6 ms·

Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies [pdf]

3 points by nyc111 8y ago

nyc111 8y ago
I like this quote: > ... time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. Einsten mistook his clock for time! Or reified time with a clock.
- yongjik 8y ago
  The author could have hardly chosen a poorer example to represent the concept of time: > ... In so doing [Einstein] detached time from physical reality because time is perceived and understood by the motion of celestial bodies, which is independent of the hands of a clock. In real reality, the motions of celestial bodies are measured by clocks incorporating atomic states, because the latter is so much more precise than the former. Basically, celestial bodies are nothing but big bumbling clocks. Yes, quite impressive and awe-inspiring clocks, but clocks nonetheless, and even less accurate than your GPS device. (Hence the necessity for leap seconds and all that.)
  - nyc111 8y ago
    You are right, of course. The text I quoted comes from the abstract. He articulates the same idea slightly differently on the second page: Time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. He is saying that a clock only measures time; a clock is not time and does not define time. I agree with this. He is not saying celestial bodies are better clocks than atomic clocks. Because all clocks are oscillators. 'Time' is measured with an oscillator.* This oscillator can be a clock, celestial bodies, or atomic oscillators. They are oscillators with different oscillating mechanism and different periods. As he says, time is "manifest in motion" and what these oscillators measure is motion. We define the motion of the oscillator to be our unit motion and measure the other motion.* The count of oscillations is called 'time' but nothing about philosophical or physical time is revealed by these measurements of motion. That's why I said that Einstein, like all physicists, reifed 'time'. He thinks clocks (oscillators) define and measure something called 'time'. So, the correct way to state the relationship between gadgets we call clocks and 'time' is this: We don't know something called 'time' other than motion. Clocks are oscillators and they are used as unit oscillators to count how many times the motion to be measured occurs in the unit motion of the oscillator. What is measured is distance, ie. distance covered in unit motion of the oscillator. (Motion cannot be measured. What is measured is always distance.) I’m not sure what he means when he says that time “is naturally fixed.” * What is measured is distance, not time and not motion.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
This sets off my BS detectors. He cites only papers written by himself. He writes in the style that I associate with crackpots, yelling at you with bolding rather than convincing you with logic. Yeah, I haven't gone through it nail down the flaws. There's some possibility he's right. It's a small enough probability that I'm not going to take the time to go through the paper in detail, though. And if he's right, there ought to be an experiment to show that special relativity fails to describe reality. He doesn't even propose one, let alone give results from one.
- nyc111 8y ago
  To be fair to Stephen Crothers, these are slides, and he bolded some of his conclusions for emphasis. I think it is unfair to raise the issue of crackpotism because he bolded some sentences. You can see in the video that he does not yell at all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s But I personally believe that no evidence can ever disprove Special Relativity or General Relativity. They are so entrenched in academic physics that physicists will call any contradicting evidence "an anomaly", name it with a clever name and make it an academic field of study on its own without ever discontinuing SP. But for any anti-Einstein idea to be taken seriously a very high ranking and prominent physicist need to write papers on the topic. But no physicist will ever question Einstein. For them this is textbok stuff. Physicists can only test Einstein to prove him right one more time :) An outsider has no chance even if, as you say, he comes with experimental evidence.
  - drdeca 8y ago
    Why do you believe that no evidence could ever convince them? What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that they would be convinced given sufficient evidence (other than seeing them be convinced by evidence)? Imagine if a prediction market were in place about the outcome of various expiraments. Whose models do you think would be used by the traders who do the best in such a market?
    - nyc111 8y ago

3 points by nyc111 8y ago

I like this quote: > ... time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. Einsten mistook his clock for time! Or reified time with a clock.

yongjik 8y ago
The author could have hardly chosen a poorer example to represent the concept of time: > ... In so doing [Einstein] detached time from physical reality because time is perceived and understood by the motion of celestial bodies, which is independent of the hands of a clock. In real reality, the motions of celestial bodies are measured by clocks incorporating atomic states, because the latter is so much more precise than the former. Basically, celestial bodies are nothing but big bumbling clocks. Yes, quite impressive and awe-inspiring clocks, but clocks nonetheless, and even less accurate than your GPS device. (Hence the necessity for leap seconds and all that.)
- nyc111 8y ago
  You are right, of course. The text I quoted comes from the abstract. He articulates the same idea slightly differently on the second page: Time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality. He is saying that a clock only measures time; a clock is not time and does not define time. I agree with this. He is not saying celestial bodies are better clocks than atomic clocks. Because all clocks are oscillators. 'Time' is measured with an oscillator.* This oscillator can be a clock, celestial bodies, or atomic oscillators. They are oscillators with different oscillating mechanism and different periods. As he says, time is "manifest in motion" and what these oscillators measure is motion. We define the motion of the oscillator to be our unit motion and measure the other motion.* The count of oscillations is called 'time' but nothing about philosophical or physical time is revealed by these measurements of motion. That's why I said that Einstein, like all physicists, reifed 'time'. He thinks clocks (oscillators) define and measure something called 'time'. So, the correct way to state the relationship between gadgets we call clocks and 'time' is this: We don't know something called 'time' other than motion. Clocks are oscillators and they are used as unit oscillators to count how many times the motion to be measured occurs in the unit motion of the oscillator. What is measured is distance, ie. distance covered in unit motion of the oscillator. (Motion cannot be measured. What is measured is always distance.) I’m not sure what he means when he says that time “is naturally fixed.” * What is measured is distance, not time and not motion.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

This sets off my BS detectors. He cites only papers written by himself. He writes in the style that I associate with crackpots, yelling at you with bolding rather than convincing you with logic. Yeah, I haven't gone through it nail down the flaws. There's some possibility he's right. It's a small enough probability that I'm not going to take the time to go through the paper in detail, though. And if he's right, there ought to be an experiment to show that special relativity fails to describe reality. He doesn't even propose one, let alone give results from one.

nyc111 8y ago
To be fair to Stephen Crothers, these are slides, and he bolded some of his conclusions for emphasis. I think it is unfair to raise the issue of crackpotism because he bolded some sentences. You can see in the video that he does not yell at all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s But I personally believe that no evidence can ever disprove Special Relativity or General Relativity. They are so entrenched in academic physics that physicists will call any contradicting evidence "an anomaly", name it with a clever name and make it an academic field of study on its own without ever discontinuing SP. But for any anti-Einstein idea to be taken seriously a very high ranking and prominent physicist need to write papers on the topic. But no physicist will ever question Einstein. For them this is textbok stuff. Physicists can only test Einstein to prove him right one more time :) An outsider has no chance even if, as you say, he comes with experimental evidence.
- drdeca 8y ago
  Why do you believe that no evidence could ever convince them? What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that they would be convinced given sufficient evidence (other than seeing them be convinced by evidence)? Imagine if a prediction market were in place about the outcome of various expiraments. Whose models do you think would be used by the traders who do the best in such a market?
  - nyc111 8y ago