Gravitational Waves. oh really?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Still not true.
You can't just add their speeds together like that.
Two objects colliding head on at speed of light do not collide at double the speed of light. They collide at the speed of light.
If their velocity and mass are the same it wouldn't be like colliding at twice the velocity, it would be like colliding with a wall.
This is basic physics that can be easily demonstrated empirically and mathematically.

None of the empirical experiments regarding relativity are even vaguely 'easy'.

But the math is easily demonstrated to be contradictory, consider:

The photons p1 & p2 are emitted from a light bulb in opposite directions at the velocity of light.

What is the velocity of p1 in relation to p2 according to relativity?

Well relativity suggests that no object can be moving away from another object at faster than the velocity of light.
So if we know that p2 is moving away from the light bulb at the velocity of light, and relativity tells us that p2
is moving away from p1 at the velocity of light, then relativity results in the contradiction that p1 is not moving away from the light bulb.

source:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised-summary.htm

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Special relativity does not claim that anything traveling at the speed of light has its local time stand still. Time for that object is actually normal. It is time for other objects that differ relatively.

There is no issue with gravitational waves as you claim.

There are NUMEROUS issues with gravitational waves.

The most obvious being that nothing is supposed to be able to get past an event horizon,
and yet the gravitational waves that are supposedly emitted from the 'black hole',
cannot be emitted, unless they can get past the event horizon!!!

A failing in elementary logic.

But it gets much deeper than this:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity/gravitational-waves+general-relativity.htm

 

[`mud]

The 'broth' of the 'soup' of the Cosmos,
ride the 'waves' !
~
'mud

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The 'broth' of the 'soup' of the Cosmos,
ride the 'waves' !
~
'mud

lots of ups and downs, eh?

 

[Parsimony]

No. Special Relativity absolutely claims that time slows down as the object approaches the velocity of light:

Where V is a proportion of the velocity of light,
such that as V gets to 1 (velocity of light),
the denominator becomes 0, so anything at the velocity of light
would have time take infinitely long.

Besides, its more commonly expressed
that travelling to Andromeda galaxy near the velocity of light
would make the traveler virtually ageless
compared to those who stayed at the low velocity of the Earth.

Only from the reference frame of an outside observer. Time aboard the ship would not seem to change for those onboard. There is no velocity where the crew would see themselves as frozen in time.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Only from the reference frame of an outside observer. Time aboard the ship would not seem to change for those onboard. There is no velocity where the crew would see themselves as frozen in time.

Nonetheless, when an outside observer views a photon moving.
That photon is moving.
It is not frozen in time.

 

[Parsimony]

Nonetheless, when an outside observer views a photon moving.
That photon is moving.
It is not frozen in time.

Correct.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Correct.

Therefore:
this proves that time does not dilate with velocity according to Special Relativity.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This thread tho...

 

[Parsimony]

Therefore:
this proves that time does not dilate with velocity according to Special Relativity.

Except not. Back to the spaceship, if an external observer was somehow able to see inside of a ship moving close to the speed of light, the events taking place aboard the ship would seem to be going in slow motion in the external observer's own reference frame. However, the ship itself would still be going close to the speed of light in the external observer's reference frame. For those aboard the ship, everything around them is going about the same speed as them so they don't see any time dilation effects. The net effect is that the journey takes less time in the reference frame of the crew than it does for an external observer.

The faster the ship goes, the bigger this discrepancy in travel times between internal and external observers. At the speed of light, the time required to reach the destination is zero from the reference frame of the crew: they are at their starting point and destination simultaneously. To an external observer, this would be interpreted as time not passing at all for the crew and they would look frozen if one could peer inside the ship. The ship itself would still be moving at light speed though, as velocity is necessary for time dilation (except in cases of gravitational fields). A photon itself is not frozen in time, it's "internal clock" is what is frozen from an outside observer's perspective.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Then the spaceship can go faster than light if special relativity did not apply.

No, it can't. Your analysis simply starts with incoherent descriptions and proceeds to misunderstanding relativity.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

A photon itself is not frozen in time, it's "internal clock" is what is frozen from an outside observer's perspective.

If its clock were frozen, it would not be moving.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

No, it can't. Your analysis simply starts with incoherent descriptions and proceeds to misunderstanding relativity.

The question is framed without contradictions.
It would be good form to actually quote at least one example of what you consider incoherent.
Yes, misunderstanding is the only way to proceed from the premises of relativity.
That is because relativity is a misunderstanding of the principles of logic.

Your comments are generalized confusion following from your earlier statement:

This example describes spaceships which "accelerate", and therefor special relativity doesn't even apply

Because if we did not apply special relativity to accelerating spaceships they would accelerate beyond the velocity of light!!
How can you not see that?

Your problem is that this is not an example with official answers that you can memorize.
It requires you to think for yourself and reach an answer due to being able to comprehend the issue.

Yes, it is a more complex question than is found in the standard parroted textbook
because the spaceship is accelerating.
But even if you simplify the question to the spaceships having fixed velocity,
the same issues prevail.

The two ships must have identical times on their internal clocks,
despite them having a velocity difference between each other.
(The sum of their velocities)

 

[Parsimony]

If its clock were frozen, it would not be moving.

Nope, the rate at which an entity experiences time is not the same thing as the rate at which it travels.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The question is framed without contradictions.

You describe non-intertial reference frames and claim that the effects of special relativity (which is "special" rather than "general" because it only holds for inertial reference frames) should apply. You can't get much more contradictory.

It would be good form to actually quote at least one example of what you consider incoherent.

You describe two spaceships accelerating. Like the classic "twin paradox", what we have here is a trick in which special relativity is applied to non-inertial reference frames, and thus the first fundamental postulate of special relativity (that the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame) doesn't hold.

Yes, misunderstanding is the only way to proceed from the premises of relativity.

You ignored the first premise. You used non-inertial frames.

That is because relativity is a misunderstanding of the principles of logic.

Does this include Galilean relativity?

Because if we did not apply special relativity to accelerating spaceships they would accelerate beyond the velocity of light!!

The constraint that no signal can travel faster than light (including spaceships) exists independently of the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction. These effects are not valid for accelerating (non-inertial) reference frames in the sense that acceleration makes such divergences between different frames actually different: accelerating reference frames are not all equivalent as they are non-inertial. Hence the resolution of the twin paradox (one twin accelerates in order to return)

How can you not see that?

Because I understand special relativity, among other things.

The two ships must have identical times on their internal clocks,

How do they ensure their clocks are synchronized and how do they adjust for acceleration (which makes their internal clocks invalid, as the laws of physics are not the same in all non-inertial reference frames, which is why the first postulate of Galilean and special relativity is immediately violated in your example).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It would be good form to actually quote at least one example of what you consider incoherent.

"Two unmoving spaceship..."
Galileo showed that it is impossible to determine whether or not one is moving, and thus even in classical physics there exists no way to determine whether a non-inertial (non-accelerating, for our purposes) reference frame is actually stationary. You start with an assumption that presupposes what both modern relativistic physics and classical, pre-Einstein physics holds to be impossible to assume/suppose.
"The observer at point C sends a signal in both directions which will reach A & B after the same amount of time"
Effects like time dilation and length contraction and in general what follows from laws in physics depends upon careful reasoning. For example, time dilation results from the assumption that 1) the laws of physics hold identically for all inertial reference frames
& 2) the speed of light is constant in a vacuum (or, alternatively, independent of the motion of the emission source).
This is because signals in one inertial reference frame can differ and will differ from another reference frame in relative motion to the first. Your presumptive assumption begins not with any careful analysis but with assumptions about the nature of space, time, and measurements of the two that already suppose these to be absolute, not relative (i.e., you define the signal as traversing invariant length in invariant time). Your example assumes that it is possible to determine what special relativity holds (and Maxwell's equation, not to mention the Michelson-Morley experiments and other experiments hold) cannot be determined in the way you do.
"the signals sent out are received by the other ship!"
Your "signals" are your introduction of absolute space and time via a method that cannot be realized and assumes special relativity (as well as much of classical and modern physics) to be wrong. All you've done is defined into existence a method of sending signals which doesn't depend upon physics or measurement but assumes rather that it is possible for a signal such as that you describe to exist and to reflect the values you ascribe. The entirety of all "counterintuitive" effects (such as time dilation) of special relativity follow from something as innocuous (and embedded in Maxwell's equations) as the constancy of the speed of light. The classic example of time dilation is that of two signals that are observed to occur at the same time and traverse the same distance by an observer stationary with respect to a spaceship or train in relative (constant) motion. The dilation effect happens because the signal (the emission of light from two equidistant points from the perspective of the observer stationary with respect to the moving spaceship/train) travels farther in the same amount of time due to relative motion.

By misunderstanding time dilation and special relativity more generally, you've given an example in which you've precluded the possibility of relativistic effects by assumption and in which you have shown merely that by not incorporating a situation in which time dilation could be relevant (or indeed make any sense) you therefore conclude that special relativity is flawed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It would be good form to actually quote at least one example of what you consider incoherent.

I've done this now, but I don't think it will be effective because your example is almost literally flawed at every point and so fundamentally ill-conceived it is hard to find a starting point from which to analyze the errors. However, after giving this some thought, I decided that the closest thing to such a starting point is your claim that "This velocity is close enough to the velocity of light so that they should apparently be significantly affected by time dilation..."
You are significantly affected by time dilation when sitting in a chair in your house. Your "argument" supposes that time dilation should affect...? What? How? Time dilation affects an observer at rest (i.e., with no velocity let alone one near the speed of light) relative to a moving observer traveling at speeds far, far below that of light. You seem to think that because the spaceships are travelling fast, we can therefore assume time dilation matters (we can always assume this as it is always true) but nowhere do you argue how it is supposed to affect anything and doesn't. That is, by failing to understand what time dilation is, you simply state that special relativity holds it matters in the example you use, you don't state how, and then conclude that your example shows the absence of this effect without ever expressing how it should exist (according to special relativity).

To simplify:
1) According to special relativity, there exists a phenomenon usually called time dilation.
2) You claim that this phenomenon, according to special relativity, should exist in your thought-experiment because of the velocities of the spaceships
3) You do not state how, according to special relativity, this phenomenon is supposed to exist in your thought-experiment.
4) You then go on to claim that in you have shown in your thought experiment this phenomenon doesn't, in fact, exist.
5) Since you never explain how the theory of special relativity holds that this phenomenon should appear in your thought-experiment, you've shown only that something undefined doesn't occur in your argument because you have defined it that way.

Let us examine how an actual argument might proceed to show something like that you wish to:
1) According to Theory X, given certain conditions we should find that some set of variables or quantities (measurements of time, temperature, mass, eigenstates in Hilbert space, etc.) are altered by effect E.
2) You describe a condition C in which effect E should hold.
3) You describe how Theory X holds that E should change the relevant variables or quantities in C.
4) You then show that the changes expected by E do not occur in C.

What you don't do is claim that there should be effect E in your argument's example, but fail to specify how anything should be affected by E in this example, and then claim that we don't find the results of an effect you never described to begin with.

 

[YmirGF]

I've done this now, but I don't think it will be effective because your example is almost literally flawed at every point and so fundamentally ill-conceived it is hard to find a starting point from which to analyze the errors. However, after giving this some thought, I decided that the closest thing to such a starting point is your claim that "This velocity is close enough to the velocity of light so that they should apparently be significantly affected by time dilation..."
You are significantly affected by time dilation when sitting in a chair in your house. Your "argument" supposes that time dilation should affect...? What? How? Time dilation affects an observer at rest (i.e., with no velocity let alone one near the speed of light) relative to a moving observer traveling at speeds far, far below that of light. You seem to think that because the spaceships are travelling fast, we can therefore assume time dilation matters (we can always assume this as it is always true) but nowhere do you argue how it is supposed to affect anything and doesn't. That is, by failing to understand what time dilation is, you simply state that special relativity holds it matters in the example you use, you don't state how, and then conclude that your example shows the absence of this effect without ever expressing how it should exist (according to special relativity).

To simplify:
1) According to special relativity, there exists a phenomenon usually called time dilation.
2) You claim that this phenomenon, according to special relativity, should exist in your thought-experiment because of the velocities of the spaceships
3) You do not state how, according to special relativity, this phenomenon is supposed to exist in your thought-experiment.
4) You then go on to claim that in you have shown in your thought experiment this phenomenon doesn't, in fact, exist.
5) Since you never explain how the theory of special relativity holds that this phenomenon should appear in your thought-experiment, you've shown only that something undefined doesn't occur in your argument because you have defined it that way.

Let us examine how an actual argument might proceed to show something like that you wish to:
1) According to Theory X, given certain conditions we should find that some set of variables or quantities (measurements of time, temperature, mass, eigenstates in Hilbert space, etc.) are altered by effect E.
2) You describe a condition C in which effect E should hold.
3) You describe how Theory X holds that E should change the relevant variables or quantities in C.
4) You then show that the changes expected by E do not occur in C.

What you don't do is claim that there should be effect E in your argument's example, but fail to specify how anything should be affected by E in this example, and then claim that we don't find the results of an effect you never described to begin with.

So, effectively the poster has created a straw man that he goes on to invalidate. Spiffy.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Nope, the rate at which an entity experiences time is not the same thing as the rate at which it travels.

You seriously need to reconsider that logically.
If something is not experiencing time it cannot experience movement.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You describe non-intertial reference frames

How can you possibly consider that a spaceship has no inertia?