Theory Of Relativity

[Aer'ki]

I understand these equations, and I use them in my work to produce scientific results that agree with what experimentalists arrive at. Just recently, I was computing current masses of up and down quarks as a function of their momentum within a meson. I was using relativistic equations in my computations. I got the curve that was within error bars of data points derrived through the experiment.

Are you saying that I'm also a con man? Making up lies just to confuse others and make them believe that relativity works when it doesn't? Because, clearly, if there is a great conspiracy here, I have to be part of it. I am part of the group that produces results that support the theory.

An interesting question when you consider all the 'data' on quarks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their existence is purely theoretical, is it not? I don't believe we have any technology to take any DIRECT measurements of them. Everything comes through secondary sources(computations of computations).

From that point of view, you could say you're giving extraordinary credence to something that's purely theoretical.

As for the anomalous magnetic moment, it is yet again an unknown variable that another theory fills in(quantum electrodynamics) and only partially, much like the Bohr model of the atom worked in some cases and not others.

Again, I would point out the meaning of 'anomalous' in that it is an apt name. Why it occurs 'in all cases' hasn't been discovered.

Back to having a lightspeed limit, it is very simple. You CANNOT have an ABSOLUTE limit based on a RELATIVE measurement. SPEED is a relative measurement, therefore you cannot have a SPEED LIMIT. This means faster than light travel between the stars is possible.

This simple bit of logic is all the proof you need, and no slight of hand with the numbers is going to change it.

The only way you can have an absolute speed limit is to have ABSOLUTE speeds, and in order to do that you need a BASE MEASUREMENT...meaning Aether...which doesn't exist.

[Quadhelix]

Back to having a lightspeed limit, it is very simple. You CANNOT have an ABSOLUTE limit based on a RELATIVE measurement. SPEED is a relative measurement, therefore you cannot have a SPEED LIMIT. This means faster than light travel between the stars is possible.

This simple bit of logic is all the proof you need, and no slight of hand with the numbers is going to change it.

The only way you can have an absolute speed limit is to have ABSOLUTE speeds, and in order to do that you need a BASE MEASUREMENT...meaning Aether...which doesn't exist.

Except, as I already pointed out, this thinking expresses a complete lack of understanding of the principles of Special Relativity. Yes, speed is a relative measurement; hence the name "relativity."

However, the second postulate of Special Relativity is that light has the same speed in all frames of reference. Therefore, if something is traveling at the speed of light in any frame of reference, it is traveling at the speed of light in every frame of reference.

This is obvious from the equation for the addition of velocities v=(v' + u)/(1 + v'*u/c^2). If v'=c, then that equation becomes v=(c + u)/(1 + u/c)=c*(c + u)/(c + u)=c.


Therefore, there is no contradiction, because in spite of the fact that speed is a relative measurement, something going faster than light relative to one thing is going faster than light relative to everything.

[Aer'ki]

Except, as I already pointed out, this thinking expresses a complete lack of understanding of the principles of Special Relativity. Yes, speed is a relative measurement; hence the name "relativity."

However, the second postulate of Special Relativity is that light has the same speed in all frames of reference. Therefore, if something is traveling at the speed of light in any frame of reference, it is traveling at the speed of light in every frame of reference.

This is obvious from the equation for the addition of velocities v=(v' + u)/(1 + v'*u/c^2). If v'=c, then that equation becomes v=(c + u)/(1 + u/c)=c*(c + u)/(c + u)=c.


Therefore, there is no contradiction, because in spite of the fact that speed is a relative measurement, something going faster than light relative to one thing is going faster than light relative to everything.

That is absurd, and a contradiction. As I stated, you cannot have an absolute limit based on a relative measurement. If all frames are the same, then they are not relative. (and if all frames are the same, we're back to Aether again)

The second postulate is a contradiction of the first.

You can't substitute an equation for BASIC LOGIC.

[Quadhelix]

That is absurd, and a contradiction.

If it were a legitimate contradiction, don't you think that someone who actually studies this for a living would have noticed it by now? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is your understanding that is flawed rather than the theory.

As I stated, you cannot have an absolute limit based on a relative measurement. If all frames are the same, then they are not relative. (and if all frames are the same, we're back to Aether again)

Except that the speed of a beam of light is the only thing that different frames of reference will agree upon. Different frames of reference will not agree on distances, elapsed times, or relative speeds of things traveling slower than light, but they will agree on the speed of a beam of light.

It's like how under Galilean relativity (the basis for Newton's Laws), all observers would agree on something's length and the time duration of an event. However, this belief in absolute space and absolute time does not make Galilean relativity Aetheric.

The second postulate is a contradiction of the first.

Only because you are still using Galilean relativity in a context where it no longer applies. You are trying to add velocities by v=v'+u while ignoring the correction factor.

The correct method for computing the velocity of something in your frame of reference based on its speed in another frame of reference is v=(v' + u)/(1 + v'*u/c^2).

You can't substitute an equation for BASIC LOGIC.

And you cannot substitute an assertion of a contradiction for an actual contradiction.

[Aer'ki]

If it were a legitimate contradiction, don't you think that someone who actually studies this for a living would have noticed it by now? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is your understanding that is flawed rather than the theory.


Except that the speed of a beam of light is the only thing that different frames of reference will agree upon. Different frames of reference will not agree on distances, elapsed times, or relative speeds of things traveling slower than light, but they will agree on the speed of a beam of light.

It's like how under Galilean relativity (the basis for Newton's Laws), all observers would agree on something's length and the time duration of an event. However, this belief in absolute space and absolute time does not make Galilean relativity Aetheric.


Only because you are still using Galilean relativity in a context where it no longer applies. You are trying to add velocities by v=v'+u while ignoring the correction factor.

The correct method for computing the velocity of something in your frame of reference based on its speed in another frame of reference is v=(v' + u)/(1 + v'*u/c^2).


And you cannot substitute an assertion of a contradiction for an actual contradiction.

Speed is relative, but Distance is not. A meter is a meter no matter what 'frame of reference' you're using. Time is also not relative, a second is a second in all 'frames of reference.'

Get a grip on the fundamentals....please. There is only one 'frame of reference'...it's called 'the Universe.'

[Krazeh]

Speed is relative, but Distance is not. A meter is a meter no matter what 'frame of reference' you're using. Time is also not relative, a second is a second in all 'frames of reference.'

Get a grip on the fundamentals....please. There is only one 'frame of reference'...it's called 'the Universe.'

Seriously, when you have such little understanding of the theories of relativity why do you insist on attempting to discuss it? You've demonstrated time and time again that you have, at best, a high school level of understanding of physics and yet you seem to be under the impression that you know more than people who spend their lifetimes studying these theories and work with them day in, day out.

Is there some reason you're so embittered against modern physics or is this just an trolling exercise?

[Aer'ki]

Seriously, when you have such little understanding of the theories of relativity why do you insist on attempting to discuss it? You've demonstrated time and time again that you have, at best, a high school level of understanding of physics and yet you seem to be under the impression that you know more than people who spend their lifetimes studying these theories and work with them day in, day out.

Is there some reason you're so embittered against modern physics or is this just an trolling exercise?

Because it's not true.

If others are so knowledgeable, explain how a relative measurement can have an absolute limit? Quoting a theory doesn't explain anything. Nor does throwing around meaningless credentials or questioning my knowledge of the subject. If there is an explanation, give it. Explain it LOGICALLY.

The answer is, it can't happen. Period. It's simple logic that the theory of relativity ignores, therefore the theory of relativity is bogus and FTL travel is possible.

Science works off of basic principles, writing theory to undo those principles makes the entire field little more than Scifi rather than science.

[Krazeh]

Because it's not true.

If others are so knowledgeable, explain how a relative measurement can have an absolute limit? Quoting a theory doesn't explain anything. Nor does throwing around meaningless credentials or questioning my knowledge of the subject. If there is an explanation, give it. Explain it LOGICALLY.

The answer is, it can't happen. Period. It's simple logic that the theory of relativity ignores, therefore the theory of relativity is bogus and FTL travel is possible.

Science works off of basic principles, writing theory to undo those principles makes the entire field little more than Scifi rather than science.

It has been explained to you, more than once. Just because you are unable to, or refuse to, understand and accept what has been explained to you does not make it wrong.

There is an entire scientific community which works with the theories of relativity day in, day out and they're all of the view that the theories work and are valid. How is it none of them have noticed these flaws in logic you claim are so prevalent? What possible purpose would there be to continue using the theories if they were wrong?

[Aragon101]

It has been explained to you, more than once. Just because you are unable to, or refuse to, understand and accept what has been explained to you does not make it wrong.

There is an entire scientific community which works with the theories of relativity day in, day out and they're all of the view that the theories work and are valid. How is it none of them have noticed these flaws in logic you claim are so prevalent? What possible purpose would there be to continue using the theories if they were wrong?

I'd like to know this as well And hopefully it's not some galilean answer about the fanatical science community suppressing any and all knowledge that could shatter their very existance.

[K^2]

An interesting question when you consider all the 'data' on quarks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but their existence is purely theoretical, is it not?

It is an experimental fact that protons/neutrons are not elementary. They are composed of a number of particles. All experimental evidence suggests 3 constituents that are tightly bound by a strong nuclear force. We call these constituents quarks. We can experimentally verify that there are two kinds of them, that we call an up quark and a down quark. By bombarding these particles we can establish that an up quark has +2/3 charge, and down quark has -1/3 charge. Etc.

Measurements of quark masses are indeed indirect. But all of the methods of estimating these come up with similar results.

Quarks are as "theoretical" as electrons are. Nobody has seen one of these either, and mass of electron is also measured indirectly. (The way I've measured mass of electron is by measuring its charge first using Millikan Oil Drop first, and then getting the e/m ratio by passing an electron beam through magnetic field. That's not exactly direct either, but it gives me mass of electron to within about 5% easily.)

Back to having a lightspeed limit, it is very simple. You CANNOT have an ABSOLUTE limit based on a RELATIVE measurement. SPEED is a relative measurement, therefore you cannot have a SPEED LIMIT. This means faster than light travel between the stars is possible.

Bah. Is that your problem? Seriously?

Ok, you are absolutely right. There is no absolute speed limit. The speed of light limit IS relative to observer. Problem is, light travel at the same speed relative to any observer, and that's easy enough to verify if you sit down and derive Wave Equation from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic field.

And it's easy to see WHY the speed of light limit is the same relative to any system if you sit down and think about matter as being waves in a -1,1,1,1 space.

Furthermore, the limit is local, because it applies to a chosen coordinate system only, and these cannot be extended past immediate neighborhood in general case, because the metric is not fixed.

So your logic on these is absolutely correct. Your problem is that you do not know enough about relativity to understand why it follows this logic perfectly. And that's just one reason why I'm telling you to sit down and read a book rather than argue about something you do not understand.

[Aer'ki]

I'd like to know this as well And hopefully it's not some galilean answer about the fanatical science community suppressing any and all knowledge that could shatter their very existance.

Einstein's theories are NOT used in practical applications and won't be until we develop real space tech. People always point to the GPS system using his equations, but the GPS system works with an allowable margin of error adding up to several dozens of meters in some cases.

Most theories of stars, planets, light, etc exist because we don't currently have the technology to test them. And up until someone actually tests the lightspeed barrier with a ship or probe, the theory of relativity will never be proven wrong because we don't have the ability to test such things on the planet.

Particle accelerators don't work, because the particles are ballistic.

Air plane clock test doesn't work, because the test wasn't set up properly and the degree of possible variance was so low to be within the margin of error of the equipment.

As for the scientific community, most of them memorize equations and facts and don't question them. Others deliberately try to make their beliefs fit, thus skewing experiments. If you don't believe that, look at the global warming data that was falsified. They quoted that the scientists said they could 'make the numbers fit' if they looked at it from a different way.

To assume this doesn't happen in physics is naive.

Again, no one can explain logically how a relative measurement can have an absolute limit. All they can do is dodge the question because there isn't a valid answer that can be given. They BELIEVE in Einstein's theories. Scientists aren't supposed to believe, they are supposed to question and verify.

And until we enter a technological period where basic equipment will succeed or fail off of Einstein's theories this sort of fanboy devotism will continue.

I am not making this stuff up people. If anyone anywhere can answer the simple question of logic, let them do so. No scientist on Earth can. They just go into technobable hoping to confuse the person asking. I know too much to fall for that.

[Aer'ki]

It is an experimental fact that protons/neutrons are not elementary. They are composed of a number of particles. All experimental evidence suggests 3 constituents that are tightly bound by a strong nuclear force. We call these constituents quarks. We can experimentally verify that there are two kinds of them, that we call an up quark and a down quark. By bombarding these particles we can establish that an up quark has +2/3 charge, and down quark has -1/3 charge. Etc.

Measurements of quark masses are indeed indirect. But all of the methods of estimating these come up with similar results.

Quarks are as "theoretical" as electrons are. Nobody has seen one of these either, and mass of electron is also measured indirectly. (The way I've measured mass of electron is by measuring its charge first using Millikan Oil Drop first, and then getting the e/m ratio by passing an electron beam through magnetic field. That's not exactly direct either, but it gives me mass of electron to within about 5% easily.)


Bah. Is that your problem? Seriously?

Ok, you are absolutely right. There is no absolute speed limit. The speed of light limit IS relative to observer. Problem is, light travel at the same speed relative to any observer, and that's easy enough to verify if you sit down and derive Wave Equation from Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic field.

And it's easy to see WHY the speed of light limit is the same relative to any system if you sit down and think about matter as being waves in a -1,1,1,1 space.

Furthermore, the limit is local, because it applies to a chosen coordinate system only, and these cannot be extended past immediate neighborhood in general case, because the metric is not fixed.

So your logic on these is absolutely correct. Your problem is that you do not know enough about relativity to understand why it follows this logic perfectly. And that's just one reason why I'm telling you to sit down and read a book rather than argue about something you do not understand.

This is what I meant by dodging...relativity does NOT agree with the logic.

What I bolded is contradictory. Perhaps you should read a book about basic logic.

As for why light may SEEM to be the same, it could be a frequency mistake. The speed of light is mistaken because the frequency shifted. You think you're seeing red light at c, but you're really seeing blue light at .99c. It's an observational error. Light does travel at different speeds relative to destination, but always the same speed relative to origin.

[Aragon101]

Einstein's theories are NOT used in practical applications and won't be until we develop real space tech. People always point to the GPS system using his equations, but the GPS system works with an allowable margin of error adding up to several dozens of meters in some cases.

Most theories of stars, planets, light, etc exist because we don't currently have the technology to test them. And up until someone actually tests the lightspeed barrier with a ship or probe, the theory of relativity will never be proven wrong because we don't have the ability to test such things on the planet.

Particle accelerators don't work, because the particles are ballistic.

Air plane clock test doesn't work, because the test wasn't set up properly and the degree of possible variance was so low to be within the margin of error of the equipment.

As for the scientific community, most of them memorize equations and facts and don't question them. Others deliberately try to make their beliefs fit, thus skewing experiments. If you don't believe that, look at the global warming data that was falsified. They quoted that the scientists said they could 'make the numbers fit' if they looked at it from a different way.

To assume this doesn't happen in physics is naive.

Again, no one can explain logically how a relative measurement can have an absolute limit. All they can do is dodge the question because there isn't a valid answer that can be given. They BELIEVE in Einstein's theories. Scientists aren't supposed to believe, they are supposed to question and verify.

And until we enter a technological period where basic equipment will succeed or fail off of Einstein's theories this sort of fanboy devotism will continue.

I am not making this stuff up people. If anyone anywhere can answer the simple question of logic, let them do so. No scientist on Earth can. They just go into technobable hoping to confuse the person asking. I know too much to fall for that.

So at the heart of the matter, Ignorance is teh only reason relativity still is used? Theory is not valid? WTF? Here's what i'm thinking, Theory of Relativity has been around for ages, why hasn't it been disproved if YOU can figure it out?

You say using simple logic you can figure it out, well in that case, Logically, my cat has four legs, but my dog has four legs also, therefore my dog is a cat.

[Aer'ki]

So at the heart of the matter, Ignorance is teh only reason relativity still is used? Theory is not valid? WTF? Here's what i'm thinking, Theory of Relativity has been around for ages, why hasn't it been disproved if YOU can figure it out?

You say using simple logic you can figure it out, well in that case, Logically, my cat has four legs, but my dog has four legs also, therefore my dog is a cat.

They are both quadripeds...so logically it's your terms that are in error.

The idea that the Earth was flat was around for ages until we started using technology that relied on it being a sphere. Still, there are some schools in the middle east teaching that belief despite today, despite the technological proof.

The idea that the Earth was the center of the universe was so ESTABLISHED that they tortured and killed people that disagreed with them.

Do not underestimate the power of ignorance fueled by fanatical belief.

And I would point out, it's still labeled as scientific THEORY, not scientific LAW.

[Aragon101]

They are both quadripeds...so logically it's your terms that are in error.

The idea that the Earth was flat was around for ages until we started using technology that relied on it being a sphere. Still, there are some schools in the middle east teaching that belief despite today, despite the technological proof.

The idea that the Earth was the center of the universe was no ESTABLISHED that they tortured and killed people that disagreed with them.

Do not underestimate the power of ignorance fueled by fanatical belief.

And I would point out, it's still labeled as scientific THEORY, not scientific LAW.

Don't get me wrong, i AM curious, and i AM keeping an open mind in as far sa your theories. Just recall that ATM, you do sound like you're just bitter over something. I could almost call it Galileo syndrome in that you're right and everyone else is wrong. And you have yet to answer several of the questions asked by the others such as Anomalous Magnetic Moment or QuadHelix's questions. It's not like they're suppressing you, just giving counter points.