
Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies [pdf] - nyc111
http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0086v1.pdf
======
AnimalMuppet
This sets off my BS detectors. He cites only papers written by himself. He
writes in the style that I associate with crackpots, yelling at you with
bolding rather than convincing you with logic.

Yeah, I haven't gone through it nail down the flaws. There's some possibility
he's right. It's a small enough probability that I'm not going to take the
time to go through the paper in detail, though.

And if he's right, there ought to be an experiment to show that special
relativity fails to describe reality. He doesn't even propose one, let alone
give results from one.

~~~
nyc111
To be fair to Stephen Crothers, these are slides, and he bolded some of his
conclusions for emphasis. I think it is unfair to raise the issue of
crackpotism because he bolded some sentences. You can see in the video that he
does not yell at all
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI&t=2s)

But I personally believe that no evidence can ever disprove Special Relativity
or General Relativity. They are so entrenched in academic physics that
physicists will call any contradicting evidence "an anomaly", name it with a
clever name and make it an academic field of study on its own without ever
discontinuing SP. But for any anti-Einstein idea to be taken seriously a very
high ranking and prominent physicist need to write papers on the topic. But no
physicist will ever question Einstein. For them this is textbok stuff.
Physicists can only test Einstein to prove him right one more time :) An
outsider has no chance even if, as you say, he comes with experimental
evidence.

~~~
drdeca
Why do you believe that no evidence could ever convince them?

What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that they would be convinced
given sufficient evidence (other than seeing them be convinced by evidence)?

Imagine if a prediction market were in place about the outcome of various
expiraments. Whose models do you think would be used by the traders who do the
best in such a market?

~~~
nyc111
> Why do you believe that no evidence could ever convince them?

Looking back at the history of physics, can you give me an example of an
established physics theory that was discarded by experimental evidence? The
worst that can happen is that disproven theory will be rebranded as “classic”
and will continue to exist and taught as if it were never disproved.

> Imagine if a prediction market were in place about the outcome of various
> expiraments. Whose models do you think would be used by the traders who do
> the best in such a market?

Good question. So if I understand correctly, various experiments are conducted
on the same subject and physicists look at the outcomes and choose the
experiments that makes the best prediction. Or the experiment that matches the
model best.

This is a very idealized view of physics. Most experiments in academic physics
are academic experiments. The experiment is set up to give one result and one
result only and all the successive experimenters do is to try to lower the
experimental error.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Looking back at the history of physics, can you give me an example of an
> established physics theory that was discarded by experimental evidence?

The aether theory, which was discarded due to the null result of the
Michaelson-Morley experiment.

> The worst that can happen is that disproven theory will be rebranded as
> “classic” and will continue to exist and taught as if it were never
> disproved.

That's true of things like Newtonian physics, which are still approximately
true (in fact, asymptotically true), and therefore still useful in many
environments. It's absolutely _not_ true of things like the aether theory.

Now, if you want to argue that Special Relativity would fall into the second
camp, even if this guy's theory is correct, that would be reasonable - Special
Relativity is clearly right enough that particle accelerators work and atom
bombs explode. But to say as blanket statements the things you said in your
first paragraph? No, I can't agree.

~~~
nyc111
> The aether theory...

Good example. But physics has a way to bring back old theories under new
names, thus “New ether theories”:

[http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0318v1.pdf](http://vixra.org/pdf/1708.0318v1.pdf)

It can also be said that Einstein substituted “space-time” for “ether”. But
you are right my blanket statement turns out to be too general.

> Special Relativity is clearly right enough that particle accelerators
> work...

Unfortunately, I don’t agree that SP is a useful theory. Physicists include
branded labels in their equations to save their theories and then when it
comes to do actual calculations they eliminate those labels and use numerical
methods. And then they say their theories work. This is my own view and I
concede that I no longer have the energy to talk about such contentious
physics issues.

I don't like to argue on "theories" level because in physics all theories
including Special Relativity are merely names given to a huge collection of
statements. This collection will include contradictory statements as well. So
if you argue with a physicist about Special Relativity he will simply pick and
choose suitable arguments from the available legal arguments and prove his
points. Some other physicist may choose other legal arguments and prove just
the opposite point. Both arguments would be legal in physics.

So when you say "Special Relativity is clearly right enough that particle
accelerators work and atom bombs explode..." for me this is problematic
because no term called "special relativity" enters any calculations in
particle physics. They may use philosophical concepts associated with the
theory and then eliminate those philosophical terms. But if we try to enter
into specifics here we'll be lost in detail.

I wish Stephen Crothers good luck and I hope he will succeed. This will be
good for physics. But as an outsider his chances to succeed is minimal. If he
were a prominent physicists lots of people here would have read and discussed
this paper. But now it is dismissed because he bolded some sentences.

------
nyc111
I like this quote:

> ... time is no more defined by a clock than pressure is defined by a
> pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, or gravity by a graded spring. Time
> is not defined by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, as with
> the celestial bodies. By defining time by his clocks, A. Einstein detached
> time from physical reality.

Einsten mistook his clock for time! Or reified time with a clock.

~~~
yongjik
The author could have hardly chosen a poorer example to represent the concept
of time:

> ... In so doing [Einstein] detached time from physical reality because time
> is perceived and understood by the motion of celestial bodies, which is
> independent of the hands of a clock.

In real reality, the motions of celestial bodies are measured by clocks
incorporating atomic states, because the latter is so much more precise than
the former. Basically, celestial bodies are nothing but big bumbling clocks.
Yes, quite impressive and awe-inspiring clocks, but clocks nonetheless, and
even less accurate than your GPS device. (Hence the necessity for leap seconds
and all that.)

~~~
nyc111
You are right, of course. The text I quoted comes from the abstract. He
articulates the same idea slightly differently on the second page:

    
    
      Time is no more defined by a clock than pressure 
      is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer, 
      or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined 
      by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion, 
      as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his 
      clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality.
    

He is saying that a clock only _measures_ time; a clock is not time and does
not define time. I agree with this.

He is not saying celestial bodies are better clocks than atomic clocks.
Because all clocks are oscillators. 'Time' is measured with an oscillator.*
This oscillator can be a clock, celestial bodies, or atomic oscillators. They
are oscillators with different oscillating mechanism and different periods.

As he says, time is "manifest in motion" and what these oscillators measure is
motion. We define the motion of the oscillator to be our unit motion and
measure the other motion.* The count of oscillations is called 'time' but
nothing about philosophical or physical time is revealed by these measurements
of motion.

That's why I said that Einstein, like all physicists, reifed 'time'. He thinks
clocks (oscillators) define and measure something called 'time'.

So, the correct way to state the relationship between gadgets we call clocks
and 'time' is this: We don't know something called 'time' other than motion.
Clocks are oscillators and they are used as unit oscillators to count how many
times the motion to be measured occurs in the unit motion of the oscillator.
What is measured is distance, ie. distance covered in unit motion of the
oscillator.

(Motion cannot be measured. What is measured is always distance.)

I’m not sure what he means when he says that time “is naturally fixed.”

* What is measured is distance, not time and not motion.

