
you will keep up with it.
If you are doing c.

By the time someone sees you, you have passed through them.
Maybe is possible to catch some light bouncing off the side of the spaceship.
But your Spaceship will be long past them by then.

The speed of light is measured in a frame.
We found out the speed by watching how long it takes to go from Sun to planet to Earth,
so the background 3D space we measured light to is the Solar system.

Now back to your spaceship, the light bouncing off the front is doing c.
Relative to what?
It is always to the local coordinate.
The local coordinate would be the nearby stars and planets which you spaceship is currently traversing.
The light is doing c relative to that,
and you claim your ship is also doing c, relative to that same coordinate.

I think it's a common mistake to think the light is always doing c relative to you, or to the observer.
That isn't true.

A spaceship coming towards you at 1/2 c, and you are travelling at 1/2 c,
the spaceship coming towards you flashes a light, the light travels at c.

The flash of light is doing 1/2 c relative to the spaceship which flashed it,
and the flash is doing 1 & 1/2 c relative to your ship,
because all the above-mentioned speeds are relative to a single coordinate, not to each other.
No violation of relativity has taken place.

Mostly, we only see light at about c + 1k mph, or c - 1k mph.
A virtually imperceptible difference from c.

But when you get up to rocket ship speeds, and traverse astronomical distances,
then you need relativity transforms, if you want to know exactly where your rocket ship is, when it is in another coordinate.

This is what I think, or my understanding thus far,
if I'm wrong, hopefully someone will come along
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Roshi » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:34 am

comingfrom wrote:
I think it's a common mistake to think the light is always doing c relative to you, or to the observer.
That isn't true.


Relativity says light is always doing c relative to the point of emission. I agree with that. But it forgets to say that light is not always going at c relative to all observers. That is what the link above "Neoclassical relativity" says, and this solves lots of problems.

No need for any dilations - and this means no speed limit, because there is no "mass dilation" with speed. That is why "it is accepted that no light emitting body can go at c"... I want a relativist to explain to me, how can mass dilate with speed if one object can have different speeds in relation to other objects all over the Universe? Does that object have an infinity of values for mass at the same time? This is the formula: Dilated mass = mass/sqrt(1-v2/c2).

Constant speed means nothing. Of course light is always doing c relative to the point of emission, light does not know that object is moving. It could be moving at 1km/h relative to a planet and at 100000km/h relative to another star. But this does not matter. If the planet or the star would disappear, nothing would change for the emitting object.

I'll leave these here:
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ ... llenge.htm

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m / 1 − v2 / c2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
— Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948

If Einstein said this, why do we still have a speed limit in the Universe?

Science explained on Wikipedia:
In special relativity, an object that has nonzero rest mass cannot travel at the speed of light. As the object approaches the speed of light, the object's energy and momentum increase without bound.

It looks to me they are using an "universal reference frame".
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:43 pm

I don't believe light is always c relative to the point of emission.
I believe that light is always c relative to the local coordinate,
because the velocity of light is c due to mechanical reasons.

Light always goes at c no matter where it is, or how fast nearby bodies might be going
(except when passing through a solid or liquid medium like glass or water, which slows it down).

So, if a spaceship doing 10,000 mph flashes a beam of light directly ahead,
that light will be doing c relative to the same background you used to measure the velocity of your spaceship.

Relative to the body of emission, the spaceship, the light's velocity would be c - 10,000 mph.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby Roshi » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:30 am

comingfrom wrote:I don't believe light is always c relative to the point of emission.
I believe that light is always c relative to the local coordinate,
because the velocity of light is c due to mechanical reasons.

Light always goes at c no matter where it is, or how fast nearby bodies might be going


What do you mean? The local coordinate can be placed at the point of emission. So light is always going at c relative to that. And it's not going at c relative to all other observers, if an observer has a speed v relative to the point of light emission, then light does not go at c relative to that. That what "neoclassical relativity" says.

What "background" ? Constant speed means nothing and changes nothing. If 2 objects move away from each other at constant speed, and you are on one of them, you cannot tell if your object or the other object is moving. If you can't see the other object - you can't even tell if you are moving.

A spaceship leaves Earth. Communications to the spaceship reach it in ~40 minutes (spacehsip is near Jupiter). Spaceship speed in relation to Earth = v, radio signals speed in relation to Earth = c. Radio signals speed in relation to spaceship in this frame of reference = c-v. This eliminates the need of any "time dilation", etc.

[Neo-Classical Relativity]. Einstein's errors: Ignoring the motion of the observer, case (A) - Youtube
(How do I embed a youtube video?)

Einstein himself uses c-v and c+v:
http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/On_the_Electr ... ing_Bodies
Roshi
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby JHL » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:44 am

Doesn't coordinate-emission, to coin a phrase, negate red shift? In other words, if instantaneous point of emission determines c, how can wavelength shift by way of velocity?

It seems either light either has a Doppler effect or it doesn't. I think Roshi has addressed this, but obviously it takes some special circumstances to make relativity coincide with our everyday perceptions of velocities, shifts, and location, at the least...
JHL
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby jeremyfiennes » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:31 am

Hi all,
it seems I am the newest member, and this is my first post. Its that hoary old one again: Special Relativity's Twin Absurdity (erroneously called a "paradox". But according to the dictionary a paradox is a "seeming" contradiction, whereas this is a real one.)
Standard "explanations" (in quotes, because a logical contradiction cannot be explained) of the absurdity are all (according to Wikipedia) based on the asymmetry. One twin is on Earth and the other in a spaceship. But this firstly contradicts SRT which says that all inertial observers are equivalent. And secondly, one can readily imagine a Symmetrical Twin case where both twins are in spaceships. [There is a little drawing on my website http://www.einsteinsterribletwins.weebly.com. It is still under construction, so please don't probe too deeply. Just look at the drawing. If you click on one button, for instance, it takes you into Alice in Wonderland!]
In the Symmetrical Twin, and also in the standard case, each twin sees the other's clock running slower than his own. And since according to SRT neither twin is "preferred", both views are correct.
So:
-- 1) SRT predicts that two clocks can each run slower than the other, which is logically absurd
-- 2) on the philosphical reductio ad absurdum principle, premisses that lead to a contradictory/absurd
conclusion are themselves contradictory/absurd
-- 3) the premisses here being the Einstein postulates, they - and by extension SRT itself - are contradictory/
absurd. Q.E.D.
It's as simple as that.
IN SPITE OF WHICH, Einstein declared that "No contradiction to the foundations of Relativity can be constructed from the twin result". And mainstream physics agrees with him, effectively declaring black to be white, and labeling anyone who questions it a crackpot.
Query: IS THIS POSSIBLE?
Answer: Most certainly It has been going on for the last 100+ years (believe it or not!)

P.S. Your Electric Universe thesis seems interesting. I shall be looking into it.
Thanks.
jeremyfiennes
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm

Re: Funny way to demonstrate problem in special relativity

Unread postby jeremyfiennes » Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:45 pm

The website is now <http://einsteinsterribletwins.com>. I'm not trying to flog it here. Any visitor to this forum who wants a copy of the complete text, email me on <einsteinsterribletwins@gmail.com> and I will send one.
jeremyfiennes
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 pm


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest