Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: A text Game around Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity

  1. #1 A text Game around Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    In this text Game I try to Shoot-Down Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity before You type tl;dr in the Comments

    The hardest part of tl;dr is entertainment. I've got to keep you reading, I've got to keep you interested. In addition, the truth of Einsteins Special Theory differs from the explanation people commonly use for it. The difference between truth and explanation is a common problem, like using Schrodinger's Cat to explain Quantum physics. *rolls eyes*

    Luckily for me, physicists did an interesting experiment using atomic clocks. The experiment cemented Einsteins theory in history, allowing me to to speed through my explanation, a little. When we will reach the interesting experiment, you, the Reader, will breathe a sigh of relief.

    My Explanation of Einsteins Special Relativity
    When you swing your arm forward you make your arm travel through the air, above the ground. If you swing your arm forward, while walking, you make your arm travel further and faster. Happily, an ordinary person can act this out, by comparing the distance between the starting position and ending positions of their hand for both cases, walking and standing still.

    Einstein asked, but what would happen if you were walking at the speed of light and
    you swing your arm forwards? (You see, Einstein believed the speed of light can't be beaten.)

    Einstein theorized; In that case, swinging your arm forward will force your arm to attempt to exceed the speed of light. Then he theorized that the passage of Time and length that is distance will have to distort in order to accommodate the fact that your arm moves forwards without exceeding light-speed.

    That led physicists to consider the following speculation. Suppose one of two identical brothers got into a spaceship and traveled about, before returning. When those two brothers met once more, they should have aged differently, as a result of the distortion of time.

    The Interesting Experiment Scientists Did
    Earlier I said I'd remind you of an interesting experiment which which let the Reader breathe a sigh of relief.
    Here it is. Scientists, interested in Einstein, asked themselves whether his theory could be confirmed by experimental method. And so, they got two atomic clocks. One clock remained behind, while the other traveled about in an aeroplane. When they brought those two "brothers" together, scientists found the readings on the atomic clocks differed. *much excitement followed*

    Putting Einsteins Theory in it's Place.
    For our two brothers, suppose we buy two identical cars, some bricks, a dust cover, and hire a storage unit. We put one of the brothers in the dark storage unit, on bricks, under the dust cover. The other car we park in the lot outside, and never move. The first brother passes the time ensconced, whereas the second car passes the time beneath the sun, rain, hail, wind, dust. . . Fifteen years later we'll compare the age of those "brothers" and find . . .

    Turns out, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize, the brothers will have aged very differently.

    Fact is, every difference between the different paths through space and time alters the rapidity at which a body ages. Tis called Wear-and-Tear and scientists could teach it to everybody, once they get their heads out the clouds.

    Technically, my friends, that concludes the Game. However, you are welcome to try this BONUS ROUND

    Observations which Suggest the Speed of Light isn't the Limit.

    Background


    1. All substances like water, air and rock can be compressed to varying degrees. They also spring back by different amounts. If you'll forgive me, I'm going to name that property "springiness", as in; The speed at which waves move through a substance is determined by the springiness of the substance. To make a wave move faster actually requires changing the substance the wave passes through. For example, making a bigger splash in a pool just makes bigger waves, it doesn't make those waves any faster.
    2. When a person throws a ball forwards while running, the speed of the ball, relative to the ground, is the sum of the thrown speed plus the running speed. Apologies, because I'm going to phrase that; Unlike waves, objects can "inherit" speed. For example, the wake of the ship doesn't inherit the speed of a ship. This is because the speed of the wave is determined by the springiness of the substance it is passing through. Particles can inherit speed, waves cannot do it.


    Einstein explained that a beam of light, shone from the head lights of a space ship which is travelling at the speed of light, cannot advance ahead of the space ship because the springiness of the vacuum determines lights speed. Light is unable inherit the velocity of the spaceship. The light and the spaceship travel side by side, at light speed.

    The Pool of a Cruise Ship.

    Youtube videos of pools on cruise ships prove that water waves on a cruise ship move forwards and backwards normally, irrespective of the speed of the cruise ship. Another example, the waves in a beverage in the hand of someone flying as a passenger on the concorde were happy to break the sound barrier. Therefore, one can conclude the following;


    1. Although the speed of a wave is limited by the substance it is travelling through, the wave is able to inherit the speed of the substance. For example, a spaceship which is travelling at the speed of light will allow light to travel at the speed of light from the back of the ship to the front, and in doing so, that light will travel at twice the speed of light. (watch the youtube video)
    2. There is no magical and universal speed barrier, no universal speed cop if you will. For example. A ball projected from the same spaceship, projected forward into space, will travel faster than the speed of light, by the aforementioned property of inheritance. The projectile will not encounter a magical barrier. The projectile will simply arrive at its destination before the picture of the projectile arrives.



    Einsteins theories are like Newtons Laws of Motion. Their theories might not be universally true but they remain useful, practical, or often true.

    Thanks for playing.
    CallMeEm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Why isn't this thread in "Trash"? "Pseudoscience" is too generous for it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    Einstein asked, but what would happen if you were walking at the speed of light and you swing your arm forwards?

    Nope.

    Turns out, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize, the brothers will have aged very differently.

    No they won't.
    Their appearance may differ
    to a greater or lesser extent, but that's bugger all to do with ageing at different rates.

    Tis called Wear-and-Tear
    No it's not.

    Observations which Suggest the Speed of Light isn't the Limit.
    It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
    Unfortunately it's evident that you don't.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
    Unfortunately it's evident that you don't.
    I keep pressing "Like" . To no avail :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    1. Although the speed of a wave is limited by the substance it is travelling through, the wave is able to inherit the speed of the substance. For example, a spaceship which is travelling at the speed of light will allow light to travel at the speed of light from the back of the ship to the front, and in doing so, that light will travel at twice the speed of light. (watch the youtube video)
    2. There is no magical and universal speed barrier, no universal speed cop if you will. For example. A ball projected from the same spaceship, projected forward into space, will travel faster than the speed of light, by the aforementioned property of inheritance. The projectile will not encounter a magical barrier. The projectile will simply arrive at its destination before the picture of the projectile arrives.
    So, would I be correct in thinking that your claim is that the speed of everything is always relative, including the speed of light?
    And that the evidence you have to support that is that the speed of waves in liquid are relative?
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    flattened rat 甘肃人's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Gansu
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    Einstein asked, but what would happen if you were walking at the speed of light and you swing your arm forwards?

    Nope.

    Turns out, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize, the brothers will have aged very differently.

    No they won't.
    Their appearance may differ
    to a greater or lesser extent, but that's bugger all to do with ageing at different rates.

    Tis called Wear-and-Tear
    No it's not.

    Observations which Suggest the Speed of Light isn't the Limit.
    It would help if you knew what you were talking about.
    Unfortunately it's evident that you don't.
    I am new here, but I have noticed that many of your posts are much like this one. What is the point of just saying, "No." Nope." and "No, it's not." to everything? All you seem to do is knock every body down and insist on bone-dry literalism in every statement. If you have knowledge, please share it. Please explain why this poster and the others you treat similarly are mistaken. As the Monty Python sketch points out the automatic gainsaying of every statement someone else makes is not an argument.
    And what does the Lord require of you but to love justice, to be merciful and to walk humbly with Him?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by 甘肃人 View Post
    I am new here, but I have noticed that many of your posts are much like this one. What is the point of just saying, "No." Nope." and "No, it's not." to everything? All you seem to do is knock every body down and insist on bone-dry literalism in every statement. If you have knowledge, please share it. Please explain why this poster and the others you treat similarly are mistaken. As the Monty Python sketch points out the automatic gainsaying of every statement someone else makes is not an argument.
    IF someone bothers to support their arguments THEN I will give detailed refutations.
    But, WHEN someone simply chooses to make incorrect claims (which show that they don't know what they're talking about - i.e. are completely unfamiliar with the material they claim to be showing as wrong) I feel no obligation to provide anything more than I did here.
    It's not up to me to provide such people with an education - especially in the basics of a topic - when they're (by their own claims, implicit or explicit) obviously arrogant/ deluded enough to think that they can find flaws in science they know nothing about.
    They're not here to learn, simply to make (incorrect) claims (and, presumably, garner plaudits/ attention).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    CallMeEm,
    What you have described is basically the luminous aether theory as it existed in the 19th century, which was disproven by the Michelson-Morley experiments in the 1880s. It is okay that you don't know this, and we are happy to answer such na´ve questions as yours. However when you claim to know better than all the learned physicists who have studied this over the last 100+ years, it's going to raise some hackles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by 甘肃人 View Post
    As the Monty Python sketch points out the automatic gainsaying of every statement someone else makes is not an argument.
    Yes it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    In this text Game I try to Shoot-Down Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity before You type tl;dr in the Comments


    My Explanation of Einsteins Special Relativity
    When you swing your arm forward you make your arm travel through the air, above the ground. If you swing your arm forward, while walking, you make your arm travel further and faster. Happily, an ordinary person can act this out, by comparing the distance between the starting position and ending positions of their hand for both cases, walking and standing still.

    Einstein asked, but what would happen if you were walking at the speed of light and
    you swing your arm forwards? (You see, Einstein believed the speed of light can't be beaten.)

    Einstein theorized; In that case, swinging your arm forward will force your arm to attempt to exceed the speed of light. Then he theorized that the passage of Time and length that is distance will have to distort in order to accommodate the fact that your arm moves forwards without exceeding light-speed.

    Nope. While Einstein does mention in his autobiography about a daydream when his was 16 in which he imagined traveling at the speed of light, it never involved swinging his arm forward or the speed of light as a speed limit. It involved how a light beam traveling along side of him would appear. The conclusion was that such a light beam should appear "frozen" to him; Something I 'll touch on later.

    Neither did Einstein start out with the idea that the speed of light could not be exceeded, that turned out to be a consequence of the theory he would develop
    That led physicists to consider the following speculation. Suppose one of two identical brothers got into a spaceship and traveled about, before returning. When those two brothers met once more, they should have aged differently, as a result of the distortion of time.

    The Interesting Experiment Scientists Did
    Earlier I said I'd remind you of an interesting experiment which which let the Reader breathe a sigh of relief.
    Here it is. Scientists, interested in Einstein, asked themselves whether his theory could be confirmed by experimental method. And so, they got two atomic clocks. One clock remained behind, while the other traveled about in an aeroplane. When they brought those two "brothers" together, scientists found the readings on the atomic clocks differed. *much excitement followed*

    Putting Einsteins Theory in it's Place.
    For our two brothers, suppose we buy two identical cars, some bricks, a dust cover, and hire a storage unit. We put one of the brothers in the dark storage unit, on bricks, under the dust cover. The other car we park in the lot outside, and never move. The first brother passes the time ensconced, whereas the second car passes the time beneath the sun, rain, hail, wind, dust. . . Fifteen years later we'll compare the age of those "brothers" and find . . .

    Turns out, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize, the brothers will have aged very differently.

    Fact is, every difference between the different paths through space and time alters the rapidity at which a body ages. Tis called Wear-and-Tear and scientists could teach it to everybody, once they get their heads out the clouds.

    Why should scientists teach something that is not true. Your " wear and tear" idea just doesn't work. Repeat the experiment done with the cars but put a clock with each. If you do the comparison later, you find that both clocks read the same, the one under the tarp doesn't read less time than the other. One reason that atomic clocks were used in the experiment is that they are not subject to outside environmental influences.

    In addition, it is just not a matter of there being a difference in the clocks, it is the fact that this difference matches the amount predicted by the theory, something verified by countless experiments under different conditions.
    Technically, my friends, that concludes the Game. However, you are welcome to try this BONUS ROUND

    Observations which Suggest the Speed of Light isn't the Limit.

    Background
    1. All substances like water, air and rock can be compressed to varying degrees. They also spring back by different amounts. If you'll forgive me, I'm going to name that property "springiness", as in; The speed at which waves move through a substance is determined by the springiness of the substance. To make a wave move faster actually requires changing the substance the wave passes through. For example, making a bigger splash in a pool just makes bigger waves, it doesn't make those waves any faster.
    2. When a person throws a ball forwards while running, the speed of the ball, relative to the ground, is the sum of the thrown speed plus the running speed. Apologies, because I'm going to phrase that; Unlike waves, objects can "inherit" speed. For example, the wake of the ship doesn't inherit the speed of a ship. This is because the speed of the wave is determined by the springiness of the substance it is passing through. Particles can inherit speed, waves cannot do it.


    Einstein explained that a beam of light, shone from the head lights of a space ship which is travelling at the speed of light, cannot advance ahead of the space ship because the springiness of the vacuum determines lights speed. Light is unable inherit the velocity of the spaceship. The light and the spaceship travel side by side, at light speed.

    Again, Einstein said nothing of the sort. While Einstein accepted that that the speed of light was ruled by Maxwell's equations, he also held that these equation held fro all inertial frames. So while for someone watching the ship and light going by at light speed they do indeed travel side by side (Though to be fair Relativity does not allow the ship to travel at c). But for someone riding in the ship the light does travel ahead of the ship at c. This means that you cannot determine your speed by measuring your speed with respect to light. ( as confirmed by the aforementioned Michelson-Morley experiments. The reason the light doesn't doesn't travel ahead at c and thus be seen as traveling at 2c according to our observer watching the ship go past at c comes back to Einstein's teenage thought experiment. We measure light coming from all types of sources moving at all types of speeds and directions. If the light propagated in the this matter, some of the light would have its speed reduced with respect to us by the relative motion of the source. So we should measure light moving at all kinds of speeds. This never happens, light always is measured as moving at the same speed with respect to us no matter what the relative speed of the source.

    The Pool of a Cruise Ship.
    Youtube videos of pools on cruise ships prove that water waves on a cruise ship move forwards and backwards normally, irrespective of the speed of the cruise ship. Another example, the waves in a beverage in the hand of someone flying as a passenger on the concorde were happy to break the sound barrier. Therefore, one can conclude the following;
    1. Although the speed of a wave is limited by the substance it is travelling through, the wave is able to inherit the speed of the substance. For example, a spaceship which is travelling at the speed of light will allow light to travel at the speed of light from the back of the ship to the front, and in doing so, that light will travel at twice the speed of light. (watch the youtube video)
    2. There is no magical and universal speed barrier, no universal speed cop if you will. For example. A ball projected from the same spaceship, projected forward into space, will travel faster than the speed of light, by the aforementioned property of inheritance. The projectile will not encounter a magical barrier. The projectile will simply arrive at its destination before the picture of the projectile arrives.


    While the above seems to be true at everyday speeds, this is just because we can't measure these speeds accurately enough. If we could, we would see that the final speeds of both the wave and the ball come out to being less than the direct addition of their individual speed. As the speeds increase, the variance from the direct addition of speeds becomes greater. The sum of these speeds will never exceed c.

    The speed of light is not some "magical barrier" wherein nothing happens up to the point where you reach it. The speed of light is built into the very nature of reality and has an effect at all speeds. This effect is just very hard to measure at the types of speeds we normally deal with.

    In conclusion, it is clear that you have not done a lot of research into what the Theory of Relativity actually is or how it was developed. This is always the first step before you can even attempt to refute any theory. No existing theory was ever overthrown by someone who did not have a thorough grasp of the existing theory.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    The original post begins apologetically. It said the explanation, to come, would not going to coincide with the historic truth. It simply tried to explain why time and distance would have to distort when moving at the speed of light, in Einsteins theoretical universe where lightspeed is the absolute maximum. The reader was told the relevant atomic clock experiment would be used to tidy up the shortcomings.



    The first part obviously refers to the subsequent experiment which scientists performed on two atomic clocks. Like the cars in the explanation, scientists did not move either clock. They merely distressed one clock in order to determine whether it's time would also drift apart. You see, Wear-n-Tear includes all factors which would change the rate at which time appears to pass.

    Calling Wear-n-Tear pseudoscience, because you like Einstein, is a laughable mistake.


    That said, the bonus round is more interesting. The waterwaves in a glass of water in the hand of a person flying in an aeroplane move outwards concentrically. They don't trail a wake. Therefore, the shockwave from the gunpowder would move outwards concentrically, even when fired in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light. There's every reason to believe that a spaceship, travelling at the speed of light can shoot a cannonball ahead of the ship because cannonballs aren't going to have a problem arriving at their destination before the picture of them arrives.


    I don't think Einstein would have nitpicked the details. Surely he'd have considered the wear-n-tear experiment, and the ability of waves to inherit the speed of the material they are passing through.

    I think I'm gonna post a Game about Climate Change next. Man, that is going sting and sting.
    *sigh*
    Cest la Vie
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Trash please mods.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    You see, Wear-n-Tear includes all factors which would change the rate at which time appears to pass.
    Except the amount of change. You don't just have to explain why the clock readings are different. You also have to explain why the amount of difference agrees with relativity.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeEm View Post
    They merely distressed one clock in order to determine whether it's time would also drift apart.
    Wrong. They "distressed" four clocks, two flying east and two flying west. The ones flying east lost time and the ones flying west gained time. So your wear and tear explanation doesn't cut the mustard.

    I think I'm gonna post a Game about Climate Change next. Man, that is going sting and sting.
    *sigh*
    Cest la Vie
    If you make another pseudoscience post without answering the objections people have posted in this thread, you are in danger of branding yourself a hardened crank. Hardened cranks tend to have a limited life on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,619
    Is "CallMeEm" yet another sockpuppet of EmmaRoydes? The lack of science and dumbness of the posts is familiar...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,319
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Is "CallMeEm" yet another sockpuppet of EmmaRoydes? The lack of science and dumbness of the posts is familiar...
    The net is vast, but our corner of it is small. So I give further sockpuppetry by the troll pooparhoids a high probability. It seems that all such occurrences have received a merciless
    ban hammering, of which I heartily approve.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. About Einstein's special relativity theory
    By Dinesh balu in forum Physics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2013, 05:41 AM
  2. einsteins theory of relativity disproven
    By The Mag Suit in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 10th, 2010, 09:49 AM
  3. Special Relativity Theory
    By darmic in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 19th, 2008, 11:50 PM
  4. Special theory of relativity
    By Photon in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 13th, 2006, 03:23 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •