Is Einstein Untouchable?

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 2, 2005

Once in a while Einstein's relativity comes under attack because it sounds very unnatural. Here are my takes on relativity. Pros: 1) No viable mathematical analysis has been able to refute relativity. 2) Anti-relativist's attempts to disprove relativity from twin paradox is much more convoluted than the pro-relativists twisted explanations of the paradox. Cons: 1) What relativity says is time and distance depends on velocity. It is strange to notice the definition of velocity is distance/time. We hear relativity formula is satisfied in most experiment, could the reason be we are going in circles - distance, time, velocity? The thing that happens in a solution of equations when we have redundant info? 2) Why does velocity scales space and time? We hear muon experiment as an example of time dilation, I dont know which is more natural, scaling of time or change in half life of a particle due to speed? 3) Probably the most absurd outcome of relativity is the increase in mass due to speed. What speed got to do with mass? Some accelerators noticed this increase in mass, where this extra mass comes from? Could it be part of the energy being used to accelerate the particle turns into mass? 4) Now general relativity. The curvature of space due to a mass could be the result of geometric nature of the math Einstein used in his derivation. 5) I still dont understand why will an object initially at rest, I repeat, initially at rest, fall towards another mass due to curvature of space. I understand if it is initially in motion. Conclusions: 1) No currently available mathematical method can prove relativity is wrong. Only different, new type of math has some chances. 2) If relativity is correct, in my opinion, it's only the tip of an iceberg. There are some incredible properties of 'space' and 'time' that are still unknown to us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

kmarinas86 · Oct 2, 2005

3) Probably the most absurd outcome of relativity is the increase in mass due to speed. What speed got to do with mass? Some accelerators noticed this increase in mass, where this extra mass comes from? Could it be part of the energy being used to accelerate the particle turns into mass? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html So-called relativistic mass is really just the (relativistic) momentum of the object divided by the velocity. All "relativistic mass" really is, is the actual mass (which causes curvature) times velocity time dilation. Since velocity time dilation approaches infinity at increasing relativistic speeds, then so does so-called relativistic mass. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass. The symbol m for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity. Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass is wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass. For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass./safety_wrapper>

alokmohan · Oct 3, 2005

It came after ue and diligentwork for years.The 4dimension came into picture.It IS SPACETIME,NOT SPACE AND TIME.Completely new way of thinking.

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

Charged particles passed through the medium at speeds greater than the speed of light within the medium (liquid mediums). Matter traveled faster than the speed of light and as a result, the reaction was a release of sublimate energy; pure and unadulterated pure energy that will give me the power to travel to the stars and through time. I will break Albert Einstein!<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Conclusions: 1) No currently available mathematical method can prove relativity is wrong. Only different, new type of math has some chances. 2) If relativity is correct, in my opinion, it's only the tip of an iceberg. There are some incredible properties of 'space' and 'time' that are still unknown to us.<hr /></blockquote>I will prove that matter can exceed the speed of light in a medium (zero resistive vacuum)!

vogon13 · Oct 3, 2005

Funny how no one is ever upset with the visible position of the stars shifting due to the presence of a large mass like they are with a universal speed limit. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2005

Yes, I'm aware of different interpretations of mass in relativity by scientists. A newer interpretation is it is the inertia that increases. But inertia is the resistance of a mass and can be interpreted as increase in mass. But my question is who or what is resisting the mass ? Could it be an unknown property of the space? Which is what I said in my conclusion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2005

Are you refering to Cerenkov radiation? Which is faster than light, but not in free space, in a medium. And Im not arguing about speed limit, my hesitation is about certain outcomes of relativity. @Alokmohon: Yes I intentionally separated 'space' and 'time', instead of writing 'spacetime'. But I'm not saying they are separate, they can have certain properties separately or some combined properties. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2005

Steve, a little healthy arguments on any topic isn't bad, it improves one's understanding of the subject matter. What bothers me about most physicists is they assume the theory of Relativity is a fundamental property of nature. But it is not. Because, in relativity we incorporated one of our manmade concept of 'velocity'. Anytime I read something about relativity, relativists explanation is 'it happens'. But never do I see an explanation 'why does it happen'? Why does fast speed scales 'time' and 'space'? What is wrong with 'space' and 'time'? That's why in my conclusion I raised the question probably we still dont know a few things about 'time' and 'space'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

Yes, I am referring to "Cerenkov Radiation" and I have reason to believe that the effect is the same, regardless of what medium is utilized, and a vacuum is a medium; I will argue this until the end of time, and if cannot, my children will.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Are you refering to Cerenkov radiation? Which is faster than light, but not in free space, in a medium. And Im not arguing about speed limit, my hesitation is about certain outcomes of relativity.<hr /></blockquote>

cuddlyrocket · Oct 3, 2005

Well, relativity contradicts quantum mechanics. Now, this could mean that quantum mechanics is wrong (or both are), but most scientists would bet that it is relativity.

5stone10 · Oct 3, 2005

Einstien is always being questioned. He admitted the Cosmological Constant was a fudge factor. An he was also admittedly an average mathemetician.

chew_on_this · Oct 3, 2005

No, he was not an average mathematician. Re-read the post again. Comprehension!

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

What part of Relativity would you like me to break first?

mrmux · Oct 3, 2005

Einstein said himself that he wasn't a good enough mathematician. He employed one (can't recall who right now) who warned him on arrival that he didn't understand relativity, to which Einstein replied, 'That's okay. I understand relativity.' Still, he was a far better mathematician than 99.9% of the population, so perhaps the point is moot.

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2005

HAHA, I salute your commitment and dedication, that's what science needs in any century, whether it's you or your children. Personally, I accept the theory of relativity as they are preached with a question mark in the back of my head. This is a theory without much explanation, I think that is one reason why many people questioned its correctness. They may be wrong or they may be right, only time will tell. It is interesting to notice most of the verifications done on the theory were performed using only light or elementary particles, when light is embedded into the theory so tightly. I guess your main concern is to break the light speed barrier. Here is one possibility, in the future, I have been thinking lately. We humans are notoriously known to alter the nature. And relativity exclude FTL speed in this space we live in. What if we alter the space, creating a channel, and travel through it with FTL speed? We all will be happy and Einstein'll be happy also for not breaking his law. Giving up is not human nature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2005

I have absolutely no question about Einstein's intellects. He was a genius when it comes to physics and math. We, at least I can say for myself, are not even close to his extraordinary intelligence. But the vision he saw through his math and theory about space, time, and the universe may not EXACTLY match the reality. I dont see anything wrong in looking for alternative explanations as we discover so many mysterious objects everyday in deep space, there many be many more mysteries surrounding us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

jatslo · Oct 3, 2005

-(c)'s max velocity is 186,000 miles per second, and -(J)'s max velocity is infinite miles per second. E = mc 2 (E = Energy; m = Mass; c = Visible-Speed-of-Light) J 2 M = e (e = Energy; M = Mass; J = Speed-of-Light)

jatslo · Oct 4, 2005

Hey, here is a upcoming show about Einstein slated for 10/11/2005 on PBS NOVA: The Legacy of E = mc 2 Einstein's big idea has been enormously influential, in ways that reach far beyond the purely scientific. The Producer's Story Filmmaker Gary Johnstone describes how creativity fuels both art and science. The Equation Today Three young physicists contemplate how a 100-year-old equation figures into their careers. Einstein the Nobody The patent clerk's career prospects looked bleak just before his "miracle year" of 1905. The Theory Behind the Equation Explore the eureka moment when Einstein came up with special relativity, the theory that spawned E = mc 2. Genius Among Geniuses To rank with Newton or Einstein, you have to reinvent the way we see the world. Relativity and the Cosmos Examine what many consider Einstein's greatest achievement—general relativity. E = mc 2 Explained Hear how 10 top physicists describe the equation in a few minutes or less. The Power of Tiny Things How much energy does a paper clip pack? Test your intuition in this quiz. Ancestors of E = mc 2 Meet the visionary scientists whose experiments paved the way for Einstein. Einstein Quotes Seven thought-provoking statements from the world's most famous scientist The Light Stuff Find out why the speed of light isn't always 186,000 miles per second. Time Traveler Explore time dilation in this interactive version of Einstein's "twin paradox." Einstein Time Line Follow the arc of Einstein's life from his birth in 1879 till his death in 1955. TV Program Description Airs on PBS October 11, 2005 Check local listings as dates and times may v

jatslo · Oct 4, 2005

"Cerenkov Radiation" applies to charged masses; however, it would appear that light does not emit light booms when it exceeds -(c). This is because light is mass less and charge less; the length contraction effect of velocity -(v) on light can be measured though. Acceleration from gravity would be observable in astronomy, if we could find a pulse. We could measure the length of the pulse as it passes various gravitational anomalies in space. For those of you that are lost; I am talking of velocity within velocity. -(A ---- -(c) ---- /> B = -(c))

daniko · Oct 4, 2005

Greetings to all I always supported the opinion that the understanding of relativity is difficult when reading science books. It's like to try to achieve the sence of volume by observing a flat image. When you read about relativity you found stunning facts like: 1. If you move at speeds near to c then - /> your length decreases - /> your mass increases - /> your time slows down - /> . . . So this facts are the "flat image" of the relativity. They amaze but they don't help you feel the ideas. I'll try another approach to make the picture more 3D. Let us look at the example with the rocket man Rock that starts from the Earth on his rocker R1. Let Rock weights 80kg and is 180 cm tall. Let he takes with him 1) his personal scale; 2) his ruler; 3) some space buoys; Rock is about to break the speed limit for rockets so his instructors gave him some wornings 1) On high speeds you'll be shorter so put your things on the lowest shelf ! 2) On high speeds you'll be heavier so don't overeat space food ! 3) On high speeds you'll be slower so get up earlier to catch up with your day schedule ! So Rock blasted off on R1 and headed up. He recorded: 1) I spent 10% of the fuel to reach 1/2c !!! -- /> my scale shows - I am 80 kg; my ruler shows - I am 180 cm; my movements are not slower; -- /> I dropped space buoy No1 2) I spent another 10% of the fuel to reach 1/2c respective to space buoy No1 !!! -- /> my scale shows - I am 80 kg; my ruler shows - I am 180 cm; my movements are not slower; -- /> I dropped space buoy No2 3) I spent another 10% of the fuel to reach 1/2c respective to space buoy No2 !!! -- /> my scale shows - I am 80 kg; my ruler shows - I am 180 cm; my movements are not slower; -- /> I dropped space buoy No3 4) I spent another 10% of the fuel to reach 1/

raghara2 · Oct 4, 2005

If observer is able to observe at faster speeds than light in vacuum, most of that is just a mirage.

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 4, 2005

Yes, your description is mostly correct, but I like to add a few more interesting consequences of accepted theory of special relativity. If your traveler Rock stands up in the spaceship, he will look like a 2 dimensional cartoon creature with 180 cm height, because vertical directions do not shrink. As Rock moves around the ship his height will vary from 1cm to 180 cm and his girth will change from 2-D to 3-D back and forth. If two people see an event and their descriptions of the event do not match, we say one of the descriptions is wrong. But in case of relativity, both descriptions are correct (?). Normally, we accept the description of the person involved with the event as correct, but in this case, I get an impression from the textbooks, description of the observer is more correct. My suspicion is the way we define speed. The answer may be traced back to what we have been arguing about before, 'the time'. May be certain property of our 'space' does not allow extreme fast 'change'. That is another way to look at it. @ragharA2: I think you are correct, but I am hesitant to use the words 'optical illusion'. If you have better words to apply to this type of illusion let us know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

daniko · Oct 5, 2005

O.k. 'optical illusion'is closer but I think the most precise is: 'matter illusion'/b> The basic is that we are material beings. That bounds us to our material perception. From there we can only sence material signals. To measure / sence around we use: - electromagnetic waves (which is matter) - sound waves (which are material vibrations) - rulers (which are matter made) - clocks (which use material processes to measure time) The basis of measurement is the comparison of something we know with something we want to explore. The very basic example of matter that we could explore is the Photon. That's why the light properties are used for basic measurement unit in our Material Universe. That's why the light's speed is used as basis in Einsteins theory. If we could explore something smaller than the Photon we will discover all that relativity misses. Another breakthrough is possible if we find something nonmaterial that we could handle in any way.

vogon13 · Oct 5, 2005

I have posted this thought experiment here before, but I'll be switched if I know where it is, so here goes again: Let's say there is a long piece of string from roughly here to the Large Megellanic Cloud. And every lightyear along the string, is a knot. I fire up my super turbo charged refurbished American Motors Matador (car from the 70's for you youngsters) and head towards LMC at a very high speed indeed. I travel fast enough, that due to time dilation, I age only fifty years on my trip. As I head towards the LMC, I ride along side the string, and since there is little to do during my drive, I count the knots. When I get to LMC, I have counted 160,000 knots. If you do the math, 160,000ly in 50 years works out to 3200 times the speed of light. Einstein giveth, and Einstein taketh away. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 5, 2005

Another breakthrough is possible if we find something nonmaterial that we could handle in any way. What else is there other than matter? Everything here is made of matter or have originated from matter. Only thing that appears to be nonmaterial is the 'empty space'. But empty space may not be as empty as we think. No, I'm not bringing back aether. Aether theory is dead, but empty space may be made of some non-moveable substance in the form of 'mesh', which has a very strange relationship with matter. If we could get some type of matter to interact with empty space, we could solve many puzzles. I personally think mathematically theory of relativity is correct, but its interpretations suffer from inaccuracy. Well, after posting this I remembered matter does somehow interact with space through gravity, or at least change something of the space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

Is Einstein Untouchable?

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

jatslo

Guest

vogon13

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

jatslo

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

5stone10

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

jatslo

Guest

mrmux

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

daniko

Guest

raghara2

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

daniko

Guest

vogon13

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page