Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Common sense doesn't always work. Anyone who looks outside and watches the sun can see it moving across the sky during the course of the day and will conclude that it's only 'common sense' that the sun orbits around the Earth. Yet, that's not the way it works. The Earth orbits around the sun and the Earths rotation simply give the illusion that it's the sun that orbits the earth.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Have you read the book or only looked at the graphs?

To understand what those graphs are explaining you need to "be mindful of two aspects, or projections, of time"

(a) The time observed to be required for the journey
(b) The time the travellers reckons

The 0.8 and 0.6 is described well, explaining that a person travelling at 0.8c will experience 0.6time relative to 1time.
It does not describe an object travelling "faster than the speed of light", you are interpreting the information incorrectly.




Figure 5-10.

"This object travels through 1 light year of space. You age 1 year as you watch. The object does not age at all. This object has the maximum speed through space, the speed of light. Its speed through time is zero. It is stationary in time. "Right now is forever,” the photon said.

You are misrepresenting what it says. I'll quote: Figure 5-9 As speed through space becomes faster, speed through time must become slower. This object travels through 0.8 of a light year of space while aging 0.6 of a year time. You age 1 year while watching.

Clearly if it travels 0.8 of a light year of space in 0.6 years time - it was traveling faster than the speed of light. Just like I said.
Speed = distance/time = 0.8 light years/ 0.6 years = 1.33333C

I dare you to plot out C on that diagram. Label 1 year on the time axis, and 1 light year on the distance axis. You will clearly see that the 45 degree line depicts C. Anything to the right of that 45 and closer to the x-axis is faster than C.

 

[GoodAttention]

You are misrepresenting what it says.

I am quoting from a source you clearly do not understand.

I'll quote: Figure 5-9 As speed through space becomes faster, speed through time must become slower. This object travels through 0.8 of a light year of space while aging 0.6 of a year time. You age 1 year while watching.

Clearly if it travels 0.8 of a light year of space in 0.6 years time

WRONG. It travels 0.8 light year of space in 1 year.

- it was traveling faster than the speed of light. Just like I said.

You aren't being mindful of the TWO aspects of time being described.

Speed = distance/time = 0.8 light years/ 0.6 years = 1.33333C

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I am quoting from a source you clearly do not understand.



WRONG. It travels 0.8 light year of space in 1 year.



You aren't being mindful of the TWO aspects of time being described.

That is not what it says, or shows. 1 year is higher on the time axis than where the object is. How about plotting out C on that diagram like I said.

Yes I am mindful of the TWO aspects of time. Proper time is on the y-axis and coordinate time is on the graph. Guess what, when it shows the coordinate time of 0.6 years that is based on the proper time. That's where it comes from off of the graph. And 0.8/0.6 is faster than C.

You aren't being mindful of the line that would depict C and the line representing the object traveling 0.8 light years in 0.6 years. Please show your depiction of how it would look if it was traveling 0.8 light years in 1 year as you said.

Please take Figure 5-10 and label 1 year on the proper time axis, and 1 light year on the distance axis. Now plot out C on the 45 and then plot out 2C, and then explain to me how you can get to the speed they show on the x-axis.

 

[GoodAttention]

That is not what it says, or shows. 1 year is higher on the time axis than where the object is.

Again, you are not understanding what the diagram is showing.

You have 2 times to choose from, and you keep picking the wrong one.

How about plotting out C on that diagram like I said.

It is already done by figure 5-10.

The only way to express C on that diagram is for an object to move through space without experiencing time.

This is the x-axis.

 

[GoodAttention]

Now plot out C on the 45 and then plot out 2C, and then explain to me how you can get to the speed they show on the x-axis.

You can't force a graph to represent something just because you want it to.

I don't think you have the basic understanding down to be able to discuss this.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Again, you are not understanding what the diagram is showing.

You have 2 times to choose from, and you keep picking the wrong one.



It is already done by figure 5-10.

The only way to express C on that diagram is for an object to move through space without experiencing time.

This is the x-axis.

NO
Put time and distance on the diagram and plot out C. What they are showing is impossible and imaginary. C would be on a 45 degree line.

Along the x-axis would be instantaneous not C.

I could replace your labels with a moped traveling on the x-axis at 12 mph and say that it shows it is experiencing zero time. And you could refute that by plotting out 12 mph on the graph.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You can't force a graph to represent something just because you want it to.

I don't think you have the basic understanding down to be able to discuss this.

That's exactly what you are trying to do. Force the graph to represent something just because you want it to. And that something is impossible.

Do you know how to plot C on that graph?

I think you have fallen for the kool-aid.

Seriously, are you saying you can have something go 20 light years on the x-axis in zero time, and you are unable to comprehend that that is faster than the speed of light?

 

[GoodAttention]

That's exactly what you are trying to do. Force the graph to represent something just because you want it to. And that something is impossible.

Do you know how to plot C on that graph?

I think you have fallen for the kool-aid.

Seriously, are you saying you can have something go 20 light years on the x-axis in zero time, and you are unable to comprehend that that is faster than the speed of light?

You are speaking gibberish, and its clear you either didn't read the book or have zero comprehension of it.

Good luck with your ***-hattery.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The challenge extends to you just like the others. Show your diagram where time is zero at the speed light and I will show you how it is wrong.

I am not saying you are right or wrong. My commentary was on the bad logic of appealing to common sense.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

Do you mean the Newtonian laws? Because Einsteins observations are more accurate than Newtons. And we know there are problems with Einstein--we just don't know exactly what. Someday, another great physicist will come along who will propose an understanding more accurate than Einstein's.

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.

I am a long, long ways from being a physicist. Things like time dilation are really above my paygrade. But then, that's exactly why I depend on the consensus of the experts in this field. Just like I trust my surgeon to remove my appendix, or my mechanic to repair my car, I trust physicists to know their stuff.

I'll confess something else to you as well. I'm not a genius, and it is not uncommon for me that when I listen to two geniuses talk, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Part of it is that I simply lack the necessary background. But part of it is also that I don't always understand their logic. When this happens to me, I simply call to mind all the zillions of times that I've tried to engage others in a rational discussion, only to find that they cannot follow my very basic logic, inserting all sorts of irrelevancies and reaching conclusions that are sometimes even bizarre. I pretty quickly realize that they are simply incapable of following what I'm saying. In the same way, I can't always follow what geniuses say. But that doesn't mean they are wrong. It means that I'm more limited. It means that they think more clearly than I do.

So perhaps instead of being indignant that a physicist suggests something that runs contrary to your common sense, perhaps adopt an attitude of humility, that maybe what appears to you as common sense might actually be somewhat more complicated, but beyond your ability to understand.