Is Relativity Reality?

[newolder]

Clocks (and hence time) can be slowed without limit, all the way to stopped, theoretically, by increasing the velocity to c. … I would say, find the fastest clock in the universe, and you have the Universal frame of reference.

Massless entities, like photons, always propagate at c whilst those with non-invariant mass can never reach c. Tachyon solutions (clocks ticking faster than fast, &c) are not yet found in nature – good luck with finding 1.

[colubridae]

I've raised this question on other threads, and not got an answer that did it for me.
I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with using relativity, I fully agree that it's the only VERSION of reality we can interract with.
To me, it's like viewing a very distant star, we can only ever see it as it was millions of years ago, but we KNOW that it's not where we are looking, and is much older NOW. So we know that REALITY is different to what we experience, even though we can never experience it, using the only tools we have, ( light and time that varies with velocity ).

I'm argueing that relativity is like that, we experience it and use it, it's a fantastic tool, but it's not reality.
To read the argument, click the link below :
http://kevinmcalpine1.pwp.blueyonder.co ... eality.htm
.

Why are you so pissed about relativity?
If you don't like it then don't believe it. It's your choice.
From your link you've already made up your mind and with twaddle for reasoning.

All of this was explained to you in previous threads. along with the extremely good advice to join a properly tutored university course on the subject.

I thought you said your main interest was human evolution.
how come you've spent so much effort on an anti-relativity site.
(don't nit-pick by saying "you agree with SR/GR, then saying it's not reality" that would be philoso-babble-wank)



If you really want to have a go at bizarre stuff then go for QM.
QM makes relativity look intuitive.
Remember being told this a long while ago by Hackenslash.
As with all the other stuff that will be rehashed here.

ps for everyone else: most important do not buy farsight's paperback, siansburys bog roll is much softer on your arse

[mistermack]

Childinazoo, there is still not one single specific argument in what you wrote. If that argument is wrong, then show me where. It may be right or wrong, but at least it's crystal clear. If you can show me where it's wrong, in clear language, I will say thanks very much.
Calling the time question a straw man is completely wrong.
I argue for one single valid frame for the universe, so if that was right, it would obviously be impossible for any clock to go faster than one at-rest in that frame. Any motion would make a clock go slower. How can that be a straw man?
And Newolder, that was the point I made, meaning that no clock can run faster. So I'm not surprised they haven't been found.

Colubridae, nobody's pissed here. And I made my argument perfectly clear, ( right or wrong ). So that's what I'm waiting for, somebody who can equally clearly point to what's wrong with it. I don't think that's asking too much, and I can't imagine why it's taking so long. I'm happy to follow up references, etc, if someone has a definitive source.
I like phyics and evolution, but since Dawkins went to pot, there isn't a decent forum for evolution. Evilution on this site gets about one post a day and it's all stuff I've seen elsewhere.
QM doesn't throw up illogical stuff to me. I don't expect elementary particles and waves to be anything like what I can experience.
.

[newolder]

And Newolder, that was the point I made, meaning that no clock can run faster. So I'm not surprised they haven't been found.

You misunderstand. They have been found to be of logical construction, on paper, but they have not yet instigated the following conversation between humans, where Alice receives her message back from Bob before she sent the message to Bob in the first place.

Bob: The content of this message is known only to Alice.

Alice: !

[ChildInAZoo]

Childinazoo, there is still not one single specific argument in what you wrote. If that argument is wrong, then show me where. It may be right or wrong, but at least it's crystal clear. If you can show me where it's wrong, in clear language, I will say thanks very much.
Calling the time question a straw man is completely wrong.

Look, what am I supposed to say? Your pictures with the circles just shows that you do not understand what a reference frame is and that you do not understand how velocities are added in Special relativity. Like Colubridae says, you should either learn relativity theory or simply dismiss it without understanding it because you don't like the consequences. What you shouldn't do is make up a theory, claim that it's relativity theory, and then dismiss the real theory.

You are simply wrong when you write, "Now introduce one more particle, and it's travelling towards the first one at 100,000 kps so it's velocity is along the X axis. Now you have a problem. If you choose a frame for the original particle that is moving along the X axis towards the second particle and it's velocity is more than 200,000 kps, then the second particle is travelling in that frame at more than 300,000 kps, or more than the speed of light." You are wrong because in special relativity one does not simply add velocities together as you suggest. If you want to know why not, go read a book on the subject or take a class.

I argue for one single valid frame for the universe, so if that was right, it would obviously be impossible for any clock to go faster than one at-rest in that frame. Any motion would make a clock go slower. How can that be a straw man?

The straw man is your suggestion that relativity theory says that clocks should go faster.

[Farsight]

...Farsight, yes, I'm saying that it looks like there is just one frame that is valid for the entire universe. Any other, that is moving relative to it, will have particles moving relative to it at more than c, so will be invalid.

This is essentially correct, mistermack. Gravity and the expansion of the universe muddy the waters a little, but the buck stops at the universe, and the CMBR does provide a de-facto absolute reference frame. See theCMBR dipole anisotropy for more on this.

Note that ChildInAZoo doesn't understand special relativity, and dismisses the Robert Close paper unread. Like newolder he doesn't understand particles either. A photon propagates linearly at c, whilst a fermion such as an electron is a self-trapped photon going round and round at c. See http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf for more on this. If the electron is stationary with respect to you, you'd say the component photon is travelling in a circular path. If you move the electron, then as far as you're concerned the component photon is travelling a helical path, and it's doing this at c. The electron itself can't move at c because if it did, its component photon would have to be travelling at more than c.

Here's a question. Clocks (and hence time) can be slowed without limit, all the way to stopped, theoretically, by increasing the velocity to c. But does it work the other way? Can time run faster without limit? If not, why not?

Because we define time using the local motion of light. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second and note

"Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

Radiation is light in the wider sense. If the light moves slower, the second is bigger. Then we use that second to measure the local speed of light. That's why we always measure it to be the same old 299,792,458 m/s. When we're moving fast through the universe, this is at the cost of local motion. It's reduced, but we don't measure this reduction locally, so people talk about "time dilation" instead. When we don't move at all through the universe, the local motion of light is the same as the absolute motion of light through the universe. This sets the limit. Again one has to set aside gravity and the expansion of the universe for simplicity here. See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 re the latter.

[newolder]

... Note that ChildInAZoo doesn't understand special relativity, and dismisses the Robert Close paper unread. Like newolder he doesn't understand particles either.

Where does my understanding of particles fail, please?

The speed of gravity is less than the speed of light? Hmmm, not to my knowledge. Cassini@Saturn measures gravity – light speed = 0 ± 1 part in a trillion (10^12).

What evidence does Robert use to gauge the claimed difference?

[Trolldor]

These two are a tag team, working together to appear as if either of them have a point.

[newolder]

These two are a tag team, working together to appear as if either of them have a point.

Which 2?

[Trolldor]

These two are a tag team, working together to appear as if either of them have a point.

Which 2?

Any two pairs.

[Rum]

I think people are over-complicating the OP. It seems to me all it is suggesting is that because light takes X amount of time to arrive from objects we are viewing (and all things actually) we see them as they looked when the light was emitted from them or bounced off them. What we see is not the current reality but a historical one.This is self evidently true.

[ChildInAZoo]

This is essentially correct, mistermack. Gravity and the expansion of the universe muddy the waters a little, but the buck stops at the universe, and the CMBR does provide a de-facto absolute reference frame. See theCMBR dipole anisotropy for more on this.

Better yet, take a class in astronomy to learn how there is a system of coordinates in which the background radiation is at rest, but that it isn't and "absolute reference frame". There is no physical reason to call the CBR an absolute reference frame.

Note that ChildInAZoo doesn't understand special relativity, and dismisses the Robert Close paper unread.

I see that your evidence for this statement is as slim as your other evidence. I have looked at his stuff, it's lame.

Like newolder he doesn't understand particles either. A photon propagates linearly at c, whilst a fermion such as an electron is a self-trapped photon going round and round at c. See http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf for more on this. If the electron is stationary with respect to you, you'd say the component photon is travelling in a circular path. If you move the electron, then as far as you're concerned the component photon is travelling a helical path, and it's doing this at c. The electron itself can't move at c because if it did, its component photon would have to be travelling at more than c.

So you state this like it's science, but your reference is from outside of physics and it doesn't explain how a photon can have charge. Without the latter explanation, it is impossible for a photon to be an electron. Plus, it doesn't explain how a photon can reproduce the motion of an electron through a Stern-Gerlach device. Heck, that paper doesn't actually explain anything!

[mistermack]

To read the argument, click the link below :
http://kevinmcalpine1.pwp.blueyonder.co ... eality.htm
.

Argument 1 demonstrates that you don't understand special relativity, end of story. Go back and learn it. It doesn't work like your little intersecting circle example because adding velocities does not work like it does in Galilean relativity.

I don't think you understand argument 1, or SR, if you think that. Adding velocities is exactly what you do, in the same inertial frame. You perform a transformation if you want to view a situation from the point of view of a different frame.

[ChildInAZoo]

I don't think you understand argument 1, or SR, if you think that. Adding velocities is exactly what you do, in the same inertial frame. You perform a transformation if you want to view a situation from the point of view of a different frame.

I suggest that you take the time to learn SR. And you should take the time to learn your own argument. You are introducing a number of reference frames in that argument. For example, you write, "Now introduce one more particle, and it's travelling towards the first one at 100,000 kps so it's velocity is along the X axis. Now you have a problem. If you choose a frame for the original particle that is moving along the X axis towards the second particle and it's velocity is more than 200,000 kps, then the second particle is travelling in that frame at more than 300,000 kps, or more than the speed of light." This not only introduces a new reference frame, but it also uses a way of adding velocities not available within special relativity. Your argument may show that Straw Man Relativity is incorrect, but that shouldn't interest anyone.

[mistermack]

You still haven't got it. If you add velocities that occur in the same reference frame, that is legit.
The velocity of a reference frame, in it's own reference frame, is zero, not 100,000 or 200,000. I'm adding velocities that occur in the same frame.