Mathematical Obscurities in Special Relativity

I’m also curious as to why the professors get really mad about this. I’ve noticed on some science boards, people can go on and say “the moon landing was a hoax”, “UFO aliens have landed”, “I’ve invented a perpetual motion machine,” or “the big bang never happened.” And the professors don't get upset. But if I say, “the speed of light slows down in a gravity field,” these guy start to go berserk. Why? This is not my invention. Einstein said it in his papers and in his book. So why is it denied now?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by DAVID</i>
<br />I’m also curious as to why the professors get really mad about this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Usually, to make a professor "mad", you have to insult him/her or refuse to listen to what he/she tells you. I suspect in your case it may be the latter. Professors do have a reason for their beliefs. You seem dissatisfied with just knowing they are wrong, and want to insist that they <i>admit</i> they are wrong. Bad news: You will seldom get that kind of admission from denizens of this planet. But if you persist in trying, it will make most people quite upset with you.

By contrast, if you plant the seeds of doubt and give them time (say, six months) to grow, you may be pleasantly surprised at how many people can re-evaluate their position over time, provided they have never been forced to "dig in" or develop strong emotional attachments while defending it. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i> I suspect in your case it may be the latter. Professors do have a reason for their beliefs. You seem dissatisfied with just knowing they are wrong, and want to insist that they <i>admit</i> they are wrong. Bad news: You will seldom get that kind of admission from denizens of this planet. But if you persist in trying, it will make most people quite upset with you.

By contrast, if you plant the seeds of doubt and give them time (say, six months) to grow, you may be pleasantly surprised at how many people can re-evaluate their position over time, provided they have never been forced to "dig in" or develop strong emotional attachments while defending it. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">



Lol, Yes, I agree with that. I’m not very patient, as you might have noticed already.

I had an experience with one of them, after months of my arguing that “c” might not be a speed limit on a universal scale, he always argued that under SR theory “c” is always a speed limit. Then one day he posted a message saying that under GR theory “c” is not a speed limit. Then when I said that’s what I’d been telling him for months, he claimed that he knew it all the time.

Arguments about SR and discrepancies in the mathematics remind me of a story if you all will indulge me:
Three travelling salesmen break down and are forced to spend the night at a small town inn. They go in the innkeeper tells them, "The rooms are $30". Each man pays $10 and they go up to the room. The husband of the innkeeper says to her, "Did you charge them the full amount? Why not give them five bucks back since their car is broken and they hadn't planned to stay here." She then brings the men five $1 bills and each man takes one while the other $2 rests on the table.
Originally each man paid ten dollars (10x3=30), now each man has paid nine dollars (9x3=27) there are $2 sitting on the counter (27+2=29). The last dollar disappears. My point is that this situation mimics the first posts of this argument. Bringing calculus in further complicates the problem. The problem is not one of logic; rather, it shows that a problem cannot be restated another way once it has already been stated one way. SR works in the context of the light world. I think we observe it more because of how the electron is effected at high speeds (near c) in real matter. Clocks slow because the electrons orbit is changing thence changing the properties of the matter making up the clock. We have seen these examples numerous times here. I am curious if we can show how SR works in context of the MM at scales smaller than elysium. Gravity can then be made by a particle with some tiny amount of mass, yet accelerate beyond c. When particles can collide with elysium, then SR is going to look true. When they don't then we see superluminous speeds. Trying to outprove SR in another context is likely to drive folks batty. Thats my take on the matter, I am probably going to get spanked in the reply
Mark

MV,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am curious if we can show how SR works in context of the MM at scales smaller than elysium<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

SR doesn't work on any scale in MM, it is a non-issue. [] In SR, time slows down, but in MM, processes slow down with respect to universal time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />
The last dollar disappears. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">30 – 3 = 27

3 x 9 = 27

The 27 results from the subtraction of 3, not the subtraction of 2.

Plus there are 2 dollars left over.

Two men wound up paying $8.33 for the room, and one wound up paying $8.34.

$8.33 + $8.33 + $8.34 = $25

$25 + $5 = $30

Their problem is to divide the $2 up 3 ways, so each will get .66666 cents.

But they can’t do that, so they settle it this way:

Two guys take .67 cents and one guy settles for .66 cents.

SR does not work because it has no “force” being placed on any of the clocks that could make them slow down.

1895 Lorentz theory works with atomic clocks because there is a “force” felt by the atoms when they are forced through fields such as gravity fields. This is generally known as the “Lorentz Force”. Einstein left out the fields and the physical “forces” in his 1905 paper, and that causes the major flaw in the paper, and so he had to add a field to the SR theory in his 1918 paper, and he had to change the mechanical clocks to atomic clocks, and that’s when he turned SR into a form of GR, and so SR literally disappeared from physics in 1918. All we have now is Lorentz theory and GR theory.