Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » September 12th, 2019, 7:53 am

gater wrote:The Special relativity theory is wrong - Gravity has no effect on time...
The Special Theory of Relativity is not about gravity. That would be the General Theory of Relativity.

The usual way to challenge or supersede an existing theory is to find an example of an observation which is incorrectly predicted by that theory and then to create a new theory which correctly predicts all of the observations that were correctly predicted by the old theory but which also correctly predicts the observation that was not. In other words, in areas where the old theory was empirically successful, the new theory must also be at least as successful, but it must add to that success with other successes.
...time is a constant, there was no beginning of time. Many confused Time Dilation with Time - Time Dilation is the effect gravity has on matter, not on time.
Can you translate this into a statement about something that can be empirically observed and which differs in some way to the empirical predictions of Special or General Relativity?
LuckyR wrote:your opinion on the speed of time is... unpopular.
I wouldn't have emphasised the lack of popularity. I'd have said that the opinions expressed about time do not yet appear to translate, in any obvious way, into empirically testable propositions.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 4278
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by LuckyR » September 12th, 2019, 3:52 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
September 12th, 2019, 7:53 am
LuckyR wrote:your opinion on the speed of time is... unpopular.
I wouldn't have emphasised the lack of popularity. I'd have said that the opinions expressed about time do not yet appear to translate, in any obvious way, into empirically testable propositions.
Simple concepts for simple minds...
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Cvda
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: November 6th, 2019, 4:25 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Cvda » November 6th, 2019, 4:33 pm

Special relativity is based on the supposition of the general theory - which has many more contradictions.
Equally likely is that when examined special relativity might be one of the more closed and specific beliefs we rely on.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 7999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 » November 12th, 2019, 10:27 am

Cvda wrote:Special relativity is based on the supposition of the general theory...
What do you mean by the term "...is based on the supposition of..."?

The Special Theory came 10 years before the General Theory. It considers the special case (hence the name) of inertial reference frames in which the effects of gravity and acceleration can be neglected.
...which has many more contradictions.
Could you provide an example of one for discussion.

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by gater » March 26th, 2020, 10:28 pm

David Cooper wrote:
September 20th, 2018, 12:38 am

It's easier to understand these different sets of models if you can see them in action, so I wrote a simulation that can run in three different modes to illustrate the three sets of models that have a running time in them (mode zero is static, so it is not represented there directly). You can find that simulation about 3/8 of the way down my page about relativity: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html - scroll past the MMX diagrams near the top, on beyond the diagrams with little space-shuttles in them, and on down to the pair of Spacetime diagrams. The simulation is below them, but the Spacetime diagrams represent the same thought experiment, and the text underneath them explains what's going on in the simulation.

Einstein's original version of SR is arguably a set 2 3D non-block model, but it could also be a set 1 3D non-block model. It's often described in such a way as to be a hybrid of the two, but the two models are incompatible with each other as they run on different rules, so such a hybrid model is banned. The two models named here are also impossible models: the set 1 non-block models suffer from event-meshing failures which invalidate them; while the set 2 non-block models generate contradictions which invalidate them. Set 2 block models cannot be constructed rationally, so they are invalidated too, and that means that all the set 2 models are dead. No viable theory can use them.

Is there any model left that could be Einstein's original SR? Well, if it's set 3's 3D non-block model, then it's the same theory as LET and must take on the same metaphysics as LET, but Einstein was very clear that SR is not LET. Perhaps it could be the set 3 3D block model where the absolute frame becomes rather redundant, but that model needs to be constructed by LET, so it's superfluous. The only model that remains as a candidate is the set zero 3D block, and that's a block that was never generated in order of causation, so all the causality written through it is fake. It's an invalidated model. We can see from this that there is no viable model for Einstein's original version of SR.

Now, many people dispute points that I've made above and claim that they're wrong, but the points are correct and the people who claim otherwise are the ones who are wrong. I can demonstrate that all the points I've made are correct (or at least, the ones that the argument depends on - I can't guarantee that every statement I make in the course of a conversation in a long thread is correct, but the key ones that the argument rests on are right and have stood up to all attempts to break them over many years).



David - It's nice to find someone that understands physics.
The Scientific Community worships Einstein and his theories as if they were absolutely true.
The idea the time slows, or that space bends, is nonsense. The Big Bang theory is nonsense.
The Universe has ALWAYS been here, it had no beginning. Space does not expand, and time is a constant.
I think the problem is that people were taught false information, and they've accepted it as true. It's kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes, most go along with the crowd, afraid to say anything for fear they will might look dumb. Either that or they never learned how to think logically, because the Universe is simple, if you can apply logic.

User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Ensrick » April 3rd, 2020, 2:38 pm

gater wrote:
March 26th, 2020, 10:28 pm
David - It's nice to find someone that understands physics.
The Scientific Community worships Einstein and his theories as if they were absolutely true.
The idea the time slows, or that space bends, is nonsense. The Big Bang theory is nonsense.
The Universe has ALWAYS been here, it had no beginning. Space does not expand, and time is a constant.
I think the problem is that people were taught false information, and they've accepted it as true. It's kind of like the Emperor's New Clothes, most go along with the crowd, afraid to say anything for fear they will might look dumb. Either that or they never learned how to think logically, because the Universe is simple, if you can apply logic.
This is non-sequitur. There is no unified model of physics but that doesn't mean that they are useless or nonsensical. We have mounds of observational evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory, General Relativity and Quantum mechanics. The theories around these phenomena have not been replaced; they are in conflict with one another but not in the respects you've posited and none of this says anything about whether time is a constant or not.

The specific problems of physics are listed on Wikipedia. Each of these problems has many competing hypotheses and theories. Theories are backed by observational evidence and not so easily dismissed by pointing out problems.

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by gater » April 3rd, 2020, 11:38 pm

Ensrick, models and theories are not needed when you know the truth. Einsteins theories are flawed, he did
contribute to quantum physcics, but he did not understand time, space, or gravity. The scientic community adopted his beliefs as if they were true and accurate. The Big Bang theory was based partially on Einstiens theories. It's nonsense too.
The truth is that the Universe has always been here, Relativity is nonsense, time does not affect space, and space does not affect time. Gravity is created by matter and only affects other matter. Time is a constant, unaffected by anything in the Universe.

User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Ensrick » April 4th, 2020, 4:55 am

As a skeptic, I won't tout about 'the truth'. As Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing." Many theories are flawed but Einstein's theory of general relativity isn't contradictory to any accurate model of physics. It's a competing model, not an outdated model.

To say Einstein's contributions to physics are adopted beliefs shows that you don't understand what a theory is. To become a theory (even one that doesn't perfectly account for all physical phenomena) you have to have mounds of evidence.

On the other hand,
gater wrote:
April 3rd, 2020, 2:58 am
The truth is that the Universe has always been here, Relativity is nonsense, time does not affect space, and space does not affect time. Gravity is created by matter and only affects other matter. Time is a constant, unaffected by anything in the Universe.
That is half-baked drivel not supported by any model of physics; made up on the spot near as I can tell. Just repeating those same claims doesn't make them any more true.

You'll never hear a physicist make claims about "true" physics because there is no one theory that covers all physical phenomena and I somehow doubt you're going to change that on this forum.

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by gater » April 4th, 2020, 2:29 pm

Ensrick wrote:
April 4th, 2020, 4:55 am
As a skeptic, I won't tout about 'the truth'. As Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing." Many theories are flawed but Einstein's theory of general relativity isn't contradictory to any accurate model of physics. It's a competing model, not an outdated model.

To say Einstein's contributions to physics are adopted beliefs shows that you don't understand what a theory is. To become a theory (even one that doesn't perfectly account for all physical phenomena) you have to have mounds of evidence.

On the other hand,
gater wrote:
April 3rd, 2020, 2:58 am
The truth is that the Universe has always been here, Relativity is nonsense, time does not affect space, and space does not affect time. Gravity is created by matter and only affects other matter. Time is a constant, unaffected by anything in the Universe.
That is half-baked drivel not supported by any model of physics; made up on the spot near as I can tell. Just repeating those same claims doesn't make them any more true.

You'll never hear a physicist make claims about "true" physics because there is no one theory that covers all physical phenomena and I somehow doubt you're going to change that on this forum.
What I wrote is absolutely true. The Universe is simple, the real challenge is understanding the atom.

User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Ensrick » April 6th, 2020, 10:35 am

@gater, I don't expect a deeply entrenched idea that to change in one's mind overnight so I'm going to focus on scrutinizing one aspect of your claim. Because I may have missed half the discussion you may have answered this question but would you mind explaining how does time remain constant?

There is evidence for the effects time dilation which shows inconsistencies in the rate at which a sequence of physical events / the rate of time itself. My understanding is that time itself is a sequence of events based on predictable physical phenomena such as solar cycles or in more recent time, atomic clocks using stable molecular frequencies. Despite having problems conserving energy, general relativity does reliably answer problems of time for NASA engineers and astronomers for the purposes of satellite technology and space exploration. So more specifically, could you explain how time remains constant in such a way that it provides us with working solutions to the problems of time dilation?

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by gater » April 6th, 2020, 6:55 pm

Ensrick - Time dilation the the effect that gravity has on clocks, or GPS devices. Gravity does not affect time. Time is a constant, nothing effects time. Time is the constant now, and it's now everywhere is the Universe, and that NEVER changes.
Relativity deals with observations, and it's a deeply flawed theory. The Universe has to be understood logically, observations can be wrong, ever hear of an optical illusion?
Logic provides answers and proof, without using a telescope, or theories based on science fiction.

User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Ensrick » April 6th, 2020, 8:49 pm

@gater, I have to ask if you're just taking me for a ride? I've never heard anyone compare scientific theories to science fiction.

Your idea of time isn't rooted in empirical evidence or logic. Everything we use to measure time is affected by time dilation. There's no explanation of time as a constant that explains the phenomena of time dilation. What do you use to measure the time that shows a constant measure of time regardless of gravity and velocity?

gater
Posts: 267
Joined: September 6th, 2019, 12:02 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by gater » April 6th, 2020, 10:14 pm

Again - Time Dilation is the effect that gravity has on devices that measure time, not on time itself.
Gravity is created by matter and ONLY affects other matter.
Gravity does not affect time or space. Speed does not affect time either.
What you need to understand is that relativity is a theory - a flawed theory.
Einstein gave us his opinions, i'm giving you facts.

User avatar
Ensrick
Posts: 37
Joined: March 30th, 2020, 2:34 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Ensrick » April 7th, 2020, 11:41 am

I'm fairly certain you're trolling because instead of arguing you're reasserting claims without evidence when that's what I asked for. It looks like I'm the only person left who's even giving you the light of day, so please try to communicate support for your idea of time.

If an evidence based testable explanation of time isn't important to you, then let's be clear on how we define time.
I define time as a sequence of events. Within the domain of physics, time is a sequence of physical events.

How do you define time?

Post Reply