Is relativity a scientific theory?

[Mowgli]

Going back to the original topic of this thread, is SR a scientific theory, which "is a mathematically formalized expression which relates observables, is self consistent, logical, testable, falsifiable, and predictive," I think SR fails self-consistency (same as logical, is it not?) and falsifiability.

According to SR time dilation, each observer will have his clock running faster than all other observers in relative uniform motion. If you and I are moving wrt each other, your clock runs slow wrt mine and mine runs slow wrt yours. Not quite logical.

This logical inconsistency cannot falsify the theory because, in order to compare clocks, you have to accelerate/decelerate at least one of the frames thereby making it non-inertial and beyond the scope of the theory.

[CCC]

Going back to the original topic of this thread, is SR a scientific theory, which "is a mathematically formalized expression which relates observables, is self consistent, logical, testable, falsifiable, and predictive," I think SR fails self-consistency (same as logical, is it not?) and falsifiability.

According to SR time dilation, each observer will have his clock running faster than all other observers in relative uniform motion. If you and I are moving wrt each other, your clock runs slow wrt mine and mine runs slow wrt yours. Not quite logical.

This logical inconsistency cannot falsify the theory because, in order to compare clocks, you have to accelerate/decelerate at least one of the frames thereby making it non-inertial and beyond the scope of the theory.

Actually, this can be falsified. Imagine a situation something like this:

Code: Select all

A1          A2
            B1          B2

where A1, A2, B1 and B2 are all seperate clocks. A1 and A2 are moving to the right at a substantial fraction of c. Since clocks within a frame can be synchronised, A1 and A2 can be synchronised in frame A, while B1 and B2 can be synchronised in frame B.

It is also possible to compare clocks in different frames if they are in the same place. (If nothing else, you can ask an observer at A2 "when did B1 pass you?" and ask the observer at B1 "when did A2 pass you?"). Thus, A2 can be compared with first B1 and then B2, while B1 can be compared with first A2 and then A1. This is somewhat complicated by the lack of universal simultaneity, which will mean that frames A and B will not agree on whether clocks A1 and A2 are synchronised.




I must say, I think your passage on the directionality of time is very well written.

[cleonardo]

That is a great topic for the debate which has a real relativity. It is about the scientific concept and special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime and it is really a scientific theory which is based on the laws of the physics and the speed of light in a vacuum.

[OZLOFT]

Welcome, cleonardo - and may I say that that is the cleverst choice of name I have found here on this website.

That is a great topic for the debate which has a real relativity. It is about the scientific concept and special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime and it is really a scientific theory which is based on the laws of the physics and the speed of light in a vacuum.

As for relativity, the question of its scientific status depends on how words like "science" and "observables" are defined. A greater debate on philosophy is needed - but at present I am still waiting a reply from Ravkin or Kalmykov on his theory of "Ring Determinism."

Hope to hear from you soon,
Yours faithfully
OZLOFT