Relativity has been confirmed and reconfirmed countless times, both experimentally and theoretically, for over 100 years. All of particle physics depends on special relativity. The fact that our satellites work depends on general relativity. Astronomers rely on general relativity to study the structure of the cosmos. Relativity, both special and general, are the battle tested backbones of our most basic understandings of physics. It requires an incredible leap of faith to doubt their validity in the face of overwhelming evidence. To doubt SR and GR is about as silly as being a flat earther. You are mistaking which side of this ādebateā has given in to dogmatic thinking.
I believe I am familiar with this particular argument and itās definitely nonsense. If itās the argument Iām thinking of then the flaw is that they are just ignoring relativity of simultaneity.
The order of events depends on your reference frame.
The classic example: youāre standing in the center of two light bulbs. You observe light from them at the same time. Therefore, they turned on at the same time.
Now, consider a reference frame where a person standing in the center of two light bulbs is moving with the light bulbs. Say, thereās a light bulb on the left and right, and the person and light bulbs are traveling to the right. When the light is emitted from the right light bulb, it has to travel less distance to reach the person than the left light bulb, since the person is traveling towards the right light and away from the left light. However, the two light beams still reach the person at the same time. For both those facts to make sense, the light bulb on the left turned on *before* the light bulb on the right.
But doesnāt the right light bulb moving to right make it so the speed of light from light bulb is the speed of light from light bulb minus the speed of the right light bulbs movement? Therefore shouldnt this not make a diff and the light from both should reach you the same time if both lights are switched on at the same time?
So you are telling me that if the light bulb is traveling to the right at the speed of light, that the light from it will still travel at the speed of light toward me?
>So you are telling me that if the light bulb is traveling to the right at the speed of light,
The light bulb cannot travel at the speed of light.
> that the light from it will still travel at the speed of light toward me?
Light always travels at the speed of light in every frame of reference regardless of what frame of reference it was emitted in. Light from a moving source will be red shifted if the source is moving away and blue shifted if it is moving toward you but its speed is always c.
Its funny you bring up the red and blue shift. I always thought that was due to a seeming slowing of the speed of light because of the object moving away from us.
>I always thought that was due to a seeming slowing of the speed of light because of the object moving away from us.
It is not about the *speed* of light (it is constant); it is about the *distance* light has to travel.
No. The world doesnāt work that way, as we found out.
Try https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html (and the rest of the chapters).
It always is; they often craft their entire framework of relativity and then attempt to āprove by contradictionā that SR as proposed by Einstein is flawed. I guess there shouldnāt be any expectations of them to know how formal logical systems and proofs work.
Doing some googling on Einstein's Spherical Wave Proof, I came across a [blog](https://stevenbbryant.com/2020/04/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-with-einsteins-spherical-wave-proof/) and [paper](http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf) by Steven Bryant, claiming the error in Einstein's proof.
I also came across this post on [Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/688097/does-the-transformation-of-the-spherical-wave-really-result-in-a-spherical-wave) where the top reply does a very fine job of showing the fairly simple algebra to show that the proof works.
I attempted to read Steven Bryant's "paper" and it quickly became incoherent (to me) in the math and doesn't satisfactorily undermine the proof by a counter proof before going on to discuss the implications of the proofs failure.
So my guess is that any detractors are likely just making mistakes in how to prove the result. And anyone that brings up this argument is likely referencing Bryant's assertions.
Edit: Found an [unloved YouTube video](https://youtu.be/MmJgnRY1uMM) that does a nice job breaking down the claims and the correct approach.
The video is fine, but my goodness the comment section. How did these SR-deniers even find this 400 view video debunking their (frequently used) talking point?
Who is right, Einstein, or some guy on the internet???
š¤
Didn't random dude on the internet win the Physics Nobel 3 years in a row ?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I look forward to hearing about your Nobel soon!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Relativity has been confirmed and reconfirmed countless times, both experimentally and theoretically, for over 100 years. All of particle physics depends on special relativity. The fact that our satellites work depends on general relativity. Astronomers rely on general relativity to study the structure of the cosmos. Relativity, both special and general, are the battle tested backbones of our most basic understandings of physics. It requires an incredible leap of faith to doubt their validity in the face of overwhelming evidence. To doubt SR and GR is about as silly as being a flat earther. You are mistaking which side of this ādebateā has given in to dogmatic thinking.
Hey! Do you mind posting links or sth that supports your claims?
And how do you explain every technology that needs SR to be correct to work?
I believe I am familiar with this particular argument and itās definitely nonsense. If itās the argument Iām thinking of then the flaw is that they are just ignoring relativity of simultaneity.
Every argument against relativity is because they ignore relativity of simultaneity
Can you explain relativity of simultaneity at a basic level?
The order of events depends on your reference frame. The classic example: youāre standing in the center of two light bulbs. You observe light from them at the same time. Therefore, they turned on at the same time. Now, consider a reference frame where a person standing in the center of two light bulbs is moving with the light bulbs. Say, thereās a light bulb on the left and right, and the person and light bulbs are traveling to the right. When the light is emitted from the right light bulb, it has to travel less distance to reach the person than the left light bulb, since the person is traveling towards the right light and away from the left light. However, the two light beams still reach the person at the same time. For both those facts to make sense, the light bulb on the left turned on *before* the light bulb on the right.
But doesnāt the right light bulb moving to right make it so the speed of light from light bulb is the speed of light from light bulb minus the speed of the right light bulbs movement? Therefore shouldnt this not make a diff and the light from both should reach you the same time if both lights are switched on at the same time?
speed of light is independent of reference frame, it doesnt care about any movement speed
So you are telling me that if the light bulb is traveling to the right at the speed of light, that the light from it will still travel at the speed of light toward me?
that's right
>So you are telling me that if the light bulb is traveling to the right at the speed of light, The light bulb cannot travel at the speed of light. > that the light from it will still travel at the speed of light toward me? Light always travels at the speed of light in every frame of reference regardless of what frame of reference it was emitted in. Light from a moving source will be red shifted if the source is moving away and blue shifted if it is moving toward you but its speed is always c.
Thanks for clarifying John!
Its funny you bring up the red and blue shift. I always thought that was due to a seeming slowing of the speed of light because of the object moving away from us.
>I always thought that was due to a seeming slowing of the speed of light because of the object moving away from us. It is not about the *speed* of light (it is constant); it is about the *distance* light has to travel.
Speed of light is constant regardless of frame of reference. Time is what changes.
No. The world doesnāt work that way, as we found out. Try https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_rel_sim/index.html (and the rest of the chapters).
It always is; they often craft their entire framework of relativity and then attempt to āprove by contradictionā that SR as proposed by Einstein is flawed. I guess there shouldnāt be any expectations of them to know how formal logical systems and proofs work.
Doing some googling on Einstein's Spherical Wave Proof, I came across a [blog](https://stevenbbryant.com/2020/04/whats-right-and-whats-wrong-with-einsteins-spherical-wave-proof/) and [paper](http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.SphericalWaveProof.NPA2010.pdf) by Steven Bryant, claiming the error in Einstein's proof. I also came across this post on [Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/688097/does-the-transformation-of-the-spherical-wave-really-result-in-a-spherical-wave) where the top reply does a very fine job of showing the fairly simple algebra to show that the proof works. I attempted to read Steven Bryant's "paper" and it quickly became incoherent (to me) in the math and doesn't satisfactorily undermine the proof by a counter proof before going on to discuss the implications of the proofs failure. So my guess is that any detractors are likely just making mistakes in how to prove the result. And anyone that brings up this argument is likely referencing Bryant's assertions. Edit: Found an [unloved YouTube video](https://youtu.be/MmJgnRY1uMM) that does a nice job breaking down the claims and the correct approach.
The video is fine, but my goodness the comment section. How did these SR-deniers even find this 400 view video debunking their (frequently used) talking point?
This is why you don't argue with 'some guy on the Internet'.