Proof Relativity is Illogical?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zero_gravity</i>
<br />Mathematically, these expressions state that:
length is a function of velocity;
and time is a function of velocity:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your equations do not show up. But the gist of the argument is clear, and it is wrong. Length and time are not functions of velocity in one's own frame. Perceived length and perceived time in another frame with a relative velocity are functions of that velocity. That eliminates any supposed circularity. -|Tom|-

Yes.[] Sorry about that. The equations were in graphics, which didn't display for some reason. Here's the page.

grandunification.com/hypertext/Proof_Rel...ity%20is%20Illogical

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But the gist of the argument is clear, and it is wrong. Length and time are not functions of velocity in one's own frame. Perceived length and perceived time in another frame with a relative velocity are functions of that velocity. That eliminates any supposed circularity. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yep.[] Figured it was something like that. But like I said I'm not a relativist or a crank with a crackpot theory. I'm just an interested bystander. Computer programmer by trade.

What do you make of his claim that relativity is just a correction factor?[?]

grandunification.com/hypertext/GeometryO...ty.html#INTRODUCTION



de profundis per ardua ad astra

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zero_gravity</i>
<br />What do you make of his claim that relativity is just a correction factor?[?]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It makes no sense to me to use light or speed c in any definition or realization of frame-independent time. In short, he makes too many unacceptable assumptions. I thought Einstein's two were bad enough. It's best not to make assumptions where avoidable because they inevitably turn out wrong. -|Tom|-

Tom,

In the 1905 paper:

"If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. "


It reads like poetry, but looking at the two paragraphs, I can only shake my head and wonder how this has come through any serious review. The wordplay "immediate proximity" is absolutely fantastical.


" Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of ``simultaneous,'' or ``synchronous,'' and of ``time.'' The ``time'' of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock."


When he start using the word "evidently", I have really touched the essence of sorrow.

Tom, it is not my intention to redicule in any way, but you have to concede that the first two paragraphs of Einstein's paper leave any human being in utter disarry.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />It reads like poetry, but looking at the two paragraphs, I can only shake my head and wonder how this has come through any serious review.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And it reads routinely once you grasp the desynchronization of time in other frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The wordplay "immediate proximity" is absolutely fantastical.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It was a first attempt to express the ideas. The "proximity" point has no real relevance today. Pretend Einstein omitted those words. Don't get distracted by red herrings.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When he start using the word "evidently", I have really touched the essence of sorrow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Einstein was writing for a different audience in a different time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you have to concede that the first two paragraphs of Einstein's paper leave any human being in utter disarry.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The physical interpretation of SR was amended four times since 1905. If you want to have relevance to today's relativists, stick with the 2003 physical interpretation, not the 1905 one. Like most great minds, Einstein changed his mind and freely admitted error many times in his career. By 1920, he had adopted the aether again, largely in response to the deSitter and Sagnac experiments showing that accelerated motion was absolute.

I also recommend a close reading of the relevant chapters of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". One key lesson that influenced me is that science as a body doesn't admit error, but insists on maintaining the illusion of continual progress. As this pertains to SR, you will not live to see a day when relativists concede that SR is dead. The lesson of Kuhn and history is that SR will continue to morph until it turns into LR or whatever theory actually describes nature -- and history will record that as natural progress as science advances.

After reading this and seeing the wisdom of recognizing the human and political aspects to science, you may spend less time tilting at windmills and more time speeding the transition to that inevitable future. After all, the goal is increasing the body of valid human knowledge, not vindication or making relativists cry "uncle". -|Tom|-

Tom,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I also recommend a close reading of the relevant chapters of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions". One key lesson that influenced me is that science as a body doesn't admit error, but insists on maintaining the illusion of continual progress. As this pertains to SR, you will not live to see a day when relativists concede that SR is dead. The lesson of Kuhn and history is that SR will continue to morph until it turns into LR or whatever theory actually describes nature -- and history will record that as natural progress as science advances.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Actually, SR is an elegant theory, no doubt about it, but it has shunned all physical intuition and reduced all physical phenomena and experiences to points in some set of coordinate axes. SR should not be eliminated at all cost, but it should be acknowledged that it is rather extreme: if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">After reading this and seeing the wisdom of recognizing the human and political aspects to science, you may spend less time tilting at windmills and more time speeding the transition to that inevitable future. After all, the goal is increasing the body of valid human knowledge, not vindication or making relativists cry "uncle". -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely, but this statement comes from a healthy sceptic. [] Relativists may think differently and are likely not willing to see the theory amended. After all, SR is a conviction, not a physical truth.