Proof of the falsity of the theory of special relativity?

[h0rus]

http://www.homepages.hetnet.nl/~ejlange/SRT.html

[DPDarkPrimus]

I doubt the person is able to even understand the theory. Certainly, most people cannot.

[Darth Wong]

I lack the patience to slog through the whole thing, but a few items caught my eye. His "philosophical" disproof of SR hinges on his claim that length and time dilation aren't "real" because you can't perceive the time or length dilation of a moving frame of reference while in that frame of reference.

This shows that he doesn't get the entire concept of relativity, which is that these perceptions are all relative, ie- they affect how your perception of distance and time are different from those of other observers. They are as real as any other observation; how does he define "real"?


PS. Both time and length dilation have been experimentally confirmed; a little item that he glosses over completely in his long-winded theorizing.

[Sea Skimmer]

PS. Both time and length dilation have been experimentally confirmed; a little item that he glosses over completely in his long-winded theorizing.

I know time dilation was shown via flying an atomic clock on a Concord and comparing it against one that remained in the lab, but how was length dilation demonstrated?

[Darth Wong]

I know time dilation was shown via flying an atomic clock on a Concord and comparing it against one that remained in the lab, but how was length dilation demonstrated?

Sorry, I was sort of treating them as a conjoined concept, so that if you prove one, you prove the other (in the sense that there is no theory which predicts one without the other; they are both produced by the same concept).

[kojikun]

The guys wrong tho. You CAN perceive time dilation if you are the one whos time is dilated because everyone BUT you would seem altered. However, the real kicker is that regardless of frame-of-reference, the faster the thing youre observing seems to go, the slow it gets. That raises an interesting problem, the twin paradox.

The twin paradox goes something like this:

Take two twins. Stick one on a spaceship, leave on on earth. The one in the spaceship goes off at the speed of light (or there about) and returns to earth 50 years layer, from earths POV. From earths POV, the twin in the ship looked like it was moving slower. From the ships point of view it looked like earth was moving slower. So when the twin steps off of the ship, who aged more?

Well the answer is that the twin on the earth aged more, because special relativity doesn't say that all Frames of Reference are relative, but rather that all INERTIAL Frames of Reference are relative. So because the ship is accelerating and decellerating, its time frame is not relative, and thus it is the one that is left younger.

[Datana]

Time dilation and length dilation are a joined concept, as DW says. What's next is what I remember of a course I took on relativistic time, so some details might be fuzzy; anyone who can correct me should feel free to do so. An example of joined time and length dilation are muons -- they decay extremely quickly (on the order of millionths of a second). Most muons we detect on the Earth's surface are generated in the upper atmosphere; this would be impossible normally, as they would decay too quickly even at the speed of light if they obeyed Newtonian time. The ones that reach us, though, are moving at near the speed of light and subject to special relativity, slowing down time for them in our reference frame and extending their effective lifetimes. If you could catch a ride along with an incoming muon, though, you'd instead find that the distance between you and Earth has been compressed as a result of your high speed and you cover the distance in the same amount of time as you would normally, with the muon decaying in the standard amount of time. No matter which frame you choose, however, the end result is the same in that the muon reaches the Earth's surface before decaying. Time and length dilation, then, are two sides of the same thing.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Anyone with a reputation, a certificate of crediblity, or some form of dignity would be posting their hypothesis on a database for review. Anyone who stoops to using a homepage site to propagate their ideas has already put up a warning flag:
"This is boring, probably quite long and poorly written, and dumb enough to cause permanent brain damage."

I swear one of these days you guys are going to give yourselves brain cancer reading this stuff.

[Warspite]

This site reminds me of the Autodyanmics site, and so far, (after what, 80 years?) SR hasn't been shown wrong.

[Sindai]

What an idiot. He can't seem to grasp the concept that two clocks in two different reference frames both tell time objectively and differently.

[Durandal]

The guys wrong tho. You CAN perceive time dilation if you are the one whos time is dilated because everyone BUT you would seem altered. However, the real kicker is that regardless of frame-of-reference, the faster the thing youre observing seems to go, the slow it gets. That raises an interesting problem, the twin paradox.

The twin paradox goes something like this:

Take two twins. Stick one on a spaceship, leave on on earth. The one in the spaceship goes off at the speed of light (or there about) and returns to earth 50 years layer, from earths POV. From earths POV, the twin in the ship looked like it was moving slower. From the ships point of view it looked like earth was moving slower. So when the twin steps off of the ship, who aged more?

Well the answer is that the twin on the earth aged more, because special relativity doesn't say that all Frames of Reference are relative, but rather that all INERTIAL Frames of Reference are relative. So because the ship is accelerating and decellerating, its time frame is not relative, and thus it is the one that is left younger.

Since special relativity deals exclusively with inertial frames, it's a safe bet that when someone makes a reference to a frame in the context of special relativity, he is talking about an inertial frame.

[SirNitram]

A philosophical disproof of a scientific theorem. I'll just say that much and leave, no more is needed.

[kojikun]

Since special relativity deals exclusively with inertial frames, it's a safe bet that when someone makes a reference to a frame in the context of special relativity, he is talking about an inertial frame.

I know, but it was interesting to bring up.

[Rye]

Has someone got a link for the concorde time dilation thing? I've brought that up in debates in the past, but never had the name of the experiment or any links to it.

[Durandal]

Since special relativity deals exclusively with inertial frames, it's a safe bet that when someone makes a reference to a frame in the context of special relativity, he is talking about an inertial frame.

I know, but it was interesting to bring up.

What's interesting about a theory which applies only to inertial frames not applying to non-inertial frames?

[kojikun]

What's interesting about a theory which applies only to inertial frames not applying to non-inertial frames?

Eeeeverythiiiing.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

The author proves only one thing--that he is unable to think beyond the box, so to speak.

Maybe I'm a sucker for style, but when I read a "scientific" paper, I expect it to be objective. There are far too many "I think", which makes me wonder if he does...

[Wicked Pilot]

From a short paper I wrote back in November

The Hafele and Keating Experiment was performed in 1971 to test one of the predictions of Special Relativity; the prediction that moving clocks slow down. Up until that time there had been much theoretical debate as to wether this prediction was accurate. The Hafele and Keating experiment gave direct evidence in support of this experiment, and laid to rest any doubt to the validity of Special Relativity.

C.F. Hafele and Richard E. Keating decided that the best way to test wether or not clocks slowed down at high speeds was to send clocks on high speed journeys and measure the results. They did this by flying four cesium beam atomic clocks on commercial flights around the world twice. They were sent eastward once, and sent westward once. Before the flights, the clocks were synchronized to the atomic clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory. After the flights, they were compared again to see what, if anything, had happened. It was predicted that the clocks traveling east should lose 40±23 nanoseconds by the end of the trip, while the ones traveling west should lose 275±21 nanoseconds. The results matched prediction rather well. The clocks on the east bound trip lost 59±10 nanoseconds, while the ones going west lost 273±7 nanoseconds.

For those who argued against, or simply could not believe in counterintuitive concept of time-dilation, the experiment of Hafele and Keating put their doubts to rest. Special Relativity still stands strong thirty years later.

The results of the Hafele and Keating Experiment can nowadays be clearly seen by any aviator who uses GPS. A GPS receiver works by measuring the distance between itself and at least three satellites overhead. Without artificial scrambling, GPS can give a pilot their position to within a foot. This requires precise synchronized timing between satellites, receivers, and ground stations. Since GPS satellites are orbiting the earth at several kilometers a second, they experience significantly more time dilation than the clocks did on the airplanes in 71. Before a GPS satellite is launched, its clock must be calibrated to run faster in preparation for it's orbital velocity. Without doing this, GPS satellites would be out of sync with ground stations and receivers, thus dropping down the system's accuracy to less than that of preexisting systems such as the similar ground based system LORAN. Thanks in part to Hafele and Keating, aircraft can now fly in instrument conditions without having to go from one ground based beacon to another, mariners can travel down foggy rivers knowing precisely where they are, the Air Force can drop a bomb through a skylight under cloudy skies, and Bubba can go huntin' without getting lost.

[Darth Wong]

Hasn't chronometer lag on spaceflights has also been used as evidence?

[Sea Skimmer]

Hasn't chronometer lag on spaceflights has also been used as evidence?

Yes, I recall that from the same source I learned the Concord bit from.

[Wicked Pilot]

Hasn't chronometer lag on spaceflights has also been used as evidence?

Yes, satellites have to be adjusted for just that.

[kojikun]

Yes, satellites have to be adjusted for just that.

Whoa.. Applied Relativity! KICK ASS!