The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

[Damo2600]

Hi guys,

I know this is a long post but this is my conclusion on The Theory of
Relativity which you don't have to read.



The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

By Josephine Sage



Chapter 1 - What is the Theory of Special Relativity




Part 1/ Relativity in Gallilean Terms




A drunk in the bar, no matter how drunk he is, realises with
certainty that if someone throws a peanut at him it will take some
time before it actually hits him. If you see a woodcutter at a
distance there is a brief moment before the sound hits you. So we
realise sound travels at a certain speed. Finally light, travelling
from stars billions of miles away, has it's own delay between the
time the signal is sent and the time that it is recieved.

In gallilean terms we can register this logic in our own reference
frames.Although 300 000km/s is too fast for us to notice the effects
in our everyday life. If I am travelling on a train and a friend were
to be waving me off at the station there would be a time difference
between the first wave and the second wave. The distance is growing
so the light has further to go between each wave. The longer I travel
in a straight line, at a constant speed, the waves will be a constant
slower speed than the stationary observer. If I were accelerating the
time between each wave will become acceleratingly slower. This is
my 'friends waving' analogy.




Part 2/ Relativity According to Einstien




If we take a look into Einstien's world we see that time appears to
do many things our mind cannot comprehend. The speed of light is
astronomically fast which makes it even more difficult to grasp the
concept of relativity. For a moment, during this paper at least, we
will slow the speed of light down. We will make the velocity of light
equal to 4 metres per second. A bite size mouthful our brains can
chew.

Now we will have two obsevers OA and OB. OA will be stationed on the
platform and OB will be sitting on a train travelling at 2 metres per
second. Next to each observer will be two mirrors, two metres apart.
The light will travel, between the two mirrors, perpendicularly to
the ground. For ease we will title them LA (light A) and LB (light
B). We will compare each event by the two observers watches. In my
own working out of the Theory of Special Relativity I drew this
situation on a peice of paper many times and stared at the drawing in
order to understand what was happening in both reference frames. (I
might suggest that you do the same as a reference for reading this
paper.)

First we will consider the observations of OA: It will take LA one
second to complete it's full journey between the two mirrors and
reflect all the way back. The second light LB should be travelling in
the shape of an isoceles triangle in gallilean terms. According to OB
the LB travels for a 1/2 second, 2.236 metres down, then another 1/2
second, 2.236 metres up, and in one second the train travels 2m.
Considering the 'friends waving' analogy we logically would think
this journey of LB, according to OA, should take longer than LA.
Einstien understood for OA, due to time dilation and length
contraction, LB should take an equal 1 second. Einstien concluded
that time must be slowing down for OB in order for him to return an
equal 1 second time of LB.

So here we have our first difficulty in comprehension of Einstiens
theory. According to the 'friends waving' analogy time would ONLY
appear to be slowing down, for both observers, yet Einstien states
that two different observers are seeing the same light at exactly the
time. So we must have two different clock speeds, observing the speed
of light, in order for light to remain the constant it is considered
to be. We may decide due to length contraction that light appears to
be travelling straight up and down. That does not make sense, to the
logical mind, because appearances aside the distance is still
becoming larger between OA and OB. So here we have the obvious choice
that time on the train is slowing down.

Someone offered the suggestion to me that light actually is
travelling two different distances at two equal time speeds. I can
respect their comment, however, it is the same as the previous
statement whereby time slows down merely in reverse.



Part 3/ Length Contraction in Gallilean Terms



We all know that a full moon looks flat. How can this be? If we were
moving away from a ball the light from the closest point of the ball
will hit us first and, due to the movement of the train, the light at
the furthest point, at the circumference, should hit us later. Our
logical mind tells us this. However the length contraction Einstien
suggests we should think that the light from the circumference should
hit us much sooner than our logical mind says.

In gallilean terms the time should slow down yet the ball should
appear longer. Animation on TV seems to think that objects should
appear longer. When you slow down highspeed objects on camera footage
the object appears to elongate and not contract. Here we have another
contradiction between our logical mind and relativity.

Our minds should surely be spinning by now. I will leave this for now
and get back to the issue of time.



Part 4/ How Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity Are Unrelated



In the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving away relative to
you their time will appear to SLOW down. In Einstien's theory if
someone is moving away relative to you their time will appear to SLOW
down. Sounds like we are discusing the same issue here. In
the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving closer to you their
time will appear to SPEED* up. In Einstien's theory if someone is
moving closer relative to you their time will appear not to SPEED up.
(*By this I mean that at a distance your time will be a slower time
speed due to the distance light has to travel.) We certainly have
found another discrepancy our logical mind will not let go of.

If you speed toward an object then your time and the time of the
distant object are coming into line. In galillean terms the
acceleration will make the oncoming object appear to speed up (from a
slower time speed) and deceleration would also basically mean time
will also speed up from a slower clock speed. When you stop next to
the object your clock will tick at the same rate as the stationary
clock. This is true whether your clocks agree or not. This last
statement appears to be true of Special Relativity aswell.

We are getting to the crux of the matter. In relativity the problem
we have in understanding is in the object moving toward you at a
constant speed. The issue is far from being resolved.

Now, according to *you* stationed on the platform, you will observe
time, according to the train, moving from a slower time speed to
a 'slightly faster' slower time speed at a constant rate. This is
true of Gallilean Relativity. At the point where you are next to the
train your time will tick at almost the same rate as the train's
clock and will begin to slow down as the train passes you once more.
So we can understand relativity in the 'friends waving' analogy.'

The same situation in reverse is:

If you pass a clock at a train station you will notice on a very fine
level that the clock ticks are almost the same as your clock. When
you approach the station clock time will appear to speed up. When you
pass the clock time will appear to slow down once again.



Part 5/ Contradictions in Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity
Arise



We now understand relativity in gallilean terms however we do not
understand the contradictions of time dilation and length
contraction. How does LA and LB have the exact same 1 second speed
for both observers, OA and OB, attempting to do both calculations?

So we have the 'friends waving' analogy and the Einstienian theory.
The 'friends waving' analogy works both ways for the logical mind.
The Einstien theory only works one way because if time is actually
slowing down for OB then how can it also slow down in the reverse
situation. The mind boggles to comprehend this. For OA to measure LA
to be 1 second then how can OB, whilst experiencing a slower time
speed, observe LA to be 1 second as well.

To solve this problem we 'could' say that time for both observers is
slowing down but this would bring us back 'full circle' to the
problem we had in the first place. In this case both observers are
experiencing the same reference frame time although at different
distances apart.

So now we suggest another option perhaps the time slows down only
when we are looking at the light moving relative to us. Perhaps this
is not as absurd as it sounds. We can conclusively dispel this
option, though, due to the fact that if two observers, situated on
the platform, were recording the elapsed time of LA and LB from the
same clock the elapsed times would need to be unequal. Our mind is
obviously troubled on many levels.

The extra 'special' absurdity this theory contains is that if both
observers, OA and OB, calculate the time of both LA and LB for an
hour then all four calculations would equal 360 minutes and LA and LB
would have bounced exactly the same amount of times yet travelled
uneven distances. This goes against the 'friends waving' analogy in
an extremely wierd way. This suggests that no matter how fast the
train is travelling, for OA and OB, then there will be no delay
between the time it takes to observe LB and LA respectively and
reversedly. This would further suggest that the clock speed for both
observers would have to be equal.

Unfortunately it somehow equates to 'magic'.

I have been assured that this theory of Einstien's has been proven on
many occasions and that to this day it is still being proven. Yet if
we try to understand how this works we come up with a situation that
contradicts the physical nature of light taking time to travel over
distances. I have been rebuked on many occasions and told that I am
assuming an absolute reference frame. With my constant attempts at
trying to see the mental experiment without the absolute gallilean
reference frame the theory still remains contradictory.

So what does the logical mind do with this?

In Gallilean terms all times are accounted for and Special Relativity
does not account for all time. We will discuss this further in Part 6.



Part 6/ The Connection between length Contraction and Time Dilation.



Einstien uses the intrinsic connection, between length Contraction
and Time Dilation, in the following case in order to explain this:

OA and OB each time both LA and LB for one hour. We return with four
360 second times recording 360 trips that LA and LB make. So we will
throw off the Gallilean blanket with it's absolute reference frame
and see what happens. For OA he experiences time dilation and length
contraction with regard to LA. The mix of the above shortening of
time and space suggests that the LB could return a value of 360 trips
regardless of movement. This means that the distance between OA and
the train appears shorter and the time experienced by OB appears
shorter. We can see the logic in that.

So the isoceles triangle is closer to a straight line up and down.
Let us now suggest that in OA's time, for the rest of the isoceles
triangle, light appears to be going faster for OA and slower for OB.
Forget the absurdity of this. Let us state that the reverse is true
as well for OB. OA sees the train as shorter and OB sees the platform
as shorter.

So now we have an equal time for all observers regardless of
distance, direction or velocity. IT's absurd we know it however we
are assured emphatically and empirically this is true. 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'. Gallilean Relativity is an approximation whereas Special
Relativity is reality.

This is my first chapter in understanding Relativity for beginers the
next chapter will be entitled 'Testing the Theory of Relativity'.


Thank you
Josephine Sage

[Tormod]

A warning to our readers: This thread is mistitled. It is *not* recommended reading if you want to learn about relativity.

It should be titled "Josephine's paper on relativity". This is *not* a theory of special relativity but a paper which shows that the author has very little understanding of what Einstein's work was all about.

[Damo2600]

Hi Tormod,

You really dislike me don't you. I put a lot of work into that. As far as I have been assured the Theory of Special Relativity doesn't make sense if you consider it using the absolute reference frame that Gallileo put forward. So what is the problem with my understanding now? I'm really interested...

Josephine

[Tormod]

Moved to the Strange Claims forum.

Josephine, you have not produced a theory but a confused paper. It has nothing to do with you as a person (I do not know you). It has something to do with the fact that you do not have a scientific theory, and you do not understand relativity.

I am not going to attempt to teach you anything - you have ignored any such attempt so far - but I could perhaps point out that you even spell Einstein's name wrong.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Damo2600

As far as I have been assured the Theory of Special Relativity doesn't make sense if you consider it using the absolute reference frame that Gallileo put forward.

Galileo did nothing of the sort, he wrote what is considered to be the first statement of the principle of relativity ever published, which Newton also refers to as "the experiment of the ship" when arguing toward the principle of relativity.

Both Newton and Galileo argue that we can't detect an absolute rest or motion, except for one of rotation. The difference is they both consider the principle for the three spatial coordinates, not for space-time. Before Einstein and Lorentz, time wasn't known to be a coordinate, different for different observers, though Newton's argument includes the discussion of relative and absolute times but not as being part of a same geometry with space.

[quantum quack]

Jos,
As an excersise that by the end of which you will know just how complex debunking relativity is you should attempt to understand how SRT applies to the GPS satelite system in use today. No mean fete I can assure you.

Possiby also in your wrtings you would like to describe why AE determined light to be invariant to all observers and why it became necessary to accommodate relative time and abandon absolute time. Also why E=mc^2 became a necessary outcome of SRT.

I must admit i would be inetersted in your discourse and discoveries.

[C1ay]

Why not get it straight from the horse's mouth? Relativity : The Special and the General Theory
by Albert Einstein is still in print. A good companion book is Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified
by Richard Wolfson. FWIW, your post is confusing to me and I would not recommend it for anyone that is already confused even if I thought it an accurate depiction.

[Damo2600]

You guys are great,

Well if you can't understand it I guess the Totally confused beginner would experience the same problem. It merely represents the turmoil I went through in trying to logically grasp relativity. I am curious as to whether you guys actually read it properly. It seems from your responses that you understood it to be against Special Relativity.

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. We as a society are brought up in a Gallilean world and are somewhat unprepared to understand Special Relativity.
However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

Allow me to quote myself:

"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'."

Josephine

[Tormod]

Nobody said we couldn't understand your paper. It is a misguided document and does not do any favors towards relativity - it does not enhance understanding of it, it does not make things simpler but *harder* to understand (and you still haven't bothered to fix the spelling of "Einstein").

Our logical mind is not playing tricks on us. The stuff you write about the moon is complete nonsense. The difference in time it takes for the light at the middle of the lunar disk to reach us, as compared to the light at the edges, is so vanishingly small that has absolutely no bearing on anything. And most importantly..it has *no* relevance to special relativity.

We do not grow up in a "Galilean" society. The very fact that space and time has a theoretical beginning and an end in current cosmological models (ie, the big bang model) is firmly rooted in current thinking and has been so for quite a while. If anything, our kids grow up in a Einsteinian society with the addition of the quantum knowledge that we are gaining, where the catchword of the decade is "everything is relative" and Einstein is sold on T-shirts on every corner.

The average John and Jane (and most non-average ones, too) will *never* understand relativity. Nor will they understand Plato's allegory of the cave, for that sake. They do not need to, and they don't care. And it really doesn't help to confuse the matter when you in other threads state that time dilation does not happen - when that very concept is the basis of Einstein's relativity theory.

[Tormod]

BTW, if you want a *really* good popular explanation of relativity where the speed of light is brought down to manageable levels, watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV documentary series which was released on DVD a few years back. There is a great sequence in one of the episodes where he drives a moped through an Italian village (where Einstein first started thinking about what the Maxwellian equations said about light) and comes back to find his brother is an old man, while he himself has only aged a few minutes. It is a brilliant explanation of time dilation.