 |
There are currently, 138 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Albert Einstein’s specific relativity theory could be partially wrong.
Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 @ 07:04:49 UTC by vlad
|
|
VacuumZeroPoint writes: There are some Physicists arguing that Michelson-Morley cannot deny an existence of Aether if Aether does exist. Many people have also been wrongly assumed that, Einstein has forwarded his famous specific relativity theory to deny an absolute inertial reference frame and the Aether.
Strangely enough, his ideas, in the specific relativity ideas, can work whether the theory is also well fitted into an Aether scenario or not. Very interestingly, if being applied to Aether or an absolute reference frame, his theory can resolve many of its paradoxes, which cannot be explained properly if the theory is made to work without an absolute reference frame.
One well-known paradox is Twins’ paradox.
If we, in denying an absolute reference frame, assign a space mission to one of the Twins (Twin A) and tell him (Twin A) to live a moving spacecraft while at the same time tell the other Twin (Twin B) to communicate to his brother, there will be a possibility that each of the Twins may see that the other Twin is younger (or older) than himself. Who is actually younger? Such confusion is probably one of the reasons that specific relativity theory is rather kinky to all of us as laymen who require acceptable common sense
The Twins’ paradox can be reconciled if we have an absolute reference frame. If we suppose that the Earth is also moving as another spacecraft in some absolute reference frame (in fact the Earth does move in space), we can calculate the amount of time that Twin B has been aging quicker to this absolute reference frame. Let ‘s suppose this amount is T2 (by reference to the absolute frame’s time). We can also calculate the amount of time that Twin A has been aging quicker to this same absolute reference frame, to yield another value T1 (also by reference to the absolute frame’s time). Since T1 and T2 are definitely counted in the absolute frame, we can say who is aging more just by subtracting T2-T1.
If we rebuild Einstein’s specific relativity theory in Aether, there are some modifications to be made in his assumptions:
Let’s suppose we have an astronaut in a spacecraft watching life of our people on Earth
a) The length measurement of a line L of the other relatively static frame (the Earth) can be contracted or elongated, depending on its position seen by the coordinates’ half-plane of the moving inertial frame (the space craft). Also by this, the coefficient of length contraction or elongation is not of the same value.
b) Time rate is ticked quicker in the space craft with the same amount postulated by Einstein (using the well known coefficient sqrt (1-v^2/c^2).
c) Light speed on Earth is not seen as constant by the astronaut in the space craft, but rather higher, or lower than c, depending on the coordinates’ half-plane of the moving inertial frame (the space craft).
Einstein is not alive now for us to send him these ideas, so I post these for your consideration.
Cheers,
Quizzy
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 1.25
Votes: 4
| |
|
| "Albert Einstein’s specific relativity theory could be partially wrong." | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Albert Einstein?s specific relativity theory could be partially wrong. (Score: 1)
by Rob (rob@zpenergy.com) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 @ 12:17:00 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | The Twins' paradox can be reconciled if we have an absolute reference frame
And that is how SR proponents actually "explain" the twin paradox, by "covertly" bringing in that third, absolute frame of reference. They, of course, see nothing that contradicts SR doing it, despite SR's explicit denial of a preferred frame of reference.
|
|
|
Re: Albert Einstein’s specific relativity theory could be partially wrong. (Score: 1)
by malc on Thursday, August 04, 2005 @ 00:48:02 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mripley | | I thought the paradox could easily be resolved by assessing who/what accelerated to the different speed. It is the one undergoing acceleration whose time slows down. Relatively speaking of course ;-) |
|
|
Always when this comes up two observations are confused. (Score: 1)
by hackwrench on Thursday, August 04, 2005 @ 16:51:59 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) | Obsv1: When things get farther apart they get later and later images from each other.
Obsv2: When a clock experiment was done where one clock was loaded on a plane and flown off then brought back to the other clock, one was faster than the other. |
|
|
Another paradox for Special Relativity (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, August 21, 2005 @ 11:23:54 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Anonymous writes: From my understanding, Einstein has forwarded two postulates to set up his Special Relativity. The first postulate states that two steadily moving inertial reference frames are relative to each other. The second postulate states that the velocity of light is constant in all relative reference frames. So let’s set up a thought experiment that, by deduction from the postulates, leads to contradiction in his theory.
Let’s suppose we have a spacecraft moving horizontally with a speed v and passing a point O in a stationary reference frame on the Earth. When the spacecraft passes the point O, we simultaneously switch on two light beams vertically upward. One light beam is from the spacecraft. The other is from a beacon at the point O. We can denote a common time start as t1 at the time we switch on the light beams for the stationary reference frame and the spacecraft (Einstein’s postulates do not rule out a possibility of switching on the light beams simultaneously!). Now we will have two time clocks as C1 in the stationary reference frame and C2 in the spacecraft. Watching C2 and at t2 = t1 +1 second (one second after t1), the pilot in the spacecraft switches off the light beam on the spacecraft. So the light beam on the spacecraft will travel a length L1 = 300 000 km.
According to Special Relativity, time in the spacecraft is ticked slower than time on Earth by a ratio R = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). That means one second on the spacecraft is equal to 1/R (seconds) on Earth.
Let’s suppose that a guard at the beacon watches his clock and switches off the beacon light at t’2 = t1 + 1/R.
The guard at the beacon would observe that the light beam on the spacecraft travels in a slanting path length L2 = L1/ R and spacecraft light beam is switched off simultaneously with the beacon light beam at the time point t2’ on Earth, that coincides with t2 on the spacecraft. From the time t1 to t2’, the light beam of the beacon must have traveled a length L3 that is equal to the length L2 of spacecraft light beam, seen by the guard. (Just remember that in Special Relativity, there is no vertical length contraction).
Then, the pilot on the spacecraft would observe that the beacon light beam on Earth travels in a slanting path length L4 = L3/ R and it is switched off simultaneously with spacecraft light beam.
Now a contradiction appears as follows: The pilot, in his reference frame, will observe that, in his one second time, the space craft light beam travels 300 000 km, and in the same one second time, observes that the beacon light beam travels a path length L4 > 300 000 km (L4 > L3 =L2> L1).
The second postulate is violated.
Twinny. |
|
|
|
|
