Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[Audie]

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.

Trying to say? The flaws are in you.
Simple. Said it again.

Flaws include thinking “ sorry if” fools anyone, or that you
have any capacity to offend me.

Stay on yours “discussion” track, don’t disparage my friend
( which doing that IS fighting words)
any you won’t be called on anything other than, say, the falsehoods etc I
mentioned.

As for me I’ve seen all I care to.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I suggest a large dose of humility.

I don't understand these things either, at least to the point of being able to explain them to you. But I accept them as being the best explanations available now. Why? Because much more intelligent people than I formulated the math, which was then demonstrated to be true (meaning that they made accurate predictions) by observation and experiment. To add to that, many, also intelligent, people have tried to show that the theory is false and failed. Sometimes we have to trust that someone else thinks better then we do.

Does that mean that the theory is the final word? Absolutely not. Newton was considered to have achieved that degree of certainty, then Einstein came along with a better idea (better because it made better predictions). It is quite possible that Einstein will also be shown to be wrong at some future time, but whatever new theory emerges it will have to make predictions to the same level of accuracy as Einstein, then improve on it, just as Relativity did to Newtonian physics.

What do I mean by "humility"? It's not a put down, just a suggestion that you accept that relativity is the best theory we have currently, also accept that you don't understand it, and then if you wish attempt to educate yourself on why. I also suggest that an internet discussion forum is not the best place to do so.

Einstein didn't trust that Newton knew better than him. Do I not have the right to think that someone else's idea is wrong? Especially when it seems to defy all logic?

 

[Sumadji]

I want to keep things polite. it just seems as if some people want to imply that there is a problem with you personally when you question or disagree with something. Questioning things is how Einstein himself came up with his ideas.

I know. Some people are just rude. It's not you

I do understand much of what he is saying - I just disagree with how some of it could even be possible.

However it appears to be the reality of how nature operates, confirmed by thousands of experiments and practical applications -- until something better comes along?

I do think Einstein was brilliant. I just think there are some problems with the conclusions that have resulted. Which is why I wanted to discuss it.

It works in practical application, every time without fail. The conclusions of relativity theory are not wrong in practice, until something better comes along.

The double slit experiment is fascinating. Even there though, some think that the results are different when you observe it. But its possible that the results are changing because the monitoring itself changes them somehow

That's the entry into quantum mechanics.

 

[PureX]

I do believe God did an AMAZING job in creating the universe.

I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you on your 2nd paragraph above. How can light-years get longer?

They are an increment invented by men to be used to measure the time light takes to cross from point A to point B in an expanding piece of space. The expansion is being included in the increment. Similar to how zero to one hundred degrees (Celsius) is the incremental scale that measures the temperature change taking place between the point at which water freezes, and the point at which it boils. The changing is included.

It is a set time and distance that light travels in a year.

... Through an expanding field of space.

The speed is constant. For what you are saying to be true, wouldn't the speed be increasing?

It's both constant AND/OR increasing/decreasing, depending on from what context we are measuring it. If we are measuring the light-speed from within the bubble of expanding space, it remains constant. But if we are measuring it from some context beyond or outside of the expanding bubble of space within which it is traveling, it would be faster or slower or constant depending on the light-speed in the space (context) we are observing it from.

You were making my point about calculations being instantly inaccurate in your last paragraph.

The calculations are never inaccurate so long as the math is done right. They are only inaccurately applied to the circumstances being studied. And that can happen easily. Mostly because we don't even know all the circumstances involved. But being inaccurate does not necessarily mean we're wrong. It's just means we don't have the complete picture. And when it comes to the universe, we very obviously do not have the complete picture. Cosmologists estimate that have about 13% of the whole picture. That's a LOT of "I don't knows"!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

They are an increment invented by men to be used to measure the time light takes to cross from point A to point B in an expanding piece of space. The expansion is being included in the increment. Similar to how zero to one hundred degrees (Celsius) is the incremental scale that measures the temperature change taking place between the point at which water freezes, and the point at which it boils. The changing is included.

... Through an expanding field of space.

It's both constant AND/OR increasing/decreasing, depending on from what context we are measuring it. If we are measuring the light-speed from within the bubble of expanding space, it remains constant. But if we are measuring it from some context beyond or outside of the expanding bubble of space within which it is traveling, it would be faster or slower or constant depending on the light-speed in the space (context) we are observing it from.

The calculations are never inaccurate so long as the math is done right. They are only inaccurately applied to the circumstances being studied. And that can happen easily. Mostly because we don't even know all the circumstances involved. But being inaccurate does not necessarily mean we're wrong. It's just means we don't have the complete picture. And when it comes to the universe, we very obviously do not have the complete picture. Cosmologists estimate that have about 13% of the whole picture. That's a LOT of "I don't knows"!

So if something is 5 light years away, are you saying it remains 5 light years away or not?

In your example you gave in post 54: you said P2 travels greater than twice the distance P1 traveled. Then you said the time P2 traveled was exactly twice the amount of time P1 traveled. That looks like it would mean P2 traveled faster than the speed of light for some part of its journey, Or the speed of light wasn't constant. I don't see how you are reconciling this. Because if they are both moving at C, then in twice the amount of time only twice the distance should be able to be covered by P2. Otherwise C would not be constant.

 

[Alien826]

Einstein didn't trust that Newton knew better than him. Do I not have the right to think that someone else's idea is wrong? Especially when it seems to defy all logic?

You have the right to think anything you want. It's probably the only right that can't be violated.

 

[McBell]

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

What have YOU explained?

 

[Audie]

K

What have YOU explained?

It’s more in the nature of a demo

 

[vijeno]

No you can look at other planets in the sky and tell they are basically round.

Yes - and if you apply that way of thinking with vigour and rigour, and formalize the result into a method, you cross over from common sense into science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That ball is still moving up and down in the box.

No, it isn't. It's also moving east to west.

You have simply added another vector to its movement due to the box moving on the train.

Yes, which means it's movement is no longer in a straight line up one metre and down one metre, it is now travelling east to west in a diagonal fashion in a box that is 1m high, meaning it is travelling MORE than one m, because to get from the top to the bottom (or vice versa) of a 1m tall box while travelling diagonally means you MUST be travelling MORE than 1m, and since the ball is moving at 1m per second, it MUST take more than 1m for the ball to reach the top of the box. Yet, from the perspective of someone watching the ball from off the train, it is travelling FASTER than that, because it reaches the top/bottom in 1 second.

So, from the position of a person on the train relative to the ball, the ball is travelling at 1mps.

But, from the position of a person outside the train relative to the ball, the ball is travelling FASTER than 1mps.

Do you understand?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If you calibrate the two clocks according to the equations of relativity, send one in orbit around earth and then compare the two... if they show the same time, then your equation works.

It is that simple.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And common sense wouldn't necessarily let you know what revolves around what.

The earth "feels" stationary.
The sun comes up at one side, moves across the sky and sets at the other side, only to do the same several hours later.

Based on that observation "common sense" would most definitely tell you that the earth is the center, stationary and that the sun orbits it.
Not only would it tell you that, it DID tell our ancestors that not so long ago.

The point is that "common sense" can only appeal to what you already know. It can't keep into account the things you do not yet know and understand.
This is why "common sense" often is a good way to get answers wrong to questions concerning area's you have no knowledge off or experience in.

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

But you don't seem to have a problem believing something is wrong because you can't understand it...
How is that better?

Anyhow, luckily there is a rather easy cure for not understanding something: study.

Not for the lazy though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

But doing the actual experiment won't.

You don't seem to be aware that we actually DO have satellites in orbit around the planet and that these satellites actually DO have clocks in them which actually ARE calibrated to account for relativistic effects as described by the equations you, for some reason, believe are wrong.

And yet, they work. GPS literally DEPENDS on accurately accounting for these relativistic effects in order to be able to pinpoint your position. As said already, not accounting for those effects (as in: not applying Einstein's equations) would result in GPS being unusable as its error margin to pinpoint your position would increase to several miles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There in lies the problem. If it's a constant based on Speed = distance/time , then time can't change.

If photon A and photon B are in a race and emitted at exactly the same source and time. Photon A has to race to a destination 2 light years away, and photon B races to a destination 4 light years away. If they experience no time or distance, which one wins the race?

From our frame of reference, photon A.
From the frame of reference of the massless photons traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum, time and distance don't exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can the photon taking two extra years to reach its destination not be experiencing time or distance? It has to be experiencing time or it wouldn't take 2 more years.

You are trying to argue against relativity by ignoring relativity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For what you are saying about time being zero at speed C to be true. Light would have to reach its destination instantly.

From the perspective of the massless photon, it does in fact reach its destination instantly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If an external observer saw it take time, then it took time.

...from the perspective of the observer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you calibrate the two clocks according to the equations of relativity, send one in orbit around earth and then compare the two... if they show the same time, then your equation works.

It is that simple.

What I like about GPS is that those satellites test both special and general relativity. First off if there was no relativity of either sort there would be no need for correction of the onboard clocks. They would always be the same as on Earth. And there is a very small chance that both values cancel each other out. But again that is not the case. The clocks on GPS satellites are 38 microseconds faster per day than they are on Earth. That means for GPS satellites in orbit at least that General Relativity is the stronger of the two. Special Relativity slows clocks down the faster that they go, and as one leaves a gravity well clocks speed up due to General Relativity.

www.scienceshot.com/post/the-secrets-of-gps-einsteins-role-in-everyday-navigation#:~:text=General%20relativity%20states%20that%20clocks%20farther%20away%20from,and%20the%20general%20relativity%20effect%2C%20which%20accelerates%20them.

 

[PureX]

So if something is 5 light years away, are you saying it remains 5 light years away or not?

The light-years are expanding as the space between point A and point B is expanding.

In your example you gave in post 54: you said P2 travels greater than twice the distance P1 traveled. Then you said the time P2 traveled was exactly twice the amount of time P1 traveled. That looks like it would mean P2 traveled faster than the speed of light for some part of its journey, Or the speed of light wasn't constant.

It depends upon from what context you are assessing the time elapsed and the distance traveled. If you continue not understanding relative context you are never going to understand any of this.

Do you understand the Doppler Effect? A whistle is blowing on the engine of a moving train. The sound waves emitted are being emitted at a consistent frequency (and thereby the horn is being heard at a specific pitch). But that frequency can be increased by the speed of the train. So if you are standing in front of the train, you will hear that sound pitched at the frequency of the whistle blowing PLUS the speed of the train (as the train is coming toward you). Whereas if you are standing behind the train, you will hear those sound waves pitched at the frequency that the whistle is blowing MINUS the speed of the train (as the train is moving away). So question: what pitch was the train's whistle sounding? The answer is BOTH and EITHER, depending on from where you are hearing it. And if you are on the train, it will be heard at the frequency that the whistle in blowing, regardless of whether the train is moving or not.

Do you understand? We get different answers (and different experiences) depending on our relationship to the subject. That is the reality of relativity.

I don't see how you are reconciling this.

By CONTEXT. The different answers are being reconciled via context.

 

[Alien826]

Do you understand? We get different answers (and different experiences) depending on our relationship to the subject. That is the reality of relativity.

Right. That was the principle that I struggled with when I first read about this. The clue is the name. "Relativity" means that everything is relative.

The problem with the "common sense" approach is that it assumes that we can somehow stand outside all of it and observe it, and to be fair that has served us well over the years, so long as we stay close to the object of study, where relativistic effects are very small. Unfortunately, we can't do that, we can only be part of a system where everything is moving and its impossible to say that things happen at exactly the same time.