
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
5th December 2014, 04:48 PM  #1 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334

Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies

An electron and a positron at rest can annihilate into two photons, each with a frequency corresponding to mass/energy of one electron (or positron). In order to refute SR, we simply ask what happens in this situation: Electron and positron annihilate while both moving at (relativistic) speed v.From energy conservation we conclude: The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photonpair is higher than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to the annihilation event with rest mass, as kinetic energy of the electronpositronpair increases the sum of the photon frequencies.From time dilation (or relativistic Doppler effect) we conclude: The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photonpair is lower than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to an annihilation event with rest mass, as time dilation reduces photon frequencies.Using common sense, we can easily recognize that a real experiment can only confirm energy conservation (i.e. higher frequencies) and refute time dilation.  [1] Two photons with freq_{1} and freq_{2} have the same energy as a single photon with freq_{sum} = freq_{1} + freq_{2}, i.e. total frequency is proportional to total energy. [2] The relativistic Doppler effect is the combination of the classical Doppler effect [3] with time dilation of SR. [3] with observer (=receiver) at rest relative to the medium, and a source moving at c < v < c 
5th December 2014, 05:03 PM  #2 
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387

"For dummies" indeed. Why would you calculating the "sum of the frequencies" and transforming it? Go ahead and transform each of the frequencies, and then sum them. (Don't forget that the two photons are moving in opposite directions.)
I recommend actually showing your transformationformula and how you applied it. (I do not recommend skipping the math and guessing you know the answer.) 
5th December 2014, 05:10 PM  #3 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,603


__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard) 

5th December 2014, 05:16 PM  #4 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,895

Because we've got no actual practical experience of smashing particles together at relativistic velocities... oh wait!

6th December 2014, 12:58 PM  #5 
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852

Refuting Einstein's theory of special relativity would involve a twostep process.
First, one must attain a thorough knowledge of the the theory, including its inherent predictions (with mathematical precision). Second, conduct an actual experiment showing that the theory is not consistent with the outcome of that experiment (with mathematical precision). Hint: start with step one. 
__________________
_{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.  Richard P. Feynman} ξ 

6th December 2014, 01:11 PM  #6 
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804


__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here. 

6th December 2014, 01:26 PM  #7 
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,428

see my post in the Deep Purple thread

__________________
Unamerican Jackbooted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster 

6th December 2014, 02:44 PM  #8 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264

It's amazing how hard people work to avoid a clue.

__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."  Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 911 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." DavidByron 

6th December 2014, 03:26 PM  #9 
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 2,634

This is just a few copy+pastes from a wiki without actually reading the details, isn't it?

6th December 2014, 04:07 PM  #10 
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044

Okay, where's the refutation? All I see is a suggestion for an experiment that's already been performed to confirm relativity. At high enough energies, they start producing particles other than photons...
Originally Posted by Wikipedia

__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality."  hamelekim 

6th December 2014, 04:07 PM  #11 
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 2,249


__________________
Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know. 

6th December 2014, 10:33 PM  #12 
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673

If "Special Relativity For Dummies" needs refutation, have at it. I'm still working my way through "Sandwiches For Dummies."

6th December 2014, 11:29 PM  #13 
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,754

Well, whatever the OP was going for didn't work. When it comes to high energy physics, I am as much of a dummy as one can get. And I didn't understand a word of this.

__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^{t} L. Leader 

7th December 2014, 12:23 AM  #14 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167

If the photons are twins, does one end up younger? That's the one I want to see in a dummy version  the one where I get younger than you lot.

7th December 2014, 06:43 AM  #15 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334

Sorry, the thread title should rather be:
Refutation of Special Relativity from Idiocy When dealing with massenergy equivalence and center of mass/energy considerations in another thread, I got the impression that it is possible to derive relativistic time dilation (according to the Lorentz factor). Because of an unfortunate series of events/mistakes, I came to the opposite conclusion, namely that Lorentzfactor timedilation must be wrong. Reasoning "massenergy conservation" An electronpositron pair moves at v and disintegrates into two photons, propagating along the line of v with c and c. The center of mass of the two emerging photons must continue to move at v. This can only happen if the relativistic mass m_{1} of the forward moving photon is higher than m_{2} of the backward moving photon: p_{tot} / m_{tot} = v (m_{1} c  m_{2} c) / (m_{1} + m_{2}) = v (m_{1} c  m_{2} c) = (m_{1} v + m_{2} v) m_{1} (cv) = m_{2} (c+v) m_{1} = m_{2} (c+v)/(cv) In the case of photons, relativistic mass is proportional to frequency. So we conclude: f_{1} = f_{2} (c+v)/(cv) The energy of the electronpositron pair was 2 y E, where E = 511 keV is the restenergy of an electron or proton, and y the Lorentz factor of v. As f = E/h we get: f_{1} + f_{2} = 2 y E / h Reasoning "relativistic Doppler effect" Now, let us apply the relativistic Doppler effect with observer velocity v to this situation: An electronpositron pair at rest gives rise to two photons moving (along the line of v) in opposite directions with each frequency f. In the restframe, we get: f = E/h = 511 keV / h For the moving observer, the relativistic Doppler effect leads to two photons of different frequency and energy: f_{1} = f (c+v)^{0.5}/(cv)^{0.5} f_{2} = f (cv)^{0.5}/(c+v)^{0.5} E_{1} = h f_{1} = h f (c+v)^{0.5}/(cv)^{0.5} E_{2} = h f_{2} = h f (cv)^{0.5}/(c+v)^{0.5} We get: f_{1} = f_{2} (c+v)/(cv) E_{1} + E_{2} = 2 h f ( (c+v)^{0.5}/(cv)^{0.5} + (cv)^{0.5}/(c+v)^{0.5} ) = 2 h f / (1v^{2}/c^{2})^{0.5} = 2 E y f_{1} + f_{2} = 2 y E / h = 2 f / (1v_{2}/c_{2})^{0.5} Conlusion Both reasonings lead to the same frequencies of the emerging photon pair. Therefore it is not possible to refute SR in this way. The error in post #1 My loose concept "sum of frequencies of the emerging photon pair calculated by applying classical Doppler shift" is the main culprit. If we do the calculation (taking into account [3] of #1), we get f_{1} = f / (cv) f_{2} = f / (c+v) f_{1} + f_{2} = (c+v)+(cv) / (cv)(c+v) = 2 f / (1v^{2}/c^{2}) = 2 f y^{2} Concerning "energyconservation" we conclude: The sum (f_{1}+ f_{2} = 2 f y) of the two frequencies of the photonpair (emerging from the moving electronpositron pair) is In any case, this shows that velocitydependent time dilation can be derived from massenergy equivalence, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass/energy alone, without the necessity of the Lorentz transformation. So experimental proof for relativistic time dilation can only be considered evidence, but not proof for the Lorentz transformation, as time dilation follows from conservation laws simpler than the Lorentz transformation. By the way, many experimental results rather show what experimentalists think nature does than what nature actually does. Until now I have left open the question, whether I should believe in Lorentzfactor timedilation or not. Now I have to start to believe in it. (I'm careful and arrogant enough to only believe in what I can understand myself.) Cheers, Wolfgang 
7th December 2014, 10:15 AM  #16 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413

This is incorrect because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. You added the velocities linearly. However, you should have used the formula for relativistic addition of velocities.
This is a mathematical mistake on your part. It has nothing to do with any internal inconsistencies in relativity. Let the relativistic sum of u and c be U. By the formula for relativistic sum: U = (C+u)/(1+cu/c^2) Therefore, U=c. Similarly, let the relativistic difference between u and c be U'. By the formula for relativistic subtraction of velocities: U'=(cu)/(1cu/c^2) Therefore, U'=c. There is no u+c or uc anywhere in the frequencies. Both photons in the center of mass rest frame (CMRF) are moving at the same speed, c. f = f (c)0.5/(c)0.5 E1 = h f1 = h f (c)0.5/(c)0.5=hf E2 = h f2 = h f (c)0.5/(c)0.5=hf Your mistake may have come from an incorrect application of the time dilation formula. The time dilation formula has some restrictions on it because it is only part of the Lorentz transformation. However, I'll wait a bit to let someone else have a chance. 
7th December 2014, 02:16 PM  #17 
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,461

"If it weren't for you meddling kids!"

__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out. I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it. 

7th December 2014, 02:51 PM  #18 
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581


7th December 2014, 02:55 PM  #19 
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581


7th December 2014, 03:30 PM  #20 
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592


__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald 

7th December 2014, 05:15 PM  #21 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413

I am having trouble with his double negative statements.
Was he trying to prove that SR was inconsistent, or that SR is consistent? I thought he was trying to disprove SR. So I pointed out a mathematical error that I thought he made. I reread his posts and got confused. Just what was the OP refuting and why ?! 
7th December 2014, 06:19 PM  #22 
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302


__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor 

7th December 2014, 06:25 PM  #23 
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581


7th December 2014, 07:18 PM  #24 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510

IMO: This is the biggest error in the post  photons have no rest mass in theory and a tiny upper limit experimentally.
That using SR you can derive SR Massenergy equivalence is a result from SR. It depends on "Lorentzfactor timedilation" existing. No Lorentz invariance = no massenergy equivalence. Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not "proof" for the Lorentz transformation. Experimental evidence for Lorentz invariance are the experimental tests of Lorentz invariance: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 8. Recent Tests of CPT and Lorentz Invariance 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

12th December 2014, 07:11 PM  #25 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413

Slight correction in the wording.
Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not proof, the Lorentz invariance of the system being studied. It is not evidence for 'the Lorentz transformation' because the Lorentz transformation is entirely mathematical. The Lorentz transformation per se does not have to relate to anything physical. The Lorentz transformation is applied to to numbers. The physical assumption is that the dynamics of the system as determined in an inertial frame are not changed by a Lorentz transformation. The relativistic kinematics accurately describes the system in all inertial frames because the dynamics (i.e., forces) are Lorentz invariant. Consider the experiment where muons that were rapidly moving in the laboratory frame decayed at a much slower rate than other muons that were stationary in the laboratory frame. This experiment demonstrates 'time dilation'. However, time is part of the kinematics. The important point is what special relativity says about the dynamics. The decay of muons is mediated by the 'weak force'. Special relativity says that all forces, including the weak force, are Lorentz invariant. If the muons did not show time dilation, then relativity would have been shown wrong because the weak force is not Lorentz invariant. Dynamics includes all forces between objects. Measuring instruments work because of their internal forces. A clock ticks because the forces inside the clock are making something oscillate at a certain frequency. The forces that make a clock tick satisfy certain force laws. Rulers measure length because the forces holding the ruler together maintain its shape and size. If the forces that maintain a rulers shape satisfy certain force laws. If the force laws are the same for all inertial frames, then the forces are Lorentz invariant. The reason that the speed of light is Lorentz invariant is because all forces in the universe are Lorentz invariant. This includes the forces that hold the 'observers' together. However, different observers may observe forces of different magnitudes and directions. Allow me to use an analogy from mundane geography. The surface of the earth has been known to be round by most educated people since about 300 BC. Yes, there were a few educated people who couldn't accept this until recently. However, people made maps based on a round earth anyway. The curvature of the earth's surface is not easily analyzed by Euclidean geometry. So maps were made using projective geometry that compensated for the curvature of the earth. Navigators and surveyors have been using the kinematics of a spheroid earth years before Newtonian wrote 'Principia'. They did not know about the forces that kept the earth round. They cared even less about what kept the earth round. They used various mathematical projections to 'fit' a curved surface to a flat piece of paper. Newton knew all about the round earth theory. Newton's theory does not contradict the round earth theory. In fact, his theory can be used to make better projections and better maps of the earths surface. The surface of the earth is kept round by forces. The shape of the earth was soon defined in terms of the forces that hold the earth together. For example, the shape of the earth is actually defined in terms of the Euclidean geodesic. The surface of the earth is defined by the surface of constant gravitational potential that determines the general shape of the ocean's surface. It is not perturbed by the existence of waves. Sea level is a well defined surface that is determined by the gravitational and elastic forces. 'Round' is just geometry. You can always use geometry without know the details of the forces involved. However, round is a product of dynamics. The reason that the earth is round is because of forces. The shape of the earth is not determined by nonEuclidean geometry. NonEuclidean geometry is just the result of forces. 
16th December 2014, 11:00 AM  #26 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334

It is true that later in #21 you recognized that you "got confused" when writing this. Nevertheless, you did not address your mistakes. Why? My above formulas are simply the formulas of the relativistic Doppler effect: Motion along the line of sight. The relativistic Doppler formulas can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: receiver velocity relative to the medium v_{receiver} = 0. Thus v = v_{source}, and we get: f[v] = f_{0} c / (c+v)The second premise is time dilation of the moving source (i.e. source time running slower) by the Lorentzfactor y[v] = (1v^{2}/c^{2})^{0.5} >= 1. We derive: f[v] = f_{0} c / (c+v) / y[v]The reasoning is not only formal, but also very concrete and intuitively accessible, e.g. by counting the wave periods received by an observer at rest. Assume that a radio source, having a constant frequency f = 1 GHz at rest, moves at v = 0.8 c, passing observer 0 at x_{0} = 0 and then observer 1 at x_{1} = L = 1 LS (1 Light Second = 300 000 km). The "events" of crossing observer 0 and of crossing observer 1 are clearly defined in all inertial frames. In our rest frame, we also know that it takes for the source t = L/v = 1 LS / 0.8 c = 1.25 seconds to move from x_{0} to x_{1}. (Light needs 1 second for the distance of 1 LS). Let us now at first assume that frequency f of the source is not affected by the propagation speed v: During the passage from x_{0} to x_{1}, the source emits n = f t = f L/v = 1.25 x 10^9 periods. The wave periods before the source are obviously compressed from c/f to (cv)/f (i.e. by factor (cv)/c = 0.2). Thus frequency of forward moving waves is increased to f[v] = c/(cv) f = 5 GHz. To get the frequency of backward propagating radiation we use –v instead of v (as movement of source is opposite to wave propagation): f[v] = c/(c+v) f = 1/1.8 GHzFrom the case where a source is completely converted into radiation (see #15) we conclude that the frequencies f[v] and f[v] must be reduced by the Lorentzfactor y[v] in order to satisfy energy conservation. This frequency decrease can be explained by time running slower by the same factor. In order to confirm or refute the Lorentz transformation, we must check the opposite case: moving observer and stationary sources. According to common sense: For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs faster than proper (own) time.And according to the Lorentz transformation: For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs slower than proper time, as time dilation is mutual (leading to the so called twin paradox).Cheers, Wolfgang A refutation actually satisfying the thread title: Light clock refutes constancy of c 
16th December 2014, 01:41 PM  #27 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510

... your long rant can be condensed into: Relativistic Doppler effect !
...you ignorantly used classical physics in a SR problem. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

16th December 2014, 01:45 PM  #28 
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581


16th December 2014, 02:24 PM  #29 
You can't expect perfection.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512

Right after reading what wogoga wrote, my GPS stopped working.
Paul 
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned  God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing 

18th December 2014, 10:54 AM  #30 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413

Because I am still confused as to your claims. There are three mutually exclusive claims that you made in this thread. At one point, you claimed to find a logical inconsistency in relativity. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity was inconsistent with experimental results. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity is not necessary to explain experimental results.
Your claims is unclear. I think that I may have been wrong about one of the claims that I made. However, that would probably mean that you are wrong in one of the three claims that you made. I admit that I don't understand your argument as a whole. Therefore, I will just pick at specific hypotheses that you present in your argument, regardless of what your conclusions are. You are right. This is the formula for a relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect. I may have have been wrong when I claimed this was wrong. You got me once. Fine. You used the correct formula for relativistic longitudinal Doppler shift. This formula would apply as long as neither source or observer are accelerating due to external forces. If the observer is in an inertial frame, if the source is moving at a constant velocity relative to that observer, and if there is a vacuum between source and observer, then this formula is correct. Note that both acceleration and velocity are vectors. So the source can maintain a constant speed but have a nonzero acceleration due to a change in the velocities direction. So this Doppler formula does not have to be true for a rotating frame of reference. It certainly won't hold for the accelerating twin during acceleration. I can't find this 'common sense' person. I looked for polls and surveys that asked peoples opinion on this topic. I could not find any polls or surveys. I do know Newtonian physics as presented in Principia. I have found some people that claim 'Newton's physics are 'common sense'. , I know a bit about Galilean transforms. According to these preEinstein views of the universe, the clocks in a source should run at the same speed as ones own proper time. Newton hypothesized an absolute time that runs the same for all observers throughout the universe. Newton did not assume that there was a local interaction that changed the rate of the clocks. The Galilean transformation does not effect the time component. So both Newton and Galileo disagree with your common sense. However, I am not sure whether this is really the issue. So lets continue. Back to relativity. Neither Einsteinian nor Lorentzian relativity says anything that you claim. The Lorentz transformation does not say all moving clocks have to move slower than the stationary clocks. In fact, a clock that is accelerating could be running faster than a stationary clock that isn't accelerating. The Lorentz transformation of time has a term 'vx/c^2' term in addition to the gamma factor. This term becomes important when a force causes acceleration. In an inertial frame, 'v' can only be changed due to a real force. So the change has an asymmetry due to force. The 'rate of time' has an explicit dependence both on dynamical acceleration and distance because of this 'vx/c^2' term. Therefore, an accelerating observer will have a different 'rate of time than an inertial observer, even if the two are moving with the same velocity as long as the two are in different positions. I predict that you will either ignore or blithely dismiss the 'vx/c^2' term in the Lorentz transformation no matter how many times someone else brings it up. Yeah, yeah. You too. 
18th December 2014, 11:16 AM  #31 
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,312

What I've never understood, why should physics at the scales/energies/speeds where relativity theories become important make 'common sense' at all?
Common sense is something we develop by observation of cause and effect on the scales that our senses are evolved to deal with. It would have been nice and easy if this was directly scalable to any size and speed, but as it turned out nature does not work that way. At which point it starts doing things that do NOT make 'common sense'. But the fact that we are too limited to observe those effects directly does not make them any less relevant. It makes no common sense that an electron which has virtually no mass and size whatsoever is able to prevent two atoms from getting closer together when you push them. But they still do. It doesn't make common sense that a clock on a fast moving sattelite runs slower than on earth. But it still does. It makes no common sense that some small particles can be both a wave and a particle. But that is still how they behave. Quantum tunnelling makes no common sense, but enzymes still use it for function. Rather than be annoyed at nature for not being as simple as you want it to be, why not marvel at the intellect of humanity that we are unraveling how these things work? 
18th December 2014, 02:22 PM  #32 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413

I read your link. The link shows how you are wrong.
You are wrong about the speed of light always being constant according to relativity. The vacuum speed of light does vary significantly under specific conditions according to Einsteinian relativity. The vacuum speed of light, c, is only constant in an inertial frame. The vacuum speed of light, c, varies greatly with distance in a non inertial frame. The vacuum speed of light IS NOT constant in a gravitational field. The speed of light varies with position for an observer in a gravitational field. The vacuum speed of light is a effectively constant for local measurements, meaning for positions close to the point observer. However, the speed of light varies with the displacement of the point of measurement from the point of observation. An observer in a non inertial field is under the influence of a gravitational field according to relativity. I have no free link to the following article. All net copies are pay walled, so far as I know. However, I have a copy of the book in my hand. So I will merely quote from the essay: On the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light' by Albert Einstein in 'The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H.Weyl. (Dover Publications, Translation published 1923). Page 107 of the reference above: c = c0 (1+[phi]/c^2) . . . . (3) The principle of the constancy in the speed of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.' The constant, c0, is the vacuum speed of light shown in textbooks and handbooks. For a linearly acceleration observer, [phi]=a x, where a is the dynamic acceleration of the observer and x is the distance to the observation point where the positive direction is the direction of acceleration. Also note that acceleration is a dynamic quantity. It is defined by: F=ma where F is the strength of the external force acting on the observer in the observer in the collinear inertial frame and m is the mass of the observer. 
12th August 2015, 12:48 PM  #33 
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334

There is a second possibility to derive the same formula: So instead of derivation 1
At least in case of timedilation of objects moving around closed tracks in particle accelerators, derivation 1 cannot be applied to radiation emitted from acceleratorparts (assumed at rest) and received resp. observed by such a highspeed object. The reason is simple: Insofar as time of the highspeed object runs slower with respect to the particleaccelerator, particleaccelerator time runs faster with respect to the highspeed object.And the application of the classical Doppler shift source at rest, moving observer in derivation 2 then shows that light propagation with respect to the moving highspeed observer cannot be c, but must be c+v or cv in the longitudinal case. Cheers, Wolfgang LorentzEtherTheory and SR Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion 
12th August 2015, 01:21 PM  #34 
beerswilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,364

Quote:

__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister 

12th August 2015, 01:22 PM  #35 
Possible Suspect
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stowe VT USA
Posts: 2,971

You might want to write a paper for peer review. Such a ground breaking addition to physics is bound to win you the Nobel Prize. Of course, you'll have a tough uphill fight just like Einstein did.
Then again, SR actually works in the real universe, if properly understood and applied. So I'd stick to your day job, and not plan on the windfall of the prize purse to fund your retirement. 
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes.  Robert A. Heinlein If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?  Jules Feiffer If you are going through hell, keep going  Winston Churchill 

12th August 2015, 02:05 PM  #36 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646

I am only willing to go so far as to title this:
Refutation of Special Relativity for People Who Do Not Understand It and Refuse to Try to Do So. Even if we ignore the mistakes in the "refutation" itself one must wonder what credit is to be gained from a demonstration that a "Relativity for Dummies" book doesn't present all the details that an expert would know. 
12th August 2015, 03:14 PM  #37 
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296

In this thread, we have a poster who presents all maths and no logic
Over in Waterbreather's thread, we have all logic and no maths... Both are about relativity... hmmmm What would happen if we combined the threads?

__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... 

12th August 2015, 05:44 PM  #38 
You can't expect perfection.
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512

Yep, my GPS still works.
Paul 
__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned  God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing 

13th August 2015, 02:03 PM  #39 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510

And total ignorance follows, wogoga.
Do you really think that SR ignores its postulate that the speed of light is c according to all inertial observers? Do you really think that scientists are so stupid that they do not test SR  including the speed of light from moving sources ! What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources Cheers, Reality Check 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

13th August 2015, 03:05 PM  #40 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,410


Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

