Relativity Theory Is Contradictory

and therefore false. As you accelerate your spaceship towards light speed it gets harder and harder to accelerate further they say. This is false.

  1. Your mass rises as you approach light speed, it is claimed. Well maybe. But that means the mass of your propellant rises as well and compensates for it, so there is no obstacle to further acceleration.
  2. Time delation sets in and makes you and your spaceship operate slower and slower, they say. But, how is this possible? There is no absolute reference frame, they say. So what judge determines that you are moving at all? Or, that I am not moving close to light speed while sitting in my bed? Given that I am always tired when waking up this appears likely to me. Also, it’s very hard to move ANY part of my body after waking up; indicating that I have an enormous mass at that moment.

It is all a fantasy. All the theoretical physicists following this bullshit have wasted their lifes and should better have become investment strategy programmers.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Relativity Theory Is Contradictory”

  1. The rest mass doesn’t increase, in fact, as you convert that mass to energy, its numbers decline; so even if the relativistic mass increases per particle, the number of atoms/molecules doesn’t increase and the derived useful work can’t increase.

    Relativity may have internal logical contradictions, but this isn’t one, I say.

    Like

    1. I wasn’t thinking about anything so fancy as converting mass to energy. I imagine my spaceship to be one big tank for Kerosin and one for liquid oxygen. All the way to lightspeed and beyond. Think BIG tank.

      Like

      1. Dirk, I have chemistry training. Big tank doesn’t change what’s happening. You’re still blowing the reaction products out of a nozzle.

        Like

      2. I’ve also seen, with my own eyes, a Saturn V system. The tiny part at the top contained the men and their lander. The rest of it was a set of stages. It was also powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which was considered to be the most energy dense, yet controllable, way to go with escape velocity being the goal. That’s right 11 km/sec. The first stage was the largest one. It had 5 LOX motors. There was enough thrust from that to not only get that 3000 ton thing off the ground directly against gravity and air resistance.

        I saw a launch (not the Sat V). It took 10 or so seconds after ignition for enough pressure to be generated that it could begin to fly. Only after that generated enough tension did the tethers release and the thing flew. All through that, the total rocket mass declined, exponentially, for each stage. That mass loss is, in part or wholly, why the rocket could keep accelerating, for the overall mass declined faster than the thrust did.

        Like

      3. Ah I see. You say, even though the relativistic mass increases, the energy contained in chemical bonds does not. I don’t think so. For the spaceship in its own reference frame the effect is indeed not noticeable so the chemical bonds must increase in energy with the relativistic mass. All proportions must stay the same. Meaning: Higher relativistic mass = more oomph for your rocket.

        Like

      4. Indeed Dirk, the chemical energy *can’t* increase, even if the total energy can increase. That’s fixed by the nature of the reaction and the rest/invariant mass of the reacting chemicals, which decreases as you consume them in the reaction, blowing them out the nozzle.

        There are two frames of reference here. How do I know that I am moving? I cannot, necessarily do it from my own frame of reference. I can do it if I note my 4D location before I move and after I move. While moving, I don’t ‘seem’ to move, if I can only observe from my own reference frame. Another way that I can know that I am moving is when I have another observer present. Now, I can compare my frame to his and he can compare his to mine. We need one more thing in this situation, which is communication. If we are on a planet with a breathable atmosphere, we can use each other’s voice to do it. The closer we are to each other and the slower I move, the less complication we have in measuring the movement. If we use radio transceivers or radio telephones, the much faster communication speed, relative to my movement reduces the complications. Where things get tougher is when the object to be observed becomes small in size and/or its velocity gets high that the rules associated with classical motion need modification. A third way to know that I am moving would be when I collide with something ;). [This is why, strictly speaking, speed does not kill. It is absorbed energy from that collision that kills, which isn’t always as clear cut as people want to make it seem. for where on the body that energy was absorbed and the direction of absorption also matter. I wrote a paper on this (not for general publication) that I presented internal to the institution that I was working for. My general conclusion is that American motor vehicle death rates are a function of 1. differential mass, direction of the collision, collision location, driver experience where the proxy is years of licensed or miles driven, or both, driver medical condition, time of day (overlaps with medical condition), traction, and road type. Order listed is roughly the order of explanatory power.]

        Relativity works, both general and special; yet that does not mean that they work under all possible conditions. It is the human trait to conflate causes and effects, to elide over issues that we are not aware of or, worse, don’t want to take into consideration, that give rise to over certainty. Models of things are real, as an abstraction, but they are not the actual thing.

        Like

      5. Unless they’ve changed things since I was taught what the law of conservation of energy was, some 50 years ago, the quantity that gets conserved is the total energy in the system being considered. I was also taught that matter and energy were inter-convertible, but the matter part wasn’t necessarily conserved. Neither were some subtypes of energy, say potential energy and kinetic energy or lattice energy or radiant energy, where energy could be changed from one subtype to another and lost from the system considered to the external environment/universe. For the whole universe, the total energy within it is fixed. It would be a very large number, but fixed.

        Like

      6. ” It is the human trait to conflate causes and effects, to elide over issues that we are not aware of or, worse, don’t want to take into consideration, that give rise to over certainty. Models of things are real, as an abstraction, but they are not the actual thing.”

        That is what I mean with theoretical physicists of the 20th century having wasted their lifes with, too be honest, extremely DULL phantasies.

        Like

      1. Inherent in any concept of change or motion is time (before and after). For speed, which is the rate of change of distance per unit time, one can say time is the frame of reference or an initial location is the frame of reference, as in a vector which is a direction and a displacement relative to an origin.

        Like

  2. Dirk, maybe we are not reading from the same definitions. As I recall it, for relativity, the space-time coordinate reference frame is the frame of an observer, or when there are multiple observers, relative to the reference frame of one of the observers.

    Like

    1. The observer is in the spaceship. He observes the planet accelerating with a reactionless drive. Time on the planet freezes to a halt as the planet approaches lightspeed.

      Like

      1. If I am in that space ship, I would not consider the planet doing any such thing. It would only appear to me that time slows on that planet as I approach, yet I know that on said planet, time is still going as ‘normal’. When/if I got to the planet, I will have aged by whatever amount of time it took. What the residents might think is another story ;).

        Like

      2. I am talking about the planet you are leaving. Or in fact, the planet leaves you.

        You then develop the theory that by starting your engine you have caused the entire universe to move sideways.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s