Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies
S.J. Crothers, Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies, April Meeting of the APS, 2018. https://bit.ly/2Izf42r twitter.com/SkyScholarVideo Thank you for viewing this video on Sky Scholar!
This channel is dedicated to new ideas about the nature of the sun, the stars, thermodynamics, and the microwave background. We will discuss all things astronomy, physics, chemistry, and imaging related!
We hope that the combination of facts and special effects will aid in learning even the toughest concepts in astronomy. If you enjoyed this video, please subscribe. Sky Scholar will be releasing at least one video per week to make sure you don’t run out of content!
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Ph.D., is a professor of radiology at The Ohio State University. He also holds an appointment in the Chemical Physics Program. In 1998, he led the design and assembly of the world’s first Ultra High Field MRI System. This brought on the need to question fundamental aspects of thermal physics, including ideas related to Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal emission, and more.
These presentations are not endorsed by The Ohio State University. Figures not to scale and used for visualization purposes only. This channel is educational in nature.
Gravitational Waves: Propagation Speed is Coordinate Dependent
Astronomy links of interest: Space Weather: http://spaceweathernews.com/ NASA Image and Video Search: images.nasa.gov/ NASA Hubble Satellite: hubblesite.org/ NASA Helioviewer: helioviewer.org/ NASA ADS Scientific Article Search Page: adsabs.harvard.edu/bib_abs.html National Solar Observatory: nso.edu/ SOHO Satellite: soho.nascom.nasa.gov/ SDO Satellite: sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ IRIS Satellite: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ir… Hinode, JAXA/NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hi… Daniel K. Inoue Solar Telescope: dkist.nso.edu/ National Solar Observatory GONG: gong.nso.edu/ 1 meter Swedish Solar Telescope: www.isf.astro.su.se/ All observational images and videos are credited to NASA unless otherwise specified. Images obtained by the SDO satellite are a courtesy of NASA/SDO and the AIA, EVE, and HMI science teams. Images obtained by the SOHO satellite are courtesy of SOHO (ESA & NASA). Link to Professor Robitaille’s papers on Vixra: http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_…
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
I don’t think he makes a valid point does he? I mean, SR is a theory of relativity after all. Einstein does not hold that there is a preferred reference frame, quite the reverse. He simply states that whatever frame’ you’re in, other frames that move relative to you will show observations in accordance with Lorentz.
Nor does he claim that “clocks” in each frame’ can be “synchronised” in the sense that time rates are common to each frame’. Clearly they are not the same rate. He simply states that actual, physical clocks can be adjusted to different rates in order to synchronise them between frames which have different time rates, and that is a different thing altogether. This is used daily in the operation of the GPS and is well proven.
However, there IS indeed a logical inconsistency in SR but it is nothing to do with synchronicity. It has to do with the choice of which of two “effects” is fundamental and which is emergent. I refer to inertial time dilation and length contraction. It is a philosophical inconsistency and the math works well enough for either choice which is the reason it has not been picked up.
The result of any journey at fast speed is that lengths have contracted for the traveller, but also that his time rate has been reduced. Both, on their own, result in the traveller getting there quicker than the time measured by a stationary observer, but you do not need two causes for the same effect. One has to be “real” and the other, a secondary effect.
The mainstream has chosen to believe that the time dilation and the length contraction are both purely relative in order to avoid faster than light speed in the moving frame, and also to avoid the dreaded preferred reference frame. They make their choice out of fear!
The choice should be made from experimental results and the Hafele & Keating experiment shows us which of the two is fundamental. The lost time on the moving clocks proves that time passed more slowly for the traveller, but there is no physical evidence of his having been shortened in the for/aft direction. Indeed, the theory states quite clearly that “Proper lengths never change”. Plus, did you feel yourself get squashed as a light speed ship passed by the other day? No ! Length contraction is purely relative, but the time dilation is “real” (as well as relative). This different choice, forces upon us, a physical, wave-like field of energy that we experience as time. When you move through it, its wavelength gets longer for you, the energy of change imparted by the field reduces, and your time slows. This idea is taken to its ultimate conclusion in my book “The Binary Universe”, and even I was amazed at the outcome. 2nd edition out very soon.
Reply
Steve Crothers
| #
Mr. Hughes, you have missed the point. As I clearly remark in my lecture, by his false tacit assumption that he can construct systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with Lorentz Transformation, Einstein produced a privileged observer, which he allowed to speak for all observers, none of which are equivalent, in violation of the tenets of his theory. Thus, his theory is logically inconsistent. Consequently it is false.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Perhaps I have indeed missed something and maybe you can enlighten me. I do not understand your description of “clock synchronised stationary observers”. Synchronised with what? If chosen frames are all stationary, then these frame are the same frame and clocks are all synchronised anyway since time runs at the same rate everywhere within this stationary frame. From my understandings of SR, it asserts that there is no privileged observer, as you point out. What is not made clear in the theory, and this may be seen as your logical inconsistency, is that ALL observers are moving to some extent and so there could be a frame which moves slower than “us”, where clocks run faster than our stationary observer. I deduce that there actually IS a privileged reference frame, and that is the frame well away from all gravitational fields (I know you can’t get rid of gravitational time dilation completely, but you take the point), and also when this observer sees light from all directions which is neither red nor blue shifted in any direction. That means he is absolutely stationary (you cannot move any slower). The converse of this is when time stops and all the light ahead is totally blue shifted and all the light behind in totally red shifted. This “observer” might be travelling at the speed of light, or residing on the event horizon of a black hole. He looks up and sees total blue shift (the complete life of the universe in an instant). He looks down and sees total red shift (complete blackness). Only in this view does SR become logically consistent, I believe. I accept that this understanding is counter to the mainstream view of SR, which I agree IS logically inconsistent. I would appreciate any different ideas from you though, as I stand to be corrected.
Reply
Steve Crothers
| #
Mr. Hughes, you continue to miss the point. It is evident from your comments that you have not understood Einstein. I therefore refer you to his 1905 paper, which can be found online for free. There you will see that Einstein went to great lengths to clock-synchronise his systems of stationary observers, and assumed them consistent with Lorentz Transformation. This is also revealed in the first slide of my lecture. All my slides are available via the link beneath my Youbtube APS lecture. As I prove in my lecture, it is in fact impossible to construct systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with Lorentz Transformation. Consequently, Special Relativity is certainly false because it is logically inconsistent. It follows that General Relativity is also false.
Black holes, they do not exist. They are products of violations of the laws of physics and the rules of pure mathematics. Various papers containing the proofs are listed in the final slide of my lecture. It’s clear that you have not consulted them either. I therefore refer you to them.
Reply
czechlist
| #
Isn’t this what science is about? We observe and hypothesize and are skeptical so we test and question.
Appeals to authority or popularity are not acceptable. How many “knowns” have met the ash heap because someone had the temerity to challenge them? I believe Einstein would challenge us to question everything.
I seem to recall a lecturer (Feynman?) who speculated that – since everything seems to evolve- perhaps, even physics evolves.
My Pop used to say that he believed we are being “spoon fed” – learning (revealed?) just enough to keep us curious – but not overwhelmed.
Reply
Roosevelt Mcgibboney
| #
This site is absolutely fabulous!
Reply