Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[wellwisher]

How can you believe in Einstein's Theory of Relativity when it contradicts basic common sense, and fundamental laws of Physics?

For instance the speed of light is a constant, so how can photons experience no time or distance? How can something just happen and yet supposedly happen at a different time for someone else? How can two twins ages change just because of travel? To me these are ridiculous ideas.

The twin paradox is connected to the impact of kinetic energy, on mass, close to the speed of light. The moving twin; velocity, has all this extra kinetic energy in its moving mass, which cause its relativistic mass to increase. Body processes slow, since it harder to move heavier things around. One appears to stop in time, but is still aging very slowly. It is like pushing a heavy car, with it barely moving in time and space.

Relativistic mass gives Physics the most problems, and many Physicists wish to get rid of it, or lump it into space and time, rather than explain it as a stand alone variable.

Years ago I developed a theory based on Special Relativity; relativistic mass, distance and time. Since the laws of physics are the same in all references and since velocity, via Special Relativity, causes all the laws to adjust via relativistic mass, distance and time, then all the laws of physics can conceptually be modeled with just these three variables. In the case of the twin paradox, all the laws of biology follow suit in terms of aging slower. This simple model is not just for the laws of physics, but the laws of all science in three variables since they all adjust based on these three changes.

Say we could measure relativistic mass, in space, this would tell us absolute references. In the twin paradox only the moving twin ages slower. Unlike motion or velocity=d/t where motion can appear relative, relativistic mass will not show up that way. Only mass with actual kinetic energy boost will show actual relativistic mass, at high speeds. The goal to get rid of relativistic mass, is a way to game the system, to only relative references. I prefer the ideal goal of actual reference, based on relativistic mass; more 3-D view of the universe.

When I was developing this theory I came up with an analogy that I called the relative reference workout. People pay to sit in comfortable chairs, around a running track. They all watch a runner, who runs. All the clients are all told to assume relative reference, so they can burn calories by doing nothing, but assuming they are the moving reference, since reference, we are told, is relative. Obviously, the mass in motion is the person who will burn calories, and the sitter are using a relative velocity gimmick.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Einstein demonstrated it as a fact. It's not a concept to believe in.

What is your gripe with the fact that gravity can bend light?

Why can't your common sense answer these questions? Seems it isn't very good.

Yes, he presented it as a fact. I just don't believe it is really accurate. For one thing it is said to conflict with quantum mechanics? If they conflict how can both be correct?

I dont have a gripe with gravity bending light. Who said that? I have a problem with changing time, and distance when they are constants in a particular situation.

For instance let's say you have a photon traveling one light year, and you have another photon traveling two light years. How can they not experience time, when a fundamental law of physics is that light travels at a constant speed? (Speed = distance/time)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The responses youve been getting should tell you the flaws are in your
thinking.i

I prefer to talk to individuals who are able to give some answers, not just talk down to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I personally have a hard time believing something I can't even understand.

Instead of "believing", try merely "accepting" that
some physics concepts work, ie, they have predictive
value better than alternatives.
Even physicists (eg, Feynman) don't claim to
"understand" the things they work with.
They observe experimental results, & build
models to describe / explain them.

One more....
As George Box said (more or less),
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The twin paradox is connected to the impact of kinetic energy, on mass, close to the speed of light. The moving twin; velocity, has all this extra kinetic energy in its moving mass, which cause its relativistic mass to increase. Body processes slow, since it harder to move heavier things around. One appears to stop in time, but is still aging very slowly. It is like pushing a heavy car, with it barely moving in time and space.

Relativistic mass gives Physics the most problems, and many Physicists wish to get rid of it, or lump it into space and time, rather than explain it as a stand alone variable.

Years ago I developed a theory based on Special Relativity; relativistic mass, distance and time. Since the laws of physics are the same in all references and since velocity, via Special Relativity, causes all the laws to adjust via relativistic mass, distance and time, then all the laws of physics can conceptually be modeled with just these three variables. In the case of the twin paradox, all the laws of biology follow suit in terms of aging slower. This simple model is not just for the laws of physics, but the laws of all science in three variables since they all adjust based on these three changes.

Say we could measure relativistic mass, in space, this would tell us absolute references. In the twin paradox only the moving twin ages slower. Unlike motion or velocity=d/t where motion can appear relative, relativistic mass will not show up that way. Only mass with actual kinetic energy boost will show actual relativistic mass, at high speeds. The goal to get rid of relativistic mass, is a way to game the system, to only relative references. I prefer the ideal goal of actual reference, based on relativistic mass; more 3-D view of the universe.

When I was developing this theory I came up with an analogy that I called the relative reference workout. People pay to sit in comfortable chairs, around a running track. They all watch a runner, who runs. All the clients are all told to assume relative reference, so they can burn calories by doing nothing, but assuming they are the moving reference, since reference, we are told, is relative. Obviously, the mass in motion is the person who will burn calories, and the sitter are using a relative velocity gimmick.

Thanks for your response. In that twin paradox you said only the moving twin ages slower. But in choosing which reference frame to use, you can pick either twin to be the one stationary, with the other twin moving relative to them. ( So it would always be the other twin that aged slower.) That is impossible in reality.

 

[ChristineM]

I personally have a hard time believing something I can't even understand.

There ya go...

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Instead of "believing", try merely "accepting" that
some physics concepts work, ie, they have predictive
value better than alternatives.
Even physicists (eg, Feynman) don't claim to
"understand" the things they work with.
They observe experimental results, & build
models to describe / explain them.

One more....
As George Box said (more or less),
"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

I do accept many things as working models. I accept gravity for instance. But how can I accept something like photons not experiencing time or distance when one of the very fundamental laws of physics is violated? The speed of light is a constant. Speed = distance/time , so it is impossible for photons not to experience time or distance. You can't just change time or distance in your problem to make your theory work out.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There ya go...

This is only a distraction. If you can't explain anything you are not really contributing to the discussion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes I have looked into quantum mechanics. It is very interesting. But lately I have been reading "Relativity Visualized" by Lewis Carroll Epstein. It's just that I think there are flaws in the thinking behind the theory to begin with. Like the moving clock slowing for instance. Who is to say which perspective is the one moving? Both individuals can claim to be the one at rest, with the other moving. So which clock actually slows? You always get two different answers and only one at most can really be correct.

That last statement is false. That's all you need to accept to get over your inability to accept these ideas.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do accept many things as working models. I accept gravity for instance. But how can I accept something like photons not experiencing time or distance when one of the very fundamental laws of physics is violated?

The problem is your misunderstanding either the phenomenon or the laws.

The speed of light is a constant. Speed = distance/time , so it is impossible for photons not to experience time or distance. You can't just change time or distance in your problem to make your theory work out.

I'm not familiar enuf with your claim to address it.

But time & distance do change.
Consider special relativity.
It's predicated on the observation that the speed of
light is the same in all reference frames, eg, whether
Earth is moving towards a light source (star) or away
from it. From this premise, simple algebra can show
that time slows down for the moving observer.
Fancier algebra shows that distance (the length of the
observer) shortens.

 

[Audie]

This is only a distraction. If you can't explain anything you are not really contributing to the discussion.

Especially coming from a guy who complained of being talked down to
thats quite the nasty remark.

For your part you have less tha zero to contribute,
unless attitude, ignorance, falsehood, and confusion are to
be considered “contributions”.

 

[ChristineM]

This is only a distraction. If you can't explain anything you are not really contributing to the discussion.

I provided some bits and pieces that may help to educate you in post #6, you appear to have ignored it for some reason.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So you don't use sat nav then?

The speed of light is only constant in vacuum. It slows considerably when not in vacuum. I experiment light has been slowed to 27.5mph in a cloud of sodium ions.

It is proven by using atomic clocks, one fixed, one in an plane or satellite circling the earth that time is reletive to speed. I.e. the faster one travels the slower time passes.

Doesn't your example choose a particular reference frame? In the theory you could also choose to use the other reference frame, with the plane or satellite considered to be stationary and the earth moving relative to it. In that case the math would show the opposite clock as having slower time passing. Both obviously can't be correct answers.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

So you don't use sat nav then?

The speed of light is only constant in vacuum. It slows considerably when not in vacuum. I experiment light has been slowed to 27.5mph in a cloud of sodium ions.

It is proven by using atomic clocks, one fixed, one in an plane or satellite circling the earth that time is reletive to speed. I.e. the faster one travels the slower time passes.

As far as the speed of light, it would still be a constant in that medium. So photons would still experience time and distance. So the problem I presented is still there. Since SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME So you can't just change time and distances to make the theory work out.

 

[ChristineM]

Doesn't your example choose a particular reference frame? In the theory you could also choose to use the other reference frame, with the plane or satellite considered to be stationary and the earth moving relative to it. In that case the math would show the opposite clock as having slower time passing. Both obviously can't be correct answers.

Light is the reference, not the earth or satellite, although earth is moving in space, the satellite is moving faster, i e the velocity of earth it is orbiting and it's own speed in addition.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, he presented it as a fact. I just don't believe it is really accurate. For one thing it is said to conflict with quantum mechanics? If they conflict how can both be correct?

Ok. What is your level of expertise in physics?

I dont have a gripe with gravity bending light. Who said that? I have a problem with changing time, and distance when they are constants in a particular situation.

Ok. Why was Einstein wrong, exactly? Show your work.

For instance let's say you have a photon traveling one light year, and you have another photon traveling two light years. How can they not experience time, when a fundamental law of physics is that light travels at a constant speed? (Speed = distance/time)

I’m sure there is an answer somewhere. I can’t think this question would stump Einstein. It’s more likely that you are missing something.

 

[ChristineM]

As far as the speed of light, it would still be a constant in that medium. So photons would still experience time and distance. So the problem I presented is still there. Since SPEED = DISTANCE/TIME So you can't just change time and distances to make the theory work out.

The photon is travelling at the speed of light so to the photon time has stopped*. For someone observing the photon, it appears to pass time between point A and point B

* The closer to the C (speed of light) the more t (time) decreases up to the point of C t = 0

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Especially coming from a guy who complained of being talked down to
thats quite the nasty remark.

For your part you have less tha zero to contribute,
unless attitude, ignorance, falsehood, and confusion are to
be considered “contributions”.

Sorry if I offended you. I want to discuss the issues not fight with someone. it's just that you are trying to say the flaws are in me, rather than having a discussion.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Ok. What is your level of expertise in physics?

Ok. Why was Einstein wrong, exactly? Show your work.


I’m sure there is an answer somewhere. I can’t think this question would stump Einstein. It’s more likely that you are missing something.

That's what I'm asking you to tell me. Where am I wrong? Discuss the twins paradox with me. How can one twin age faster than the other?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For one thing it is said to conflict with quantum mechanics? If they conflict how can both be correct?

In what way specifically does general relativity conflict with quantum physics?