Relativity and Stationary Frames of Reference

“Relativity and Stationary Frames of Reference” seems like a contradiction to most scientists. A fundamental assumption in Einstein’s special theory of relativity is that all frames of reference are equally valid, and any observer can be considered to be a stationary observer.

Einstein’s assumption in the special theory of relativity, that all frames of reference are equally valid, is over-broad. For the mathematics of the special theory of relativity to work, a more narrow assumption would suffice. The only assumption that is necessary is that the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the observer. It is not necessary to assume that other physical measurements are equally valid, regardless of the motion of the observer.

Narrowing the assumptions in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, it is now possible to consider the question: Is there such a thing as a stationary frame of reference, or could any observer consider himself to be a stationary frame of reference?

Let me give you the conclusion of the matter, and then I will explain the reasons for it: As soon as you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid, and any observer can consider himself to be a stationary frame of reference, then you end up with a mathematical contradiction in the special theory of relativity.

I am not the first one to bring this issue to light. As soon as relativity was published, scientists objected to the theory giving different examples preposterous conclusions from the special theory alone. When experiments demonstrated that light was bent by gravity, then the scientists were silenced. Many things in science are counter-intuitive, and it was thought that while it may not make complete sense, relativity must be true.

Mathematical contradictions still exist in the special theory when you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid. These contradictions are eliminated when you allow such a thing as a stationary frame of reference.

While I am suggesting that such a thing as a stationary frame of reference exists, it is very difficult to run experiments to determine what that stationary frame of reference is, or how fast we are moving through space with any degree of accuracy.

CNN posted an article – sorry, I do not have the link for it, where they stated that relativity was now under question, because measurements of time on satellites show that the earth is moving in space. This is to be expected when there is such a thing as a stationary frame of reference, but completely unexpected when you accept the assumption that all frames of reference are equally valid.

I have stated that there is a mathematical contradiction in special relativity when you assume that all frames of reference are equally valid. I can create a mathematical model which shows the contradiction, but that would be too lengthy and demanding for this forum. The mathematical model involves multiple observers moving relative to each other, and arriving at contradictory results, without changing their velocities. I would like to explain it with a story. Actually, the story is a take-off on one that was told shortly after relativity was published.

Two astronauts meet in space, perhaps away from any place where gravity would distort the results of their experiment. They synchronize their watches, and then speed away in opposite directions. Then they speed back and meet again. According to special relativity, each astronaut will think the other’s watch is slow. Even if they hold the watches side-by-side, they will remain in disagreement about the times on the watches.

As soon as you allow for a stationary frame of reference, the expected result becomes more rational.

What impact does this have on relativity? Actually, it is an adjustment to the theory. It does not demolish it. Relativity remains very accurate, even when you do not know what the stationary frame of reference might be. When we get a better idea of what the stationary frame of reference might be, then the most accurate calculations would take place by knowing that we are moving, and then taking our astronomical observations and determining how a stationary observer would see them.

General relativity is demanding enough, with the final conclusion of a rank three contravarient tensor equal to zero. The mathematics for relativity would become more complicated if we wished greater accuracy.

Many people believe that Einstein developed an entirely new mathematical model with the theory of relativity. This is not entirely true. Einstein relied on Newton’s equation, F=MA, in order to arrive at his most famous equation, of which e=m*(c squared) is a good approximation. I think we do not have accurate experiments on how Newton’s equation, F=MA, is affected by very high velocities, but this is a possible source of minor imperfections in the equation relating mass to energy.

If, indeed, Einstein’s equation relating mass to energy is extremely accurate (and I suppose it is), then you could get a measure of your own speed through space by determining how much energy you get when you convert matter into energy.

When a spaceship nears the speed of light, time slows down on the space ship, and it shrinks in the direction of motion, and the mass of the spaceship increases. There is one consolation, however. If the spaceship uses nuclear power, then the engines produce more energy as the ship goes faster. It is difficult to manage the additional energy. We will never have an opportunity to put these thoughts into a practical design anyway.

CNN posted an article – sorry, I do not have the link for it, where they stated that relativity was now under question...

Is this the article?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/0...ong/index.html

If so, it was discussed here earlier:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...1412&forum=4&7

(added)
Ack! Where are my manners? Welcome to the BABB, Verlan.
_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-10-02 16:25 ]</font>

Welcome to the BABB, Verlan! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

(Emphasis mine)

Your astronauts did, in fact, change their velocities.

There are no mathematical contradictions or paradoxes in Special Relativity (or General Relativity, for that matter), despite what you may have been told.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

First, welcome to the BABB, Verlan.

SeanF is exactly right. The twin paradox has been discussed several times on this board. Our beloved Grapes has a nice write up on this.

For GR the problem gets much more complicated. Consider two astronauts orbiting a planet in opposite directions. Each is in a valid free-float frame (say that five times fast [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]) and each would observe the other as younger, right? But symmetry says that they should be the same age. Which is right? Symmetry is.

valid free-float flame
varid flee-float fame
valid fee-flot fam
vlalid free frot flab
valvid fee foot flem

No sweat [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Now if I could just figure out what exactly it was that Einstien figured out before someone actually does prove him wronge.

A link for Special Relativity original paper can be found at

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...c=2289&forum=2

I don't think there's any contradiction in SR. As professor Einstein demonstrates, the constancy of speed of light necessarily leads to the conclusions of SR. The key is the concept of simultaneity. Frames of reference are necessary to explain the model.

A stationary frame is not necessary to either special relativity or general relativity, although there are theories of relativity--that have not been completely refuted--that do have preferred reference frames. I'm suspicious of any claim that there are mathematical inconsistencies in SR and GR, expecially without backup. This board may not be the appropriate place to display such a mathematical argument, but a link would certainly be appropriate.
I couldn't have said it better myself. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Why, thank you, Grapes! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

(What? "Selective quoting?" What does that mean?)

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

There's a difference between an inertial frame of reference and just any frame of reference. In special relativity, the inertial frame of reference just keeps on going in a straight line because there are no gravitational effects allowed in SR, so you, an observer, can't change direction or speed without changing which inertial frame you're in.

In general relativity, I don't know how this whole thing works, but I would guess that the "moving in straight lines" is more precisely "moving along a geodesic". Maybe.

That's pretty much it. Any freely falling object moves along a geodesic. And in that reference frame (this sometimes called a free float frame), special relativity applies locally.

No, no. You're right again! Wow, twice in one thread. What are the odds?

Hey! That's an insult, isn't it? (How about that? Three times!) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Although, I still haven't figured out whether this was an insult or not . . .

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Dear Sean F Bad Fellow,

Thank you for your comment. I intended to cover to different situations. One involves no change in velocities, and the other involves changing velocities. It is true that when they speed away and speed back, they change their velocities.

I did not develop the model here where there are no changes in velocities. I just briefly mentioned that is the approach I took in the past to prove a point.

I could not find the link on CNN. A science article appeared on CNN suggesting that the speed of light might not be constant. I immediately replied to the article, stating that I felt the author took the position based on an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. The article immediately disappeared from CNN.

I thought you might be interested in my reply, but it certainly gets off the subject and addresses religious issues.

Anyway, here is a copy of the e-mail CNN sent to me, showing my response to their article:

C:HOTMAIL4

Verlan,

You make some extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence.

First, show us the "mathematical proof". Reproduce it as well as you can. There are plenty of us here that understand relativity and will happily entertain mathematics which will be far more convincing than any hand-waving or appellations to historically based inconsistencies.

Secondly, I have a question: do you know why relativity was developed? Have you explored the theory in its rigor and application? Have you considered the roots, that is the theory of electromagnetism and lorentzian relativity? Do you have any explanations for how to reconcile classical mechanics with classical electrodynamics other than through relativity? If so, are they mathematically rigorous? Are they explained in observations?

What are these "binary star" observations you speak of? What do they indicate? Can you give a citation?

Thanks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-11 08:45 ]</font>

JS Princeton and HUb',

I love your comments, and I thoroughly agree with the positions you have taken, with one minor exception:

HUb' stated "astrology {IMhO} assumes a nonvaring frame?" I do not believe in astrology, and, as far as I can tell, astrology has nothing to do with the subjects at hand.

I have prepared a more detailed answer. It is currently found at:

http://members.ispwest.com/vjk/RELATIV1.HTM

Sorry, Verlan, I don't think you have that right. Here's
how you really add relativistic velocities.

Your math error is actually a very common one. You assume that the squareroot of the sum of two squares is equal to the sum. It is not.

Another way you to write your formula for v_3 is as follows

v_3=sqrt(v_1^2+v-2^2-(v_1*v_2/c)^2)

If this is nonrelativistic v_1*v_2 much less than c^2, we get from your equation that

v_3=sqrt(v_1^2+v_2^2)

Which isn't true... in fact...

v_3=v_1+v_2

It's very clear why you are having a problem with negative versus positive velocities, which are the cases for which the above two equations are the most drastically different (since the square of a negative number is positive). Using your logic would lead us to believe that if point A and point C were travelling at the same velocity and we stuck a point B in between them travelling at a different velocity, we would measure a "relativistic" velocity that was equal to (roughly) twice the velocity of B instead of zero.

My recommendation to you is to look over the site I posted and derive the correct equation for v_3 from there. You will find that there is no paradox after all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2002-10-11 00:36 ]</font>

I don't see where he does that directly, but as you point out below, it is a consequence at non-relativistic velocities.
Huh? Does that work out? Hey, that's right. It follows right from his equation:

And, as you say, in order for that to be true, the right hand side would have to be also equal to v_1 + v_2

I think the basic error is his assumption that the dilations compound by multiplication. He assumes that if A sees B as twice as slow, and B sees C as twice as slow, then A will see C as four times as slow. That's obviously not true--just let C be the first observer A. A would see A as four times as slow?

<a name="20021011"> POST 20021011 aka gnuPLOT?
On 2002-10-11 08:25, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 6:06 A.M. HUb'
Can "NOT" control this 486/100 well enough to reply NOW.
when i CAN get back to the 386/20 i'll snip
the string and submit the question to GNUplot
my guess it will gag & I'll have to try to
translate it into gnuplot lexicon & syntax

v_3=sqrt(v_1^2+v-2^2-(v_1*v_2/c)^2)[/quote]
Huh? Does that work out? Hey, that's right. It follows right from his equation:
http://members.ispwest.com/vjk/RELATIV2.JPG
And, as you say, in order for that to be true, the right hand side would have to be also equal to v_1 + v_2
6:11 A.M. my 1st guess would be that ^ must change to **
I think the basic error is his assumption that the dilations compound by multiplication. He assumes that if A sees B as twice as slow, and B sees C as twice as slow, then A will see C as four times as slow. That's obviously not true--just let C be the first observer A. A would see A as four times as slow?
{my 0pollo_G for My delay in responce}

<a name="2-10-11.5CK"> POST 2-10-11.5CK aka 5clocks & nonvaring Frames
On 2002-10-11 09:02, HUb' wrote: To: 2-10-11 HUb' 6:21 A.M.

On 2002-10-11 08:25, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To: 6:06 A.M. HUb'

in my scheme {5 Clocks} {Earth orbits Sun / electrons ORBIT} etc
I 'poise there exist FIVE nonvariant frames
{Um a frame that holds each clock}
and astrology{ismS}{istS} would assume the D3 Clock 3 case
------------
anyway by this i dont mean that the interval of time
in any clock would be non variant
============
I think what i mean {though Shirly Not sure}
would be something along the lines of
{a circle has 360 degrees}
OR an ORBIT can be seen in such a way{FASHON}
as to appear closed
maybe expressing it in RADians would make it
more contempary?
ANYWAY 5 clocks = FIVE nonVariant Frames {whatevet that means}