Was Einstein wrong, /sci/? Is there no time dilation at all?

>>8922316
Your picture isn't clear at all. Show the complete paths of the clocks.

File: Time_dilation02.gif (51KB, 279x352px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 279x352px

>>8922329
Here, a simple animated gif

it's not a contradiction because for them to measure clocks they have to meet. what you say is true for when they're a certain distance apart, where you can't really tell which clock is further (relativity has no simultaneous events).

if you image a specific case where they get apart and meet again you won't really find any paradox

>>8922343
*to compare clocks they have to meet

>>8922316
There is no absolute spacetime for time to dilate in. It's a measurable effect, sure, but trying to ascribe a causal agent like some popularizers do is just silly

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, why it is that a ship that flies around near lightspeed and comes back will experience less time, when from a neutral perspective you could just as easily say that the earth is moving and the ship is staying still - say hypothetically that SOMEHOW the whole galaxy moves in the opposite direction of the ship during its entire voyage, in that case from the perspective of the universe outside out galaxy the ship would have stayed still and the earth moved, meaning the earth would've experienced less time. But from the perspective of the earth the ship has been moving and experienced less time.
so, like many physics problems it changes depending on what you choose to define your 0 point as

File: Was Einstein Wrong 2.png (33KB, 913x789px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 913x789px

There is more

>>8922316
No, there's quite a bit of evidence for time dilation in both SR and GR.

>>8922365
A very simple and intuitive problem with relative motion, which is the basis for Relativity, is that it defies energy conservation: you can move something around spending some energy, but in the same model you can move everything else for the same effect yet spending much more energy. This relates one effect with two different energy costs, and no dissipation, which is a grotesque contradiction. This is how easily relative motion fails beyond the High School informal level.

>>8922316
Easy, looks twin paradox on wikipedia, it's dealing with same shit and the essay is already written so I don't have to bother.

>>8922365
That's the twin paradox, yeah it's confusing.

>>8922387
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem

File: Was Einstein Wrong 3.png (19KB, 913x540px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 913x540px

>>8922316
More and more

>>8922452

take literally any college course on special relativity you dumb fuck

>>8922316
Your example diagram is different than what relativity can predict so of course your example doesn't make sense. >>8922365
Relativistic doppler shift. At first glance, the problem seems symmetrical but it isnt.

>>8922452
>I don't understand X so it must be wrong!
Consider trying to learn before you try to teach.

>>8922316
>was he wrong
no

>>8922452
From the reference frame of the measuring device, the length will be contracted and the ship will be destroyed. What Observer A saw is irrelevant since it does not control whether it is destroyed or not. Where's the paradox?

>>8922476
>I don't understand X so it must be wrong!
and that's why peer-review is shit

>>8922554
Someone not understanding something is not the same thing as it not making sense, schizo.

>>8922316
OMG yes!
Thousands of people have studied extensively this really shocking theory that is relativity for the past 100+ years, and it's results have been verified experimentally multiple times with extraordinary precision, but YES, you proved Einstein wrong after 5 min of thinking and a cheap thought experiment. Why no one thought of this before you??!

Einstein's relativity, like every other serious scientific theory, is neither right or wrong, and it is definitely not something you can choose to believe in or not. You cannot prove him wrong has he described effects that are actually observed and that you cannot describe in Newton's theory.
You can however prove him incomplete if you find phenomena that cannot be described with his theory. This is definitely not one of them.

Stop being so cocky, and first suppose that YOU didn't understant relativity before assuming Einstein got it wrong.

>>8922316
I always knew relativity was jewish trickery. Thanks for proving this.
>(((einstein)))

>>8922316
your thought experiment is fundamentally wrong in that it involves changes in direction or to be more precise acceleration which calls for a general relativistic treatment. Special relativity is only valid for no accelerating systems or inertial system in physicist terms.

File: nothing special.jpg (269KB, 1889x521px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1889x521px

>>8922316

>>8923692
>Medium of light
>[math] 5c/4 > c [/math]
Noice bait, saved for later.

>>8922316
Einstein was always wrong, just ask tesla

>>8922452
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

>>8922316
Not even Neil DeGrasse Tyson knows what the Twin Paradox is kek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1-RHuljo

>>8923692
>5c/4
are you ten years old by chance

File: More on the Twins Paradox.png (60KB, 1570x896px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1570x896px

>>8922316
Here is a problem with solutions of the Twin Paradox you easily find on the web involving the Doppler effect.

>>8923034
>there are no new thoughts