Today I take you into a conversation I once had while on the Internet!
I watched a video on the twin’s paradox explained by Einstein’s relativity theory, I reacted to that video by writing the comment below.
This theory is such a bull shit! why did Einstein do that to humanity. Such a cruelty. Can someone tell me what would happen if we stopped counting time? Would we stop aging?
In the following days, I had reply, which would trigger the following conversation.
By Allan Kambindama and anonymous person
Anonymous: Allan Kambindama Well without Einstein’s relativity, GPS wouldn’t work with normal calculations because their time sync would be off. And idk about you but I love me some GPS
Me: lol, you kidding right? GPS only depends on electromagnetism and syncing to the internet. Internet are just a bunch of computers sharing information, and their time is correct because someone shared a software to be installed in different computers. since the day that two different computers set their time equal, we internet time became correct until today. Geo-measures helped to correct time every four years. That is all. we would have time, internet, and GPS even if we ignored Einstein BS.
Anonymous: The GPS system has to take relativity into account to work correctly. If Einstein was as wrong as you say, the GPS system wouldn’t work correctly now, since their functionality takes his math into account. More information is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
Me: Lol Dude, you still don’t get it right? Geologist could have figured out how to divide time correctly without using theories from physicists!
Anonymous: You make no sense. The GPS system uses the math from special and general relativity in their operation. Their internal atomic clocks have been calibrated to tick at a slightly slower rate to account for the differences in time caused their velocity and orbital distance due to relativity. That means if these theories were completely wrong, the GPS system would be completely useless. The errors caused by this calibration would accumulate to about 10km/day, which is terrible. The fact that they take these factors into account and actually work as well as they do means that there’s something to it.
Me: Well, that my friend could be solved by a different scientist, and we would not have a crazy guy trying to define time for us. I am not against science at all, but Einstein was wrong. Time is only one and absolute everywhere in the universe. The present is happening everywhere at the same time, and there is no such thing as twin paradox, all that bullshit is about how we biologically survive in different environments.
Anonymous: Well the predictions of special and general relativity have been confirmed very precisely on numerous occasions with many experiments and observation of natural phenomena. But you go ahead and live in denial land. The model of time being constant everywhere doesn’t fit existing observations about the universe. Using that model in many situations will produce results that don’t match reality. Something is wrong with that model. The models of relativity provide results that match observations to a very high degree of precision. They may be wrong, but they are better at predicting how things will work than the Newtonian model with which you are so enamored, so we will continue to use it until someone can come up with something better. That’s how science works.
Me: lol! look, relativity! The name says it all! When scientists try to think of a world without relativity the get confused because they can’t visualize what is going in different parts of the universe. So you are telling me that time is not constant everywhere!! Do you mean that there are probably no solar eruptions going on at this same time you read this (note that I said, you read, instead of, I type)? Do you also mean you were not doing something more important “when I was on YouTube on that day”? Do you see it now? Time is not relative, it is absolute, you reading this too late is what makes you think that time is relative.
Anonymous: I’m not sure what you’re on about. Time flows at different rates in frames of reference that are moving relative to each other. The difference is miniscule (at least at scales humans can notice) unless the velocity difference approaches a significant fraction of the speed of light, but it exists. Atomic clocks on GPS satellites tick slightly faster than clocks on the Earth by a factor precisely predicted by both theories of relativity, in such a way that cannot be accounted for by a Newtonian, absolute time model.
The relativity of simultaneity says that for any pair of space-like events (events that are separated by a non-zero distance in all frames of reference), there exists a frame of reference where the events appear simultaneous, another frame where event A precedes event B, and yet another frame where event B precedes event A.
Me: wow! That is a lot about relative motion! However, you are just repeating what Einstein stated on his paper of relativity. When you say that time flows at different rates in different frames do you mean that there are some moments that are “happening” at the same time but ‘perceived’ as happening in different times because of their frames? Well that does not explain nothing, and does not get close to debunk the idea that time is absolute. A lot of people don’t understand relativity, and the worse thing is that Einstein made a mistake while explaining his theory. Look at this, the fact that light from a star takes billions of years to reach Earth does not mean that we are in the past of that star. Do you understand? The slowing down of GPS has to do with the material used to build them which may be affected by human mistakes. There are many factors that may affect the life time of the functionality of our tools, such lowering of energy, and decay of isotopes. Another important thing is that humans register time slowing down because of the slowing of the motion of the earth not because time itself is slowing. Time is absolute, and the absolute time is what keeps the universe together as whole. Hope you don’t get it twisted.
Anonymous: So you’re saying that all the GPS satellites happen to have the same flaw that makes their clocks tick faster at precisely the rate predicted by relativity? And that all other satellites that have atomic clocks also have flaws in their clocks that also make them tick at precisely the rate (different than Earth’s surface) that would be predicted by relativity? That’s amazing that we managed to screw up so in sync with a theory that is apparently wrong. I don’t think you understand how atomic clocks work. To have all of those clocks be wrong in such a precisely synchronized way would be a coincidence of astronomically unlikely proportions.
Somehow muons resulting from cosmic rays in our upper atmosphere last long enough to reach the ground, despite the fact that what we know about them says they should decay before reaching it. But, if you incorporate relativity into the calculations, what we observe matches precisely.
Atomic clocks that work perfectly on the ground somehow apparently became notably out of sync with clocks on the ground after they are placed in airplanes that fly around for a while. The difference ends up being exactly what is expected under relativity.
Heavy ions in supercolliders exhibit behavior that can only be explained if their increased density due to Lorentz contraction (a consequence of special relativity) is taken into account. In fact, relativity is an important part of working with supercollider experiments because many of the particles are moving at significant fractions of the speed of light, and exhibit effects that make no sense without incorporating relativity (and perfect sense when you do).
In summary, there is a long history of experiments and evidence (and technology) that comport with Einstein’s theories, and they are accepted by pretty much every physicist as accurate. But, I’m sure you, some random layman on the internet, know better than all of those experts and over a century of data.
Me: lol, okay seems like we are not really talking about the same thing! I know how hard it takes to match GPS satellites and I acknowledge the use of relativity. That is why I told you that all of that is science and could have been explained by another scientist, who would not confuse time and space. Change is what chemists have studied for years, and somehow, any scientist knew about how motions affects chemical composition. But Einstein trying to explain how people in two different time frames perceive same events in different moments does not make sense. The only thing that make sense in Einstein’s work is what scientists already knew, such as matter converting into energy when speed increases. That is what affects atomic clocks, and that is illustrates how our tools are never perfectly calibrated. Now, of course it makes sense to make some calculations and adjust our tools, that is why we study my friend! Nevertheless, that does not mean that time is not absolute! Please, include why you think time is relative on your reply, because all I am reading from you is Einstein that Einstein this, but you are not focusing on explaining why time is relative.
Anonymous: “what scientists already knew; such as matter converting into energy when speed increases” Okay what? That isn’t even a thing. Yes, matter can be converted to energy, or rather, matter is energy in a kind of condensed form, but velocity doesn’t initiate a transition between them. You’re either grossly mistaken about the nature of matter/energy equivalence or you didn’t express yourself very well. I also don’t think you understand why physicists accept relativity. It isn’t because they venerate Einstein and just believe whatever he says. Einstein merely synthesized a model based on the data available at the time, and this model made many very detailed and risky predictions, which have over time proven to be correct. The odds against his predictions matching reality by mere happenstance are astronomically high, which means he must have been onto something.
Whether or not Einstein’s model of relativity is correct isn’t as important as the fact that it has proven useful. It is the most accurate and effective model of physics as it relates to time, matter, gravity and motion that we have. If someone comes up with a better one, we will use it. Physicists accept it because of how well it fits observations. It doesn’t matter who came up with it. In science, theories are evaluated on their merits alone, not based on who came up with them.
As for your last question, if you’re asking why I believe time is relative, it’s because the relative time model of special relativity is the only model we have that fits the observable facts about the universe as we currently see it. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant for every observer, no matter their reference frame. This doesn’t make any sense in a universe where time is absolute.
Now maybe you can tell me why you think you understand the subject better than the multitude of physicists who have devoted their lives to understanding and validating the science behind these theories.