# Thread: A text Game around Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity

1. 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

2.

3. Why isn't this thread in "Trash"? "Pseudoscience" is too generous for it.

4. Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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.

5. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
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 :-)

6. Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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?

7. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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.

8. Originally Posted by 甘肃人
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).

9. 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 naïve 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.

10. Originally Posted by 甘肃人
As the Monty Python sketch points out the automatic gainsaying of every statement someone else makes is not an argument.
Yes it is.

11. Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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.

12. 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

14. Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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.

15. Originally Posted by CallMeEm
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.

16. Is "CallMeEm" yet another sockpuppet of EmmaRoydes? The lack of science and dumbness of the posts is familiar...

17. Originally Posted by PhDemon
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.