The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Damo2600

The conclusion of the paper is that Special Relativity is correct. I am also aware that Special Relativity makes absolutely no sense in a Gallilean absolute reference frame - whereby *your* time equals *my* time regardless of velocity. ...

Your paper was long winded and used a lot of words and didn't say much. What it did say, did not
easily get to the conclusion. After reading a couple of times, I did agree you were on the protagonist
side (with SR and not against). I agree with Tormod and others. C1ay's references are much better
at explaining SR. I learned my glimpse with, "The Meaning of Relativity", by Albert Einstein when I
was just turning 13. We do NOT live in a "Galilean world" in that the "average man on the street"
does not understand even Galileo's simple notion of Relativity in depth. To most everyone is their
own reference point. "All coordinates are Relative to Me!" This is often people can not extend their
conciousness to even see another's point of view. Galilean my ass!

Originally Posted by Damo2600

However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

The grounding of logic is "if p imlies q then, if p is true, then q is true. Also, we can deduce if q is
Not true, then p is Not true. Nothing that I have seen Tormod, Qfwfq, paultr, or myself (in fact
many more) have in any way construed as illogical (not grounded in logic). This would mean though
that you can follow the logic given. In some of your earlier posts, you had admitted that you did not
fully understand SR (let alone the others) and that you were working to understand such. So when
did you suddenly become an expert in the subject by writing an expose. I studied SR on my own
as it was not offered as a physics topic in my undergraduate studies. Even I don't claim to be and
expert. I have studied it for quite a few years.

Originally Posted by Damo2600

"Somewhere along the line spacetime and our logical mind is playing tricks on us. We can test the difference. We can measure the difference. But it is impossible for the logical mind to understand the difference. Our logical mind suggests it's impossible. Special Relativity says it is 'actual", says Josephine

I am not in dispute with you quote. When Tormod, Qfwfq, or I say "it makes sense to me [SR]", we
are meaning that this fits in with the theories of the day {SR, GR, QM, QFT, etc}.

[Damo2600]

Well I agreed that my post is obviously too complicated for the beginner. I used every recess of my brain to comprehend Relativity and it was, as such, impossible. How can you travel at a certain speed for a certain time and arrive much earlier than your odometer and clock states? It makes absolutely no sense. For the unprepared beginner trying to squeeze an understanding of this, out of their tiny brain, could very well cause a hemorage. So relativity needs to be stated as a function of spacetime that the logical mind cannot comprehend.

I attempted to explain this to members of the forum who were still obviously having trouble with this. Rather than back me up you decided I had failed miserably. I can and have accepted that.

If you are in agreeance with me on the fact that Relativity is true but totally illogical then I guess we have no problem. However I feel that if people decide to state that relativity makes perfect sense then many people are going to continue to have problems with it. Which is evident on this and many other forums. You all must have gone through the stage of attempting to understand all this and at a much younger age than I did. So you must know the contortions your mind needs to go through to come to an understanding.

If my expertise is crappy then I suggest, if one of you have time, you produce this thread. You could entitle it 'Time to end all misconceptions for all time - Part two'

We can then move on from discussing the basics on relativity.

Just a thought

Josephine

I did write many posts stating that Relativity was untrue and that time dilation did not happen and they did not end up in the strange claims forum. When I did state that relativity was true I ended up here (This is where all the cool people end up BTW).
This fact is way stranger than my post.

[Tormod]

The problem at heart here is that you don't seem to grasp that

a) we don't have a problem with SR - it is a *theory* which none of us will fully understand
b) it makes perfect logical sense - that it is difficult to comprehend all of it is *natural* and it is true of *everything* in science. It takes a long time to learn things. There is no Relativity 101 in high school for a very good reason. One needs years and years of studies to understand Einstein's theories
c) the *implications* of Einstein's theories may be difficult to comprehend. But that does not mean they are illogical. They are simply counterintuitive. Different thing.

We are discussing the basics of relativity quite often. We also touch upon some of the harder issues. Your attitude has become that of a misunderstood genius who demands our support. We are under no obligation to do so. Nor do we have any obligation to redo your work. Writings about relativity has filled so many volumes in the past 100 years that there should be plenty for everyone.

I and others have suggested many articles and books for you. Now is the time to read them.

For beginners I suggest you stop trying to make tutorials about things you don't understand. Recommend that people read other people's work instead. Like Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" which are an astonishing example of marvellous science writing. And Feynman's humble approach should be a lesson for us all.

[Tormod]

I'll reply in detail, maybe it makes it easier to show you what I mean.

Originally Posted by Damo2600

Well I agreed that my post is obviously too complicated for the beginner.

Then the topic should be renamed as I proposed.

I used every recess of my brain to comprehend Relativity and it was, as such, impossible.

...and you extended this to include everyone else.

So relativity needs to be stated as a function of spacetime that the logical mind cannot comprehend.

That your logical mind cannot comprehend. Huge difference.

I attempted to explain this to members of the forum who were still obviously having trouble with this.

You are still obviously having trouble with this. Let it go.

Rather than back me up you decided I had failed miserably.

You need to differentiate between your own person and the posts that you make. We have all agreed that your "paper" is not a good paper, and it is not a good introduction to relativity for confused beginners. Why on Earth would we back it up then? No, we (as in myself on behalf of the admins) quickly moved it it into the strange claims forum because someone who had openly stated that she did not understand relativity, had started studying it about a month ago, and did not believe time dilation was real, suddenly began publishing a PAPER on it! *That* is what makes this a strange claim.

If you are in agreeance with me on the fact that Relativity is true but totally illogical then I guess we have no problem.

Stop making requirements as to what people should think and mean. If that is a problem for you then you are in the wrong place.

However I feel that if people decide to state that relativity makes perfect sense then many people are going to continue to have problems with it. Which is evident on this and many other forums.

Whether or not relativity makes perfect sense is not the issue here. That people are having problems with it is because they either have not studied it, or have studied it well enough to have found flaws in it (and not only something they believe to be flaws because their logical minds cannot comprehend it) is a sign that it is difficult. So is quantum physics. In fact, so is a lot of stuff.

If I had a dollar for every person who posted wrong things about relativity I would be very rich.

You all must have gone through the stage of attempting to understand all this and at a much younger age than I did. So you must know the contortions your mind needs to go through to come to an understanding.

No, none of us have the same degree of understanding of any idea or theory. That is why we discuss things. We do not suppose we know everything about anything. But we might know a thing or two about how the scientific method works, how science is communicated, the workings of logic, and a knowledge of the history of science.

If my expertise is crappy then I suggest, if one of you have time, you produce this thread. You could entitle it 'Time to end all misconceptions for all time - Part two'

Again, stop telling us what to do.

I did write many posts stating that Relativity was untrue and that time dilation did not happen and they did not end up in the strange claims forum. When I did state that relativity was true I ended up here (This is where all the cool people end up BTW).
This fact is way stranger than my post.

To you, of course. Like I wrote above, it was a turnabout from you. But the manner of your post did not in any way imply to me that you understood relativity. Nor was it a good tutorial. So it was a strange claim that you suddenly had accepted relativity over night.

[Damo2600]

Tormod on relativity:

'none of us will fully understand'

then

'it makes perfect logical sense'

I'm just saying that is all.

'who demands our support.'

When did I demand your support.? When?

Josephine

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Damo2600

I am also aware that Special Relativity makes absolutely no sense in a Gallilean absolute reference frame - whereby *your* time equals *my* time regardless of velocity.

That's not what "an absolute reference frame" means.

Originally Posted by Damo2600

We as a society are brought up in a Gallilean world and are somewhat unprepared to understand Special Relativity.

Our daily experience has to do with low velocities, at least the ones we are able to percieve. Our fastest vehicles on Earth have top speeds well below 0.00001, even visible celestial bodies including meteors are below 0.001 in velocity.

At such velocities, Lorentz-invariant mechanics are tangent to the mechanics developed by Galileo and Newton.

Originally Posted by Damo2600

However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

There's nothing illogical about relativity. It's based on math, which is based on logic.

[Tormod]

Josephine, before I ban you for being endlessly obnoxious, please try to straighten your brain out for a second.

Special relativity is a theory. As a theory it is coherent and the predictions it makes were revolutionary and infuriating at the time, yet today they are becoming more and more understood.

As a theory, it makes perfect logical sense. That is why it was one of the major innovations in human history.

However, Einstein's theories are very difficult to understand.

Look at it this way: it is easy to learn how to drive a car (for most people, at least). But it is extremely difficult to build one yourself. You can take it apart, yet it wouldn't instantly become clear to you what each part does, why they are were they are, or even what they are needed for in the first place.

So it is with scientific theories - you study what has been done before, try to understand it. A theory may make more or less sense to each and every one of us, but there are rules for how a theory must be constructed, just like there are certain ways a car needs to be built in order to work.

These things are, for example, coherence, logic (ie, A required B, so we need to have B which then requires C, or even A1 etc), testability (we must be able to test out the car, but also each part of it).

Yet we may not have a complete understanding of how the car is constructed, nor can we construct our own. But we can study it and learn. We can appreciate it for the practical uses it has. But it is still just a car.

The same goes for a scientific theory. As long as it follows the requirements of proof, validity, logic and testability, it is accepted as a theory and can make perfect logical sense. We don't have to understand it to accept this.

In fact, this is the very reason there are things like peer reviewed journals, scientific societies etc - so that people can submit theories and have them thoroughly tested by *many* others. When this is doen, we accept the new theory as a theory. Nobody is saying it is the only truth or even that it is necessarily correct. But it is, at the time, the best way to describe what we observe.

[quantum quack]

Jos, it is the following quote from your post that makes no sense. IN relativity this simply does not occur. The moving observer sees no change in his time or length conditions it is only the stationary observer that sees these changes........ the odometer and clocks on board his ship will always be correct, he can not and does not beat them as you suggest.

How can you travel at a certain speed for a certain time and arrive much earlier than your odometer and clock states? It makes absolutely no sense

This is just showing how little you understand even the basic concepts of relativity. I do not mean it as an insult but you are simply showing how little you know about the theory and not that the theory is illogical.

I might add I myself have some grave reservations about SRT but certainly not for the reasons your are claiming as illogical.
What is illogical is to claim knowledge of a theory when this is obviously not the case....

[Damo2600]

Those of you who have read the explanation and are not totally marred by the ongoing conversation here is a quote from someone who has been studying Relativity for 50 years. No names as a lot of trashing can go on. This is a statement they made after they had read my explanation:

'Ah, now you are moving from "how" to "why", and that is a whole
different ballgame. Science can
give you explanations as a chain of cause and effect, but the bottom
line is what IS, and what can be demonstrated. As to WHY the speed of
light is 3 x 10^8 mps and not something else, and WHY it is constant in
every reference frame, cannot be explained at our present level of
knowledge.'

'Most likely it is to do with the very structure of spacetime itself. QT
predicts that space and time are quantised, and the clue probably lies
in just how they are quantised, but as yet we only have speculations
about this... . Will we ever have
the *whole* story? Probably not....'

Josephine

[Damo2600]

Hi Quantum Quack,

Is my understanding really that little.

If you and I decide to take a trip to Sirius C, some 8.6 light years away from Earth, and we take a spaceship that has a velocity of v = c/2. A modest speed.

The moment we take off we will notice the effects of space and time. Around half way we will look back at earth and toward Sirius C and find our calculations are off somewhat. The two celestrial bodies will appear to be much closer than 4.3 light years. Here's the hitch they ARE much closer. So a trip such as this will not only take less time than originally planned we will have covered less distance. The odometer and our clocks state that we have arrived much sooner than we planned. Yet we would not have travelled faster than we planned.

How does this make logical sense? It does not. Is this what my explanation was trying to get across? Yes it was. Is the universe extremely amazing? Yes it is.

Josephine