Relativity Crisis

[MigL]

3 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with

That's the difference between ''logical proof' ( as in made-up ) and experimental proof ( as in observed ).
One of those can be purely delusional.
We only 'know' reality by measuring, and measurements support relativity, not your incredulity.

And every good physicist knows the distinction.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

Your physics is wrong for several reasons that have been pointed out. But here's another one: Logical fallacy implies a bad use of the rules of arguing in order to prove a point; it says nothing about being right or wrong regarding that point. 

Thus, even a theory based on false assumptions could be correct in the sense that it provides you with the right mathematical model. Ironically, that's what happened with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. He pictured mechanical tensions on a medium, which totally was the wrong idea, as later found out. But it gave the right equations, which in turn led to the right ideas that unfurl the amazing generalisation which is relativity, which you don't seem to understand.

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer.

Yes, it depends on the observer. 

Functionally no different than claiming the train can’t be moving and stationary. But in the train’s frame it is stationary and in the station’s frame it is moving.

11 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real.

You can’t be moving and stationary if motion is “real” - can’t have <whatever amount> of kinetic energy and zero - it’s the same misunderstanding of relativity

[Janus]

On 12/27/2023 at 6:17 AM, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion.

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent.

An analogy would be these images of two lines:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, Janus said:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute le

I've not seen that analogy before, +1

[Genady]

On 12/28/2023 at 12:41 PM, studiot said:

I've not seen that analogy before, +1

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further:

This comes from:

[studiot]

41 minutes ago, Genady said:

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further:

Thanks. +1

[joigus]

On 12/28/2023 at 5:29 PM, Janus said:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

Brilliant.

This is my favourite way of talking about discrepacies in measured lengths and times for different observers, and I love that you just used it. Moving is like taking an angle. In fact, that's exactly what it is: Being at an angle with respect to another "mover". Somewhere else I've explained this as just another kind of foreshortening. Consequences of foreshortening are real enough for anybody trying to --eg-- get a large object through a short door by tilting it.

Of course, if you change your state of motion, your previous tilting parameter (your velocity) is no longer the same. This is at the core of so many people trying to "point out" to everybody else that "something is wrong" with relativity.