New Paradox of Special Relativity

exchemist · Nov 14, 2019

Brickjectivity said:
I will try to explain, and I will also point out why I think that Relativity is compatible with Christ.

According to Einstein, space seems to stretch as the ship accelerates so you cannot make such a measurement. It is unclear to me whether space stretches, or density increases or time lengthens, but Physicists seem to believe that space or time change preventing the conditions you have predicted. Things that seem like constants are not constants when you accelerate.

Einstein is not the enemy of truth or of churches. He believes in God. The philosophical difference between you and him is small, perhaps smaller than you imagine. According to his discovery of Relativity, time is like a painting with each person living in its time, never ceasing to exist. You live now, Abraham lives thousands of years ago, and some people live in the future. All can pray for one another, all being part of time. All are alive in their own time, never disappearing. This is the implication of Relativity. It is compatible with Christ I think, because to live is Christ and to die is gain. All are one in Christ. To follow Christ means denying ourselves, and I think this fits well with Relativity.

It's a detail, but Einstein seems not to have had a belief in a personal God, in the sense of the Abrahamic religions. His view of God was apparently more that of Spinoza, treating the governing principles of nature, what we model with our "laws" of physics, as God. Or so I have read.

exchemist · Nov 14, 2019

exchemist said:
Are you Dmitri Martila, then?

It seems I have my answer.

Revoltingest · Nov 14, 2019

Special relativity is pretty simple stuff....even for an engineer.
Just basic algebra applied to the fact that the speed of light
measures the same in all reference frames. It's so simple
that the time dilation equation can be derived without even
paper & pencil. (I've done it in me noggin on long walks.)
Assumptions about "God" don't enter into the math.
There is no paradox.

ratiocinator · Nov 14, 2019

questfortruth said:
The asteroid size is not a factor. The asteroid can be replaced by a dust particle or an electron, which floats in space. Being inside the spaceship, the astronaut does not notice the Lorentz contraction of the spaceship cabin. But the asteroid being like a mathematical point, moves along the wall of cabin with the velocity v, because the spaceship flies at this velocity, but the asteroid has zero velocity. So, looking out the window, one sees asteroid flies at the speed v.

And.....? You still haven't been clear about what frame your calculation was supposed to be in and how you actually arrived at your result.

questfortruth · Nov 14, 2019

ratiocinator said:
And.....? You still haven't been clear about what frame your calculation was supposed to be in and how you actually arrived at your result.

\section{Another paradox}

Imagine spaceship with proper length, which astronaut measures is 1000 meters.

The super-powerful engine, which uses Dak Matter like substance - Virtual Matter, accelerates the ship at almost speed of light without hurting the astronaut: 99.999 percent of it. According to Earth observation, the meeting of the ship with Neptun lasts 0.0000001 seconds, so after passing it and turn back to Earth at Pluto, the ship has no contact with Neptun even in his own co-moving coordinate system. How it is possible (to loose contact with Neptun), if the speed of the ship is almost $c$, so the size of the solar system is just 2 meters, compared to 1000 meters of the ship size?

ratiocinator · Nov 14, 2019

questfortruth said:
Imagine spaceship with proper length, which astronaut measures is 1000 meters.

The super-powerful engine, which uses Dak Matter like substance - Virtual Matter, accelerates the ship at almost speed of light without hurting the astronaut: 99.999 percent of it. According to Earth observation, the meeting of the ship with Neptun lasts 0.0000001 seconds, so after passing it and turn back to Earth at Pluto, the ship has no contact with Neptun even in his own co-moving coordinate system. How it is possible (to loose contact with Neptun), if the speed of the ship is almost $c$, so the size of the solar system is just 2 meters, compared to 1000 meters of the ship size?

This (a) appears to have nothing to do with your "paper", and (b) makes even less sense.

ratiocinator · Nov 14, 2019

questfortruth said:
According to Earth observation, the meeting of the ship with Neptun lasts 0.0000001 seconds, so after passing it and turn back to Earth at Pluto, the ship has no contact with Neptun even in his own co-moving coordinate system. How it is possible (to loose contact with Neptun), if the speed of the ship is almost $c$, so the size of the solar system is just 2 meters, compared to 1000 meters of the ship size?

You're muddling up your reference frames again. Why do you think that the ship would lose contact with Neptune in its own reference frame? Part of the problem is that you (obviously) couldn't do that sort of thing with a physical object - an acceleration can only propagate along it at the speed of light, so you'd actually have to stop and turn it around before you'd accelerated it all.

Go back to your original point about the asteroids a clarify what frames you're doing your calculations in.

Brickjectivity · Nov 14, 2019

exchemist said:
It's a detail, but Einstein seems not to have had a belief in a personal God, in the sense of the Abrahamic religions. His view of God was apparently more that of Spinoza, treating the governing principles of nature, what we model with our "laws" of physics, as God. Or so I have read.

Thanks for that info. I'm sure Einstein at least views the physical laws as a subset of God. Spinoza fends off judgments from people who through creationist and ontological positions insist he must accept God. He's probably arguing against ontological positions. Einstein doesn't need to do that and may not have a concept of God which is limited to nature. I don't know, but I also don't see God as personal except through people.

exchemist · Nov 14, 2019

Brickjectivity said:
Thanks for that info. I'm sure Einstein at least views the physical laws as a subset of God. Spinoza fends off judgments from people who through creationist and ontological positions insist he must accept God. He's probably arguing against ontological positions. Einstein doesn't need to do that and may not have a concept of God which is limited to nature. I don't know, but I also don't see God as personal except through people.

Indeed, I don't think we know a great of detail about Einstein's views on God, as he does not seem to have left us much to go on. I imagine the last thing he would have wanted would have been to get a reputation for opining on metaphysics. He was, really, the ultimate hard science man, even if he spent his time on the theoretical rather than the experimental side.

viole · Nov 14, 2019

questfortruth said:
Science is falsifiable, tells well accepted Popper's criterion of Science. So, it is not surprising then, that Science can be false.

And that religion cannot even be that.

I know, that I know nothing, says the Greek philosopher.

You must be a Greek philosopher.

The Swedish philosopher, instead, says “ I know that you know nothing”.
Both schools of philosophy agree.

Ciao

- viole

exchemist · Nov 14, 2019

viole said:
And that religion cannot even be that.

You must be a Greek philosopher.

The Swedish philosopher, instead, says “ I know that you know nothing”.
Both schools of philosophy agree.

Ciao

- viole

That is rather good. I may use it myself.

viole · Nov 14, 2019

exchemist said:
That is rather good. I may use it myself.

Go ahead. It is not copyrighted

Ciao

- viole

Skwim · Nov 15, 2019

exchemist said:
Vixra is a notorious dustbin of junk science papers, that stand no chance of being accepted by reputable journals.

Anything you read there is almost certain to be rubbish.

Anti-relativity cranks are two-a-penny on the internet. I must have come across dozens. None of them makes any sense whatsoever and none can address the issue that relativity is borne out by observation and has never been faulted. (The same is true of quantum mechanics.)

Heck, you don't even need a high school diploma to get your crap accepted by viXra. In fact, I think it helps if you don't have one.

.

.

New Paradox of Special Relativity

exchemist

Veteran Member

exchemist

Veteran Member

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

questfortruth

Well-Known Member

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain

exchemist

Veteran Member

viole

Ontological Naturalist

exchemist

Veteran Member

viole

Ontological Naturalist

Skwim

Veteran Member