Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[aggle-rithm]

The reference frame is one of the photons.

How can there be a relative speed of another object from a reference frame that is moving at c, and for which there is thus no concept of time?

(BTW, "frame" is short for "inertial frame". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a photon has no inertia, has it?)

 

[excaza]

Relative to what? Einstein's theories only deal with one frame of reference as far as I know (and I admit here that I'm a total amateur when it comes to physics so I could be wrong about this particular statement).

So you're willing to admit you could be wrong here, but adamant that you have disproven Einstein?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Relative to what? Einstein's theories only deal with one frame of reference as far as I know (and I admit here that I'm a total amateur when it comes to physics so I could be wrong about this particular statement).

Could it be that such an amateur might not have the expertise to overturn one of the most well-established theories in physics?

 

[Anders Lindman]

How can there be a relative speed of another object from a reference frame that is moving at c, and for which there is thus no concept of time?

(BTW, "frame" is short for "inertial frame". Correct me if I'm wrong, but a photon has no inertia, does it?)

Sure there is a concept of time. Time is the change in the now. Time is not a dimension. And even if time WAS as dimension, are you claiming that a photon is OUTSIDE that dimension?

 

[Mashuna]

Relative to what? Einstein's theories only deal with one frame of reference as far as I know (and I admit here that I'm a total amateur when it comes to physics so I could be wrong about this particular statement).

Why limit yourself to this one statement?

 

[aggle-rithm]

What inconsistency? One photon is the frame of reference and the other photon is moving away from it at 2c. That directly shows how Einstein's theory is false.

Einstein's theory is based on the observation that light travels at the same speed for all reference frames.

A theory explains a fact. You can't say that Einstein's theory is wrong that light travels at the same speed regardless of reference, when the purpose of the theory was to explain the fact that light travels at the same speed regardless of reference.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So you're willing to admit you could be wrong here, but adamant that you have disproven Einstein?

Yes, I admit that I may be wrong about Einstein's relativity theories only being able to deal with one frame of reference. But that doesn't make the calculation between the photons 2c. If one of the photons is taken as a frame of reference, the calculation according to SR gives 1c. Bogus, hoax theory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sure there is a concept of time. Time is the change in the now. Time is not a dimension. And even if time WAS as dimension, are you claiming that a photon is OUTSIDE that dimension?

From OUR reference point. From the photon's reference point, time is infinitely compressed.

If relative velocity does not compress time, then explain how GPS works.

 

[sol invictus]

Well if it doesn't apply then what good is the theory? An incomplete theory at best. And general relativity is only about the addition of accelerating frames of reference as I have understood it, so it doesn't solve the incompletion.

You haven't understood it. GR applies to all frames, including those in which some photons can be at rest.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Einstein's theory is based on the observation that light travels at the same speed for all reference frames.

A theory explains a fact. You can't say that Einstein's theory is wrong that light travels at the same speed regardless of reference, when the purpose of the theory was to explain the fact that light travels at the same speed regardless of reference.

I claim that even that observation is false. Light does NOT travel at the same speed for all reference frames. If I travel at 0.8c away from the sun, then the photons from the sun will reach me at 0.2c, not 1c.

 

[excaza]

Yes, I admit that I may be wrong about Einstein's relativity theories only being able to deal with one frame of reference. But that doesn't make the calculation between the photons 2c. If one of the photons is taken as a frame of reference, the calculation according to SR gives 1c. Bogus, hoax theory.

You're making a statement about a theory using assumptions and a model that does not agree with reality. I'm sure that will go over great in fantasyland, but it doesn't work so well here.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yes, I admit that I may be wrong about Einstein's relativity theories only being able to deal with one frame of reference. But that doesn't make the calculation between the photons 2c. If one of the photons is taken as a frame of reference, the calculation according to SR gives 1c. Bogus, hoax theory.

Bottom line is this: If the speed of light is taken as a constant regardless of the frame of reference, the universe makes sense. If not, it is an incomprehensible mess. That is why Einstein's theory is so powerful. It gives us the simplest explanation for what we observe.

Come up with a simpler explanation, one that fits ALL observations, and get back to us.

 

[excaza]

I claim that even that observation is false. Light does NOT travel at the same speed for all reference frames. If I travel at 0.8c away from the sun, then the photons from the sun will reach me at 0.2c, not 1c.

Fortunately, this is something that could quite easily be tested in a lab. I eagerly await your results.

 

[Anders Lindman]

From OUR reference point. From the photon's reference point, time is infinitely compressed.

If relative velocity does not compress time, then explain how GPS works.

Are you sure GPS works the way the authorities say it works? Big Lies all the way buddy.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes, I admit that I may be wrong about Einstein's relativity theories only being able to deal with one frame of reference. But that doesn't make the calculation between the photons 2c. If one of the photons is taken as a frame of reference, the calculation according to SR gives 1c.

No. You are wrong. Completely wrong, in fact.

If v1 and v2 are the velocities of two photons moving directly towards (or away) from each other, then according to SR the magnitude of their relative velocity |v1-v2|=2c in all inertial reference frames.

In fact, this is the only case in which relative velocity remains constant under changes of frame - all other relative velocities (between two objects with v<c or one with v<c and a photon) change with frame. So you have it completely backwards. If you want to attack SR with your naive intuition, pick one of those two cases.

It is also true that |v1|=|v2|=c in all frames.

 

[Vorpal]

Sure there is a concept of time. Time is the change in the now. Time is not a dimension. And even if time WAS as dimension, are you claiming that a photon is OUTSIDE that dimension?

Nonsense. Photons go along trajectories in spacetime just as much as anything else. It's the length of that trajectory that's so special to them.

Learn special relativity on its own terms, then criticize it based on its ability to deal with experiments. You're never going to get anywhere by arguments from incredulity, because STR is just as mathematically consistent as Euclidean geometry.

Velocity is orientation in spacetime; the fact that going near the speed of light mixes space and time measurements is no more mysterious than turning around in space mixes my "front-back" and "left-right" direction. Since velocity is an orientation, it can be described by an angle to some observer's time axis. The relativistic velocity addition formula just says to add the angles. It's conceptually straightforward; if restricted to one spatial dimension and time, it's even no more complicated than coordinate geometry on a plane that grade-schoolers learn. Until you get to dynamics, anyway.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Fortunately, this is something that could quite easily be tested in a lab. I eagerly await your results.

As I wrote in another post, let's wait and see what the result from CERN will result in. 3 years of measuring errors? Yeah, right.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I claim that even that observation is false. Light does NOT travel at the same speed for all reference frames. If I travel at 0.8c away from the sun, then the photons from the sun will reach me at 0.2c, not 1c.

There is not one single observation. It has been measured repeatedly for over a hundred years. The initial measurements were so baffling that the researchers immediately began making improvements to their measuring systems.

The more sensitive the measurements, the more consistent the observation that c is constant for all reference frames.

This was done well before Einstein came onto the scene.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No. You are wrong. Completely wrong, in fact.

If v1 and v2 are the velocities of two photons moving directly towards (or away) from each other, then according to SR the magnitude of their relative velocity |v1-v2|=2c in all inertial reference frames.

In fact, this is the only case in which relative velocity remains constant under changes of frame - all other relative velocities (between two objects with v<c or one with v<c and a photon) change with frame. So you have it completely backwards. If you want to attack SR with your naive intuition, pick one of those two cases.

It is also true that |v1|=|v2|=c in all frames.

Do you have any reference for this?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Are you sure GPS works the way the authorities say it works? Big Lies all the way buddy.

So now there's a conspiracy to convince people that Einstein was right?

To what end?

Does it have something to do with the Jooooos?