Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[TrueBeliever37]

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

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.

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

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity. (That is what the theory concludes happens.) The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

Einstein understood Newtons theories, do you understand Einstein's theories?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

At a certain point, that Richard Dawkins quote becomes relevant:

Spoiler: Mild language

If our understanding of relativity was wrong to a significant degree, your GPS wouldn't work.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity. (That is what the theory concludes happens.) The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

We can prove that as things speed up time goes slower. This is a fact. Why it happens, I do not fully understand. But my understanding is if the speed of light is constant for the two clocks, then for the moving clock light has to travel a longer distance than the stationary clock so time seems to slow down for the moving clock if you are observing from the stationary clock. If you are moving with the moving clock time seems normal and the stationary clock looks slower due to the longer distance light has to travel through space time.

This is my rudimentary understanding but the fact is physicists can prove it happens and can explain why.

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We can prove that as things speed up time goes slower. This is a fact. Why it happens, I do not fully understand. But my understanding is if the speed of light is constant for the two clocks, then for the moving clock light has to travel a longer distance than the stationary clock so time seems to slow down for the moving clock if you are observing from the stationary clock. If you are moving with the moving clock time seems normal and the stationary clock looks slower due to the longer distance light has to travel through space time.

This is my rudimentary understanding but the fact is physicists can prove it happens and can explain why.

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Experiments at a particle accelerator have confirmed the "time dilation" effect predicted by Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity

www.scientificamerican.com

So are you able to see that from both references the other clock slows down? The point is that in reality that's impossible for both viewpoints to be true.

 

[PureX]

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity.

Time does not exist in and of itself. Time is the relationship between space and motion. If the two coins are traveling through space at the same speed, but the space one coin travels through is being bent slightly by a gravitational field, and the other coin is not, then the coin traversing the bent (curved) space will take a bit longer to do so than the coin that does not have to traverse any curved space. Thus the first coin will have aged a little more than the second coin when they both arrive at the same "finish line", ... even though they started at the same place, ended at the same place, and were traveling at the same speed, they did not traverse the same distance.

(That is what the theory concludes happens.) The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

"Relativity" is all about relationships. Things not only appear different when observed from different perspectives, they ARE different. That's what is hard for us to grasp.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So are you able to see that from both references the clock slows down? The point is that in reality that's impossible for both viewpoints to be true.

No, from the moving clock the stationary clock will look to be going faster, from the stationary clock the moving clock will look to be going slower. Yes it can. When you are driving on a highway in car A at the same speed (60 mph) as car B , car B looks to be not moving. If you are standing on the side of the road car B looks to be moving at 60 mph. Both observations are true at the same time.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, from the moving clock the stationary clock will look to be going faster, from the stationary clock the moving clock will look to be going slower. Yes it can. When you are driving on a highway in car A at the same speed (60 mph) as car B , car B looks to be not moving. If you are standing on the side of the road car B looks to be moving at 60 mph. Both observations are true at the same time.

My point is, that one of those observations gives the wrong conclusion. In your example when you were in car A, it might look like car B wasn't moving, but in reality it was moving. So that observation gave the wrong conclusion. It wasn't gaining any ground on you in car A, but it was moving. So the observer standing on the side of the road was actually correct.

If both observations are true at the same time. Then why are the results in conflict? The observer that said car B wasn't moving was wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity. (That is what the theory concludes happens.) The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

No, one is not "choosing a reference frame" when one does that. There is no such thing as a perfect Inertial Frame of Reference, but we can get close enough. The twin in the stationary frame does not undergo acceleration. That is part of being an inertial frame of reference. The objects within it will only have local accelerations and those tend to be very small on a relativistic scale. Where the other one underwent extensive acceleration in one direction and then even more important it experienced acceleration in the other direction. That even takes care of the illusion of acceleration from gravity. The direction of the false acceleration does not change. That would not count as acceleration since that twin could go out to space himself and just hang around in 0 g.

In other words there is a way to tell which twin was stationary and which one was not.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No, from the moving clock the stationary clock will look to be going faster, from the stationary clock the moving clock will look to be going slower. Yes it can. When you are driving on a highway in car A at the same speed (60 mph) as car B , car B looks to be not moving. If you are standing on the side of the road car B looks to be moving at 60 mph. Both observations are true at the same time.

As far as the clocks: Look at it from the other reference frame. The moving clock can be considered to be stationary relative to the other clock. Which means the opposite clock would be the one that slows down from that perspective. See how they flip flop depending on which reference frame is chosen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As far as the clocks: Look at it from the other reference frame. The moving clock can be considered to be stationary relative to the other clock. Which means the opposite clock would be the one that slows down from that perspective. See how they flip flop depending on which reference frame is chosen?

Yep, at the start, aside from the beginning acceleration, both would see the other person's clocks moving more slowly. But on the flip the one that traveled has changed his frame of reference. You probably do not understand this.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Time does not exist in and of itself. Time is the relationship between space and motion. If the two coins are traveling through space at the same speed, but the space one coin travels through is being bent slightly by a gravitational field, and the other coin is not, then the coin traversing the bent (curved) space will take a bit longer to do so than the coin that does not have to traverse any curved space. Thus the first coin will have aged a little more than the second coin when they both arrive at the same "finish line", ... even though they started at the same place, ended at the same place, and were traveling at the same speed, they did not traverse the same distance.

"Relativity" is all about relationships. Things not only appear different when observed from different perspectives, they ARE different. That's what is hard for us to grasp.

Time exists even if there is no motion.

Are you sure the first coin wouldn't have aged the same? They were traveling to the same destination at the same speed, but one went a longer distance, so the first reached its destination ahead of the other and was continuing to age while waiting for the other to catch up.

 

[PureX]

Time exists even if there is no motion.

Time doesn't "exist" at all. The word "time" refers to the relationship between space (distance) and motion (movement from point to point). These days cosmologists refer to this as "space-time".

Are you sure the first coin wouldn't have aged the same?

Certainty is not a part of this realm. The "answers" all depend on the relational contexts. Time, space, and motion are all intertwined relationally. like the angles of the three corners on a triangle. As one decreases the others compensate. the triangle changes by some criteria, and yet does not change by other criteria. So the "answers" we get are both true and untrue depending on which criteria we apply to which aspects of the triangle (area, height, length, etc.). Reality is multi-dimensional. And we are experiencing it from a singular perspective. Se we need to keep our thinking flexible, to comprehend the multiple dynamics of it.

 

[Yerda]

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity. (That is what the theory concludes happens.) The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

With the twin paradox both agree that the twin who left Earth and returned later must have undergone acceleration or travelled in a non-intertial frame. It isn't really a paradox.

This Sabine Hossenfelder video is good:

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

There used to be a couple of physicists on here who could have nailed this down for you. Not seen them in a while. I'll give it a crack.

Imagine that you are stationary relative to some cartoonishly huge measuring rod.

I whoosh past you in direction parrallel to the measuring rod moving at some silly high constant speed.

I fire a photon from my photon gun in the direction I am travelling.

We both measure the speed of the photon using our pocket watches and the measuring rod. We both agree that the photon is racing away from us at speed c. The constancy of light speed to all non-accelerated observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity and is backed by hundreds of years of experimental and theoretical success.

Given our relative motion, the only way we can possibly agree that the photon is racing away from both of us at the same speed, and speed is distance over time, is if we disagree on the times or distances or both. Correct?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm referring more to time problems. Explain how two twins could age at different rates based on relativity.

If one remained on earth while the other was traveling through space at extreme speeds or in the proximity of extreme gravity.

(That is what the theory concludes happens.)

And it's pretty easy to demonstrate

The problem is you can pick the reference frame where the first twin is stationary and therefore the 2nd twin ages slower. But you could also choose the other reference frame, where the 2nd twin is stationary, and then the 1st twin would age slower. But we know that both can't actually be true.

Or explain about how the moving clock slows down because of relativity. You have the same type problem to overcome.

Not sure what your objection is.

Take 2 identical matching clocks. Keep one on earth and send the other into high speed orbit on a space probe around the planet.
After some time, have the space probe land and compare both clocks.
They will no long show the same time. One will have ticked slower then the other.
And Einstein's equations will allow you to calculate exactly how much slower it will have ticked.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

My point is, that one of those observations gives the wrong conclusion. In your example when you were in car A, it might look like car B wasn't moving, but in reality it was moving. So that observation gave the wrong conclusion. It wasn't gaining any ground on you in car A, but it was moving. So the observer standing on the side of the road was actually correct.

If both observations are true at the same time. Then why are the results in conflict? The observer that said car B wasn't moving was wrong.

I understand what you are saying but both observations were correct. There is no frame of reference that is the correct one. One isn't more correct than the other so there is no contradiction.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

As far as the clocks: Look at it from the other reference frame. The moving clock can be considered to be stationary relative to the other clock. Which means the opposite clock would be the one that slows down from that perspective. See how they flip flop depending on which reference frame is chosen?

Yes, I agree.

 

[Alien826]

This Sabine Hossenfelder video is good:

Yes, it was good, though like all lectures one wants to stop her and ask for an explanation of a particular point. One point that "stopped" me was where she said that when we stand on the surface of the Earth it's not a force (gravity) that holds us there, but a relativistic effect (deliberately vague, I didn't get that either. Acceleration?) that acts through our contact with the Earth (can't be right, but that's what it sounded like). OK, in that case, why does "acceleration?" cause us to fall to the surface from a position in mid-air where there is no contact?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I understand what you are saying but both observations were correct. There is no frame of reference that is the correct one. One isn't more correct than the other so there is no contradiction.

One of the observations was incorrect.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

With the twin paradox both agree that the twin who left Earth and returned later must have undergone acceleration or travelled in a non-intertial frame. It isn't really a paradox.

This Sabine Hossenfelder video is good:

There used to be a couple of physicists on here who could have nailed this down for you. Not seen them in a while. I'll give it a crack.

Imagine that you are stationary relative to some cartoonishly huge measuring rod.

I whoosh past you in direction parrallel to the measuring rod moving at some silly high constant speed.

I fire a photon from my photon gun in the direction I am travelling.

We both measure the speed of the photon using our pocket watches and the measuring rod. We both agree that the photon is racing away from us at speed c. The constancy of light speed to all non-accelerated observers is one of the two postulates of special relativity and is backed by hundreds of years of experimental and theoretical success.

Given our relative motion, the only way we can possibly agree that the photon is racing away from both of us at the same speed, and speed is distance over time, is if we disagree on the times or distances or both. Correct?

Two photons are emitted from the same source at the exact same instance. Photon A is headed to a destination 2 light years away at the speed of C. Photon B is headed to a destination 4 light years away at the speed of C. Which photon reaches the finish line first?

(You know it has to be photon A, yet some say it's a tie, and some say they experience no time or distance.) Speed involves both time and distance.

Here is the problem with the relativity theory. Look at the diagrams they use for space time. They pick a point on that space time curve and tell you, say that you are at 0.8 light years and at 0.6 on the time axis. Speed = distance / time = 0.8/0.6 = 1.333333 That would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Prove it to yourself. Add the time and distance to the diagram. Plot out 1/2 C, C, and 2C (pretending it was possible) on the diagram. Anything beyond the 45 degree angle and closer to the x-axis is faster than the speed of light. That is supposed to be impossible. They act like when they get to the x-axis they are approaching the speed of light. They are wrong - that is approaching being instantaneous. The 45 degree angle was at the speed of C. Anything past that and closer to the x-axis is FASTER than C.