Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the observations was incorrect.

No.

You should not ignore the role of the "frame of reference" in this discussion.


Let's take it a step further.
Is a parked car moving?

Not if you observe it from the frame of reference of standing on the earth watching the car.
Now move into space. The earth is orbiting the sun. So the earth, as well as the car, are moving around the sun. Is the sun moving? Not if you observe it from within the solar system. Now move outside of the solar system. The solar system orbits the milky way. At tremendous speed, even.

Go sit in a driving train. Put a book on the table. Is the book moving? Not from your perspective.
Go stand outside the train and watch the book. Now it is moving, along with the train.


The frame of reference matters when making these observations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

From the frame of reference of an observer watching both photons, that would be photon A.

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

Which is correct. From the frame of reference of either photon, it reaches its destination instantaneously.

I find it kind of ironic that you insist on arguing against relativity by ignoring relativity.

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.

Learn to not ignore frames of reference.

 

[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.

There are two theories of relativity; General Relativity; GR and Special Relativity; SR. The first; GR is about gravity and the curving of space-time. The second; SR is about objects in motion; velocity, close to the speed of light.

GR is mass and mass geometry dependent. Mass causes gravity, and gravity which is the summation of the mass/gravity particles, not only compacts matter/mass, denser and denser, but it also compacts space and time. This is because space-time also comes from mass, and as we compact mass, we also compact space-time changing its properties.

If we had a universe with just energy, energy will not self compact to form stable space-time. It is more like a gas that wants to expand and fill in space. You need mass; solid, and gravity to get compaction via gravity. But once mass compacts and space-time compacts to a limit, energy will start to compact, following the curvature of space-time; black hole. Mass and space-time go together. The mass of the sun creates its own profile/zone of space-time that it carries around as it moves through the galaxy. Space-time is not the same everywhere but is dependent on the amount of mass/geometry/density.

SR is similar but in this case the main variable is not mass density and geometry but velocity or constant motion. Mass, that has constant motion or velocity contains kinetic energy which is modeled by the equation 1/2MV2, where M is the mass of the objective and V is velocity, with velocity squared (times itself).

Einstein has another famous equation that is E=MC2. Notice the similarity between E=MC2 and the kinetic energy equation; 1/2MV2, with both having a mass and a velocity squared. E=MC2 is about how mass and energy are related. If you could convert mass to energy or energy to mass that equation tells you how much of each, you will need, to get the other. When they developed nuclear weapons they could tell by the calculated mass change how much energy yield you could get. This is needed for fusion; mass burn.

The way special relativity; SR, works is at high enough velocity, close to the speed of light, there is a type of conversion of kinetic energy to what is called relativistic mass. However, the relativistic mass is only half mass; E=1/2MV2 compared to the E=MC2 equation. It is not exactly the rest mass of GR, that follows the E=MC2 equation, but it is nevertheless a type of semi-mass; relativistic mass, that can bend space and time, similar to rest mass, but it only impacts the moving object.

Gravity can impact distant objects, like the sun and earth, but relativistic mass only impacts the moving object. Your moving reference will can get a local space-time compaction effect, where you may not appear to age very fast, since space-time sort of slows, relative to stationary objects, who lack this extra relativistic mass and are not impacted by it. They age according to the rest mass of the earth.

 

[Tomef]

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.

Time is a coordinate. As such, it remains the same for things in uniform motion, in the same period of time.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There are two theories of relativity; General Relativity; GR and Special Relativity; SR. The first; GR is about gravity and the curving of space-time. The second; SR is about objects in motion; velocity, close to the speed of light.

GR is mass and mass geometry dependent. Mass causes gravity, and gravity which is the summation of the mass/gravity particles, not only compacts matter/mass, denser and denser, but it also compacts space and time. This is because space-time also comes from mass, and as we compact mass, we also compact space-time changing its properties.

If we had a universe with just energy, energy will not self compact to form stable space-time. It is more like a gas that wants to expand and fill in space. You need mass; solid, and gravity to get compaction via gravity. But once mass compacts and space-time compacts to a limit, energy will start to compact, following the curvature of space-time; black hole. Mass and space-time go together. The mass of the sun creates its own profile/zone of space-time that it carries around as it moves through the galaxy. Space-time is not the same everywhere but is dependent on the amount of mass/geometry/density.

SR is similar but in this case the main variable is not mass density and geometry but velocity or constant motion. Mass, that has constant motion or velocity contains kinetic energy which is modeled by the equation 1/2MV2, where M is the mass of the objective and V is velocity, with velocity squared (times itself).

Einstein has another famous equation that is E=MC2. Notice the similarity between E=MC2 and the kinetic energy equation; 1/2MV2, with both having a mass and a velocity squared. E=MC2 is about how mass and energy are related. If you could convert mass to energy or energy to mass that equation tells you how much of each, you will need, to get the other. When they developed nuclear weapons they could tell by the calculated mass change how much energy yield you could get. This is needed for fusion; mass burn.

The way special relativity; SR, works is at high enough velocity, close to the speed of light, there is a type of conversion of kinetic energy to what is called relativistic mass. However, the relativistic mass is only half mass; E=1/2MV2 compared to the E=MC2 equation. It is not exactly the rest mass of GR, that follows the E=MC2 equation, but it is nevertheless a type of semi-mass; relativistic mass, that can bend space and time, similar to rest mass, but it only impacts the moving object.

Gravity can impact distant objects, like the sun and earth, but relativistic mass only impacts the moving object. Your moving reference will can get a local space-time compaction effect, where you may not appear to age very fast, since space-time sort of slows, relative to stationary objects, who lack this extra relativistic mass and are not impacted by it. They age according to the rest mass of the earth.

Thanks for the polite response. How do you respond to my post #120?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Time is a coordinate. As such, it remains the same for things in uniform motion, in the same period of time.

ok - Will you please apply what you say to my post #120

Because in my example the photons were emitted at the same time, and both are traveling at the same speed.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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".

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.

That makes no sense to say Time doesn't exist at all. Why do they put it on the Y-axis if it doesn't even exist?

Please respond to what I said in post #120

 

[Tomef]

ok - Will you please apply what you say to my post #120

Because in my example the photons were emitted at the same time, and both are traveling at the same speed.

First relative to what? Do you mean one arriving at its destination relative to the other? According to what, though? Local time at the point of departure?

If the two leave from a point in which they are at uniform motion, that motion changes, if they then fall into the same uniform motion in a different relation then the motion will be only as uniform as the initial change of motion was. If they are no longer in the same relation of uniform motion, then the same time frame can’t be applied to both.

As to your other point, the speed of light is always the same. It’s the same from the POV of something travelling at 80% of light speed, the photon ‘ahead’ of it is still travelling away from it at light speed.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

Your intuition is correct, but relative reference does not exactly apply to Special Relativity. Since in the SR scenario the moving object took energy; rocket fuel, to achieve that extreme velocity and has lots of genuine kinetic energy. Relative reference, is more of a mind game that appears when you do not know who has the energy. Sight alone will not allow you to tell, since both will appear to move relative to the other. That can fool the eyes. You need either knowledge of which rocket lifted off, or another sense to feel motion or hear sound. In the classic example of the train and train station, since the train station makes no sound but the train does, only one reference is fooled by the magic trick.

As a good mental work around, consider two objects, one with mass M and other with mass 2M. They approaching each other, so both will be seen with the relative motion. Each has a camera and we are not told who is moving. Since you are in space and there is no sense of camera motion, so you can only use your eyes, you will see relative motion.

The way we make the kinetic energy known, is by have the two objects collide in a head on collision. If M is moving and hits 2M, that is stationary, we will get a different recoil, compared to if 2M is moving and hits the stationary M; double the momentum with same velocity. Until the collusion you can pretend relative reference, but the different recoils will tell you the truth, which one was moving in reality.

When we look out into space, we cannot tell what has how much kinetic energy. We are stuck with relative reference. However, if we could measure relativistic mass; twin paradox, we could have a billiard ball test and turn that fantasy universe into reality.

Relative reference is supposed to be sort of insult; subjective instead of objective. It is like placing someone in a hole and pretending to rise while not moving. Relativistic mass shows the hole and the dirt. The magic trick disappears.

Another analogy I have is the relative reference work out. You sit around a track and watch a person run. Since reference is relative, you can burn calories while sitting in a comfortable chair; the subjectivity of relative motion. Based on the laws of physics it is only the person running who is burning calories to sustain his motion. Relative reference is like a magic trick in terms of deeper reality. Relative morality does not mean all are created equal; some inflict higher social costs.

 

[PureX]

That makes no sense to say Time doesn't exist at all. Why do they put it on the Y-axis if it doesn't even exist?

Time is a recognized relationship between space and motion. It does not exist in and of itself. Neither do space and motion. All three 'happen' in relation to each other. All three define each other's "existence".

Please respond to what I said in post #120

I have already explained this via the Doppler Effect. We do not live in an absolute reality where the sound of the train's horn must be a singular universal pitch. We live in a relative reality where the pitch of the train's horn depends on the hearer's relationship to it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Time is a recognized relationship between space and motion. It does not exist in and of itself. Neither do space and motion. All three 'happen' in relation to each other. All three define each other's "existence".

I have already explained this via the Doppler Effect. We do not live in an absolute reality where the sound of the train's horn must be a singular universal pitch. We live in a relative reality where the pitch of the train's horn depends on the hearer's relationship to it.

Did you attempt to make a space-time diagram with 1/2 C, C, and 2C plotted as I suggested? It's impossible to be at 0.8 light years distance and 0.6 years time, without exceeding the speed of light.

 

[Yerda]

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.

Yep. This is what I was trying to point to in the example. If we agree on the speed of a photon even when we are in relative motion with one another then we would have to disagree about our clocks or our measuring rods.

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.

I'm kind of following. Does this image show what you are describing?

The stationary observer, you, is the blue dashed line. An observer moving with some constant speed is the green line, which would be me in the previous example. The point at (0.8, 0.6) is some event. A signal would have to move faster than light to get from you to that event in spacetime. And it can't as you say.

The event itself isn't moving. A moving object would be a line through the point with some slope less than 1.

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.

The spacetime diagram is just a picture and you can draw lines to represent objects moving at speeds faster than c if you like.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yep. This is what I was trying to point to in the example. If we agree on the speed of a photon even when we are in relative motion with one another then we would have to disagree about our clocks or our measuring rods.


I'm kind of following. Does this image show what you are describing?

View attachment 99251

The stationary observer, you, is the blue dashed line. An observer moving with some constant speed is the green line, which would be me in the previous example. The point at (0.8, 0.6) is some event. A signal would have to move faster than light to get from you to that event in spacetime. And it can't as you say.

The event itself isn't moving. A moving object would be a line through the point with some slope less than 1.



The spacetime diagram is just a picture and you can draw lines to represent objects moving at speeds faster than c if you like.

Yes, As that diagram shows you can't have anything to the right of that 45 degree line or you are in an area faster than the speed of light. So you couldn't even have an event at (0.8, 0.6) period. Yet for example in the book "Relativity Visualized" by Lewis Carroll Epstein, page 84, Figure 5-9 it says: As speed through space becomes faster, speed through time must become slower. The object travels through 0.8 of a light year of space while aging 0.6 of a year of time. You age 1 year while watching.

But as the diagram shows, it is impossible for that object to be at coordinate (0.8, 0.6) as that would be traveling faster than the speed of light.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

First relative to what? Do you mean one arriving at its destination relative to the other? According to what, though? Local time at the point of departure?

If the two leave from a point in which they are at uniform motion, that motion changes, if they then fall into the same uniform motion in a different relation then the motion will be only as uniform as the initial change of motion was. If they are no longer in the same relation of uniform motion, then the same time frame can’t be applied to both.

As to your other point, the speed of light is always the same. It’s the same from the POV of something travelling at 80% of light speed, the photon ‘ahead’ of it is still travelling away from it at light speed.

Relative to time. Which photon wins the race?

 

[Tomef]

Relative to time. Which photon wins the race?

Time isn't an absolute. You can measure time in the same way anywhere, but with different frames of reference, e.g the time that passes for you and someone else here on Earth, in the same state of uniform motion, isn't passing within the same time frame for someone whose motion, relative to the earth, has changed. Time & place work together to form the local reference, with motion as a constant but not constantly uniform. If you walk across the road at 1am, you get to the other side. If you walk across it at 1pm, you might get hit by a car. Here time is the coordinate. The time links to the same place. If you go off into space from Earth in one direction, then make a sharp turn, and go in another direction, your time reference is linked to your new position. So to understand your own question, you need to establish the reference points for the travelling objects.

Photons aren't a good fit for the question though. It would make more sense if you used actual objects.

What your question seems to be though is something about how this doesn't make sense to you meaning it doesn't make sense, objectively. To address that, you'd need to start with a more general understanding. Rather than pose questions to try and prove it doesn't make sense, you would be better off understanding first, which would enable to you form questions that are relevant to the thing you are asking questions about.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Time isn't an absolute. You can measure time in the same way anywhere, but with different frames of reference, e.g the time that passes for you and someone else here on Earth, in the same state of uniform motion, isn't passing within the same time frame for someone whose motion, relative to the earth, has changed. Time & place work together to form the local reference, with motion as a constant but not constantly uniform. If you walk across the road at 1am, you get to the other side. If you walk across it at 1pm, you might get hit by a car. Here time is the coordinate. The time links to the same place. If you go off into space from Earth in one direction, then make a sharp turn, and go in another direction, your time reference is linked to your new position. So to understand your own question, you need to establish the reference points for the travelling objects.

Photons aren't a good fit for the question though. It would make more sense if you used actual objects.

What your question seems to be though is something about how this doesn't make sense to you meaning it doesn't make sense, objectively. To address that, you'd need to start with a more general understanding. Rather than pose questions to try and prove it doesn't make sense, you would be better off understanding first, which would enable to you form questions that are relevant to the thing you are asking questions about.

I am asking you a simple question. (Since Speed = distance/time) If two photons were in a race does it take longer for one to go twice the distance the other one has to go? It should be a simple yes or no.

 

[Tomef]

I am asking you a simple question. (Since Speed = distance/time) If two photons were in a race does it take longer for one to go twice the distance the other one has to go? It should be a simple yes or no.

A simple fact - photons aren’t little things that move like a brick or a space ship, in the way you seem to be thinking. What prevents you from just looking that up? Whatever the point of this thread is, it’s obvious you have no interest in understanding any of the points your question raises.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That makes no sense to say Time doesn't exist at all. Why do they put it on the Y-axis if it doesn't even exist?

Please respond to what I said in post #120

Time exists. It does not work the way that you want it to work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am asking you a simple question. (Since Speed = distance/time) If two photons were in a race does it take longer for one to go twice the distance the other one has to go? It should be a simple yes or no.

Your question is poorly formed since you did not include enough information. What is the velocity of the observe to the point where the light was released from?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

A simple fact - photons aren’t little things that move like a brick or a space ship, in the way you seem to be thinking. What prevents you from just looking that up? Whatever the point of this thread is, it’s obvious you have no interest in understanding any of the points your question raises.

Post #133 sort of shows the point of this thread. To show that some of the conclusions arrived at by this theory are impossible.

I am still waiting for someone to explain how light can travel at a constant speed of C and yet experience no time or distance. They pick impossible places to be on the spacetime diagrams where time would appear to be approaching zero, which is instantaneous, and try to tell you it's because it is approaching the speed of light.