Major flaw in Theory of Relativity

Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Major flaw in Theory of Relativity

Relativity of simultaneity shows flaw when a third simultaneous even is introduced in the "Ladder Paradox" thought experiment.
Link to the Wikipedia page, treating the ladder paradox - click HERE to read.
Please study the content from the above link, and refer to it when examining the problem presented by me.
For better understanding I'll use the same graphics, modified for the purpose of the problem.

To question the length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity I introduce a third simultaneous event in the ladder paradox problem.

How?  Simply, by attaching a rod to each door, which are welded perpendicularly on the inside of the doors, in a way that the rod tips touch when both the doors are closed. (See the red attached arms on the graphics)
Think of this touching event as verification of the simultaneity - touching verifies simultaneity, no touching - no simultaneity. Obviously this event will be absent in the ladder reference frame, since the doors in that frame are not closing simultaneously. Missing event in one of the reference frames is against the law of physics, which automatically puts Einstein's Theory of Relativity in the dustbin. (Don't laugh. Think.)

Graphics:
1. left hand side - garage reference frame with simultaneously closing doors. Touching event is present on the third graphic from the top. 
2. right hand side - ladder reference frame with non simultaneously closing doors. Touching event is missing.

Ladder Paradox

 

Why do I present this problem in your forums?

Just to show, how authorities create unbreakable walls and form mind obedience.
You are terrified by the idea of Einstein being wrong in the core of his theory, eh?
No, you are not. You cannot even allow such a thought in your obedient minds.

You think that I'm crazy, and that solves all your problems with all your wrong perceptions of the world.

 

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Event would be the correct term.

Did you include yourself as an element or event within the problem. In working the problem would one make themself an event that must be considered along with the other events.

My brain must be shorted . I'm having a problem with the problem. I think I need an animation to see this. Or, my cognatives aren't what they were in the past. In Wikipedia they present the same, but with a difference. They don't have touching rods on the doors.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote: Did you

Old Seer wrote:

Did you include yourself as an element or event within the problem. In working the problem would one make themself an event that must be considered along with the other events.

My brain must be shorted . I'm having a problem with the problem. I think I need an animation to see this. Or, my cognatives aren't what they were in the past. In Wikipedia they present the same, but with a difference. They don't have touching rods on the doors.


Two simultaneously closing doors are two simultaneous events. (We are interested in the events, not in the doors)
Two rods touching their tips at the same time with the doors closing, is third simultaneous event.

I think that this explanation is quite understandable. It is shown on the left side graphic, third image.

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:EXC wrote:

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

Since touching is dependant on simultanity, touching would seem to appear in one frame of reference but not another.

You're trying to tell us that simultaneousness depends on FoR, but touching ia independent of FoR. This is irrational.

Simultaneity does not depend on the frame of reference. It depends on the time the events happen.
If the events happen in the same time, then they are simultaneous.

It does depend on the Frame of Reference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

"Simultaneity is the property of two events happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute property between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. "

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:Simultaneity

Truden wrote:
Simultaneity does not depend on the frame of reference. It depends on the time the events happen.

More proof you know shit about relativity. You can't even begin to appreciate how off you are.

Truden wrote:
Vastet, if I continue this discussion with you, I'll make fool of myself.

Every time you post you make a fool of yourself.

Truden wrote:
You have no clue about General and Special Relativity.

You have no clue about any science at all. So you're in no position to make such a claim.

Truden wrote:
You keep throwing the "appear" word in the context of relativity. "Appear" implies perception.

No shit sherlock. You think the dimensions of the ladder and garage actually change, but they don't. They only appear to, and only from objects relative to them. Get that through your thick skull right now.

Truden wrote:
However relativity is not about perception but about measured values.

You're a complete buffoon. You have no method capable of taking measurements of your dumb ass experiment yet claim it proves relativity is bs yet you say relativity is about measurements. I'm betting you don't have the slightest idea that you are literally retarded.

Truden wrote:
When we measure length in inertial frames of reference, we get true values, not perceived, imaginary values.
If we measure 1m length, it is 1m long and we can use that 1m long object by putting it to work in a system as 1m long object.
Same goes for simultaneity. If the events happen at the same time, then they are simultaneous. If they don't happen at the same time, then they are not simultaneous.

News flash retard: you will never measure the ladder as being completely in the garage because it is never completely in the garage. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Truden wrote: EXC

EXC wrote:

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

Since touching is dependant on simultanity, touching would seem to appear in one frame of reference but not another.

You're trying to tell us that simultaneousness depends on FoR, but touching ia independent of FoR. This is irrational.

Simultaneity does not depend on the frame of reference. It depends on the time the events happen.
If the events happen in the same time, then they are simultaneous.

It does depend on the Frame of Reference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

"Simultaneity is the property of two events happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute property between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. "



That's not dependency. That's relativity Laughing out loud

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Relativity is absolutely

Relativity is absolutely dependant on something being relative. In other words, a second frame of reference.

EXC finally gets something right and it's wasted on this idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15743
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote: Old Seer

Truden wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Did you include yourself as an element or event within the problem. In working the problem would one make themself an event that must be considered along with the other events.

My brain must be shorted . I'm having a problem with the problem. I think I need an animation to see this. Or, my cognatives aren't what they were in the past. In Wikipedia they present the same, but with a difference. They don't have touching rods on the doors.


Two simultaneously closing doors are two simultaneous events. (We are interested in the events, not in the doors)
Two rods touching their tips at the same time with the doors closing, is third simultaneous event.

I think that this explanation is quite understandable. It is shown on the left side graphic, third image.

 

That does it, I'm convined, Allah is the one true god. Oh that's right you stupidly think you are the only one who tries to incorporate science to point to your pet god and pet book. Hate to burst your bubble, but like I said previously, this tactic is used by followers of every major religon worldwide.

 

 

 

 

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/scientific-miracles-of-holy-quran/

Jews also think science matches their religion.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/71692/jewish/How-Scientific-is-Torah.htm

And Hindus

http://hinduismfacts.org/hindu-science/

The Dali Lama thinks Buddhism fits in well with science too.

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads

So when any religion cant debunk science they resort to retrofitting it after the fact to get it to point to their clubs. So again, get in line, take a number.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Truden
Theist
Truden's picture
Posts: 195
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Truden

Brian37 wrote:

Truden wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Did you include yourself as an element or event within the problem. In working the problem would one make themself an event that must be considered along with the other events.

My brain must be shorted . I'm having a problem with the problem. I think I need an animation to see this. Or, my cognatives aren't what they were in the past. In Wikipedia they present the same, but with a difference. They don't have touching rods on the doors.


Two simultaneously closing doors are two simultaneous events. (We are interested in the events, not in the doors)
Two rods touching their tips at the same time with the doors closing, is third simultaneous event.

I think that this explanation is quite understandable. It is shown on the left side graphic, third image.

 

That does it, I'm convined, Allah is the one true god. Oh that's right you stupidly think you are the only one who tries to incorporate science to point to your pet god and pet book. Hate to burst your bubble, but like I said previously, this tactic is used by followers of every major religon worldwide.

 

 

 

 

http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/scientific-miracles-of-holy-quran/ Jews also think science matches their religion. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/71692/jewish/How-Scientific-is-Torah.htm And Hindus http://hinduismfacts.org/hindu-science/ The Dali Lama thinks Buddhism fits in well with science too. http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads So when any religion cant debunk science they resort to retrofitting it after the fact to get it to point to their clubs. So again, get in line, take a number.

What the f*ck is wrong with you guys in this forums.
Where did I even imply that the presented problem has anything to do with god, God, Allah, Vishnu or any other god you don't believe in?
Is this kind of tactics to chase away people that are threatening your believes?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Don't waste time attempting

Don't waste time attempting to communicate with Brian37. You'd have more luck with a wall. He's in the running for dumbest member of this site through all its history.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3922
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Truden wrote:EXC wrote:

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

Truden wrote:

EXC wrote:

Since touching is dependant on simultanity, touching would seem to appear in one frame of reference but not another.

You're trying to tell us that simultaneousness depends on FoR, but touching ia independent of FoR. This is irrational.

Simultaneity does not depend on the frame of reference. It depends on the time the events happen.
If the events happen in the same time, then they are simultaneous.

It does depend on the Frame of Reference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simultaneity

"Simultaneity is the property of two events happening at the same time in a frame of reference. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, simultaneity is not an absolute property between events; what is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not necessarily be simultaneous in another. "



That's not dependency. That's relativity Laughing out loud

 

That is circular reasoning.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian posts two messages

Brian posts two messages about dead celebrities at the same time. Brian is moving at the speed of light and from his point of view the messages were posted at the same time.

To the observer, the messages arrive at different times and they think "What the fuck does this person do all day long? Fish for deaths of public icons?"

The point of the experiment isn't if Brian actually posted messages at the same time. The point would be that it is awfully weird that he always seems to post messages about dead celebrities before any one else.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i don't think it's weird at

i don't think it's weird at all, because i don't think anyone else was going to post it, considering every major search engine's homepage, social media, and pretty much every online news outlet took care of that for us.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson