The falsification of the Theory of Relativity

[Rlyeh]

In that case the astronaught twin has spent his time in space "in slow motion". This is the only realistic answer for his difference in age. At the near speed of light his mental time keeping would not only have slowed but have ground to a halt because he would most probably be dead and not be in a position to percieve anything. Anyway perception is irrelevent - its the hard facts of reality which are pertinent.

Still having trouble with the most simple answers? There would be no reason for him to be dead.

The only facts are the ones you continue to make up, it would be great if we could all lay in bed playing make believe.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Rlyeh

[antonT]

No no no. You're suggesting that we don't notice time slowing down when we're travelling in an aeroplane because its nowhere near the speed of light. But if you were going at near the speed of light, you wouldn't notice it either. It would only become apparent when measuring it against the passing of time for someone else not moving at that speed.

You're just making the same mistake over and over.

Wrong Emma we are not talking about perceptions we are talking about fact! Time dialation is actually experienced by biological systems. Yes you would't notice at the virtual speed of light because one would br virtually dead! What is apparent is irrelevent. It's fact that matters and the facts imply that time travel is impossible!

[danydandan]

For the love of god will you get a dictionary and read what it says for relativity.

[antonT]

It is by using the sleight of hand of FORs that makes time travel seem possible. If you need a frame of reference when none is preferred,

then use the frame of reference of Earth and the spacecraft and they both come out the same.......slow motion.

This is fact and reality

[StarMountainKid]

It is by using the sleight of hand of FORs that makes time travel seem possible. If you need a frame of reference when none is preferred,

then use the frame of reference of Earth and the spacecraft and they both come out the same.......slow motion.

This is fact and reality

n that case the astronaught twin has spent his time in space "in slow motion". This is the only realistic answer for his difference in age. At the near speed of light his mental time keeping would not only have slowed but have ground to a halt because he would most probably be dead and not be in a position to percieve anything. Anyway perception is irrelevent - its the hard facts of reality which are pertinent.

What would happen if an alien spaceship wizzed around the earth at near the speed of light. From their FOT or perspective we on earth would be moving in slow motion. What would be the real effect on us in this scenario? Would we all most probably be dead?

Perhaps I misinterpret your meaning.

[antonT]

What would happen if an alien spaceship wizzed around the earth at near the speed of light. From their FOT or perspective we on earth would be moving in slow motion. What would be the real effect on us in this scenario? Would we all most probably be dead?

Perhaps I misinterpret your meaning.

No in actuality the Earth would be the inertial frame of reference as would the spacecraft cabin. The aliens would be most probably dead as they were travelling at the near speed of light and virtually frozen in time.

Edited August 7, 2012 by antonT

[antonT]

One must ask oneself what is" actually" happening. Which scenario represents reality?. Biological reality does not change with perspective - its one or the other.

Also a new concept needs new rules - so the old criteria should really be thrown out.

[Emma_Acid]

One must ask oneself what is" actually" happening. Which scenario represents reality?. Biological reality does not change with perspective - its one or the other.

Also a new concept needs new rules - so the old criteria should really be thrown out.

A fundamental misunderstanding by one person is not a "new concept"

[sepulchrave]

Time dialation is actually experienced by biological systems.

We all agree with that.

Yes you would't notice at the virtual speed of light because one would br virtually dead!

You would be able to notice, unless everything else you could see was travelling in the same direction and at the same speed as you are.

What is apparent is irrelevent. It's fact that matters and the facts imply that time travel is impossible!

Relativity implies that reverse time travel is impossible. Are you talking about forward time travel? In that case, the same facts you just outlined prove that it is possible.

We are all sitting here on Earth, in a gravity field. Therefore, we are not in an inertial reference frame, and therefore we experience time dilation.

antonT, can you, by self-inspection, determine how much time dilation you are experiencing?

[antonT]

Relativity implies that reverse time travel is impossible. Are you talking about forward time travel? In that case, the same facts you just outlined prove that it is possible

.

They prove it possible only to the extent of what the parameters of biological function will permit.

We are all sitting here on Earth, in a gravity field. Therefore, we are not in an inertial reference frame, and therefore we experience time dilation.

antonT, can you, by self-inspection, determine how much time dilation you are experiencing?

No - but it must be insignificant from top to bottom.

How can biological systems operate according to FOR , perspective or point of view?

From one frame of reference relativity says the the astronaught is moving slowly - from another perspective he is moving fast and so forth.

What one must ask oneself is:

What is really happening? Is there a realistic tool I can use in a world of hypothethicals to measure the passage of time? One will then come to realise that there is to some extent something and that something is a biological system, a system which will adapt to some extent to a change of environment, but a system which will eventually die if conditions become to inhospitable.

Relativity postulates that biological systems function to a point of view......a rathet tall order I feel!

Edited August 8, 2012 by antonT

[antonT]

The First Postulate of Special Relativity

The first postulate of the theory of special relativity states: The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference. This is the simplest of all relativistic concepts to grasp. The physical laws help us understand how and why our environment reacts the way it does. They also allow us to predict events and their outcomes .Next, measure the time it takes a pendulum to make 20 full swings from a starting height of 12 inches above its resting point. You should get the same results but you don't whether you are standing on the ground or riding on a spaceship at the near speed of light. Note that we are assuming that the spaceship is not accelerating, but traveling along at a constant velocity in space..

It is contended that the laws of physics do not hold true for all frames of reference, indeed in the spaceship the pendulum would take much longer to make the equivalent swings owing to time dialation at the near speed of light

It is contended that matters appear normal (and thus conform to relevitivity theory) only at insignificant Earthly speeds but it is at greater speeds aproaching that of the speed of light that actual dialation becomes apparent and thus the theory falsified.

[Rlyeh]

It is contended that the laws of physics do not hold true for all frames of reference, indeed in the spaceship the pendulum would take much longer to make the equivalent swings owing to time dialation at the near speed of light

Correcting you is futile, so I'm just going to say it; prove it.

[sepulchrave]

I kind of agree with Rlyeh, but I'll try one more time...

It is contended that the laws of physics do not hold true for all frames of reference, indeed in the spaceship the pendulum would take much longer to make the equivalent swings owing to time dialation at the near speed of light

See that is not true.

The pendulum swings the same rate.

It may perform less swings, than a pendulum on earth, because less time passes for that pendulum. (Actually if the spaceship is in a genuine inertial frame then this is a moot point, since the spaceship will pass by the Earth one time at the most.)

To an observer on Earth, it may appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on Earth.

To an observer in the spaceship looking back at Earth, the pendulum on Earth will appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on the spaceship.

[antonT]

I kind of agree with Rlyeh, but I'll try one more time...

See that is not true.

The pendulum swings the same rate

In other words each second is still a second.....OK......but each second takes longer to pass.

It may perform less swings, than a pendulum on earth, because less time passes for that pendulum. (Actually if the spaceship is in a genuine inertial frame then this is a moot point, since the spaceship will pass by the Earth one time at the most.)

To an observer on Earth, it may appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on Earth.

To an observer in the spaceship looking back at Earth, the pendulum on Earth will appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on the spaceship.

Which is actually happening ? Both events cannot be happening at the same time

[Immunetoplacebo]

A couple of years ago I was sat in bed and this came to me:

Say one was going around a distant star and back to Earth in a spaceship. The clock in the spaceship once back on Earth has run say 12 hours slow to the one on the ground, thus the hands on the clock in the ship surely would have moved in slow motion compared to those on the ground just as human hands (and other parts) would have moved in slow motion irrespective of not being able to tell if one was moving or not. I know that onboard the spaceship in flight a second would still be a second but because of dialation that second would take longer to pass. So at the near speed of light the astronaught would be vitrually frozen in time..

Differential aging would ensure that cause and effect was not violated and that time travel could not occur. In fact time travel would be impossible....

The theory of relativity makes interstellar travel possible as from the astronauts perspective they are traveling faster than light in that to them they could travel multiple light-years while aging only a single year. How practical it is would depend on how much energy would be needed to achieve the virtual speed. Also it would make it possible to travel into the (distant) future, but not the past.

Also I think the top relative speed is actually twice the speed of light if two objects are heading straight for each-other at speeds approaching the speed of light.

[sepulchrave]

Which is actually happening ? Both events cannot be happening at the same time

Why not? The only way to compare the two events would be to have the ``world lines'' of both pendulums meet at least twice. This implies that at least one pendulum would have to be in a non-inertial frame for at least some period, and non-inertial frames break the symmetry.

Also I think the top relative speed is actually twice the speed of light if two objects are heading straight for each-other at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Nope, it is still the speed of light. In fact, the entire business of time dilation, space contraction, etc. occurs as a result of keeping the speed of light as the maximum speed limit in every reference frame.

[Immunetoplacebo]

Why not? The only way to compare the two events would be to have the ``world lines'' of both pendulums meet at least twice. This implies that at least one pendulum would have to be in a non-inertial frame for at least some period, and non-inertial frames break the symmetry.

Nope, it is still the speed of light. In fact, the entire business of time dilation, space contraction, etc. occurs as a result of keeping the speed of light as the maximum speed limit in every reference frame.

Then their speed could only approach 1/2 the speed of light. WTF.

[sepulchrave]

Then their speed could only approach 1/2 the speed of light. WTF.

Nope.

Three people arranged: A -------> B <-------- C (arrows show direction of motion of A and C relative to B ).

Person B can see person A approaching them at 99.9% the speed of light from the left, and person C approaching them at 99.9% the speed of light from the right.

Person A can see person B approaching them at 99.9% the speed of light, and person C approaching them at 99.99995% of the speed of light.

Person C can likewise see person B approaching them at 99.9% the speed of light, and person A approaching them at 99.99995% of the speed of light.

Of course since A, B, and C are all in inertial reference frames, all viewpoints are equally valid.

See the wiki on special relativity.

Edited August 8, 2012 by sepulchrave

[Immunetoplacebo]

Reversed direction:

After 1 year at B is there more or less than 1 light-year between A and C? If you're claiming it's the same distance between A and C as between A and B | B and C, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Immunetoplacebo

[StarMountainKid]

Maybe this will help:

According to special relativity,

In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula

u + v

w = ---------

1 + uv/c2

A feature of the formula is that if you combine two velocities less than the speed of light you always get a result which is still less than the speed of light. Therefore no amount of combining velocities can take you beyond light speed.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

[antonT]

To an observer on Earth, it may appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on Earth.

To an observer in the spaceship looking back at Earth, the pendulum on Earth will appear to be swinging slowly compared to the pendulum on the spaceship.

Substitute the pendulums for human twins. This means that the twins are younger than each other in reality - impossible!

[StarMountainKid]

Substitute the pendulums for human twins. This means that the twins are younger than each other in reality - impossible!

The equivalence of biological aging and clock time-keeping

It would probably be prudent to mention: All processes—chemical, biological, measuring apparatus functioning, human perception involving the eye and brain, the communication of force—everything, is constrained by the speed of light. There is clock functioning at every level, dependent on light speed and the inherent delay at even the atomic level. Thus, we speak of the "twin paradox", involving biological aging. It is in no way different from clock time-keeping. Biological aging is equated to clocktime-keeping, by John A. Wheeler in Spacetime Physics.^[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

In other words, our rate of aging depends on our local rate of elapsing time. If the space ship's clock is ticking slower relative to a clock on earth, the biological rate of aging on the ship will also be slower.

[sepulchrave]

Reversed direction:

After 1 year at B is there more or less than 1 light-year between A and C? If you're claiming it's the same distance between A and C as between A and B | B and C, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Assume that in the beginning A, B, and C were in the same spot. A is moving away from B at 99.9% of the speed of light to the left, C is moving away from B at 99.9% of the speed of light to the right.

After one year, B sees that A is 99.9% of a light-year away to the left, C is 99.9% of a light-year away to the right.

A sees that B is 99.9% of a light-year away, and C is 99.99995% of a light-year away.

C sees the same thing; B is 99.9% of a light-year away and C is 99.99995% of a light-year away.

Special Relativity is more of a way of explaining perspective from different reference frames than it is for explaining what is ``real''. Since it is not possible to determine absolute motion (i.e. in inertial frames, A, B, and C can all claim, with the same level justification, that they are standing still and the other two people are moving) it is not possible to declare one perspective more ``real'' than the other.

In order to determine ``what actually happens'' you need to bring A, B, and C back together, this would require at least two of them to undergo an acceleration, and no longer be in an inertial frame.

Substitute the pendulums for human twins. This means that the twins are younger than each other in reality - impossible!

Now you are talking about the so-called ``twin paradox'', something which is not a paradox and quite well known.

I addressed exactly what ``triplets'' would observe in an earlier thread.

[Rlyeh]

In other words each second is still a second.....OK......but each second takes longer to pass.

Nope. A second passes the same in all reference frames.

Comparing them is a different matter.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Rlyeh

[antonT]

Now you are talking about the so-called ``twin paradox'', something which is not a paradox and quite well known

To recap we at least agree that the astronaught twin spent most of his time in slow motion at the near speed of light and that time dialation is actually experienced by any person making a trip if only to the minutest degee when Earth speeds are involved. This is the only explanation for the astronaught twin coming back younger than his twin on Earth. This I feel has been a misrepresentation on the part of some text books etc who infer that everything had been normal in the spacecraft during its journey - presumably to to give the impression that the laws of physics had been the same on the trip as in all reference frames as required by the theory of relativity. Nothing could have been further from normal. How can dilated time (slow motion) in the spacecraft represent the same conditions in terms of the laws of physics as in all other frames of reference at rest?

Edited August 9, 2012 by antonT