Physics Based On Einstein's Errors

[marcospolo]

 

But perhaps now it's about time I stopped playing games with you and let other people take up the cudgels. I'll continue to enjoy reading your continuing fulminations against Einstein, however.

 

P.S. If you ever feel like starting a thread to complain about quantum theory, I'll give that a go for a while. It's always a nice challenge with cranks to rehearse the arguments and revise some science in the process.   

 

P.P.S. Hey, or creationism, how about that? I bet you are a creationist too. It would fit with your determination that we can't know how any of these things works. 

So once again, another ardent Relativist drops out of the argument, the minute that they realize that they have no sensible way around the problems presented.

Of course, you will claim this you are dropping out because you can see that I cant be reasoned with, because I refuse to accept your theory.

But I'm happy to accept any theory from anyone, providing that its rational, sensible and logical.

That is different to the attitude of the masses of unknowing disciples of the church that is Relativism. You cant see past the dogma and demi gods, so are stuck in limbo. The gods are Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, Krauss, Max Planck, Heisenberg, Maxwell, etc.  You don't dare be critical of these guys.

[Dubbelosix]

So once again, another ardent Relativist drops out of the argument, the minute that they realize that they have no sensible way around the problems presented.

 

You're quite delusional. You presented no arguments. Nothing in the least which would topple relativity. You need to get real. 

[marcospolo]

Oh, and just a little FYI from quite a while ago...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

 

 

Ok, I went and looked.  Its just more mythical inventions by the church leaders as far as I can tell.

First, Quantum microscopes are a fable, all of Quantum Mechanics including Quantum Computers are fakes.  The d-wave is just a piece of silicon.

anyway, so you really think that they have "a photograph of a mathematical function"? while they are at it, get them to photograph 6*7=42.

This is getting really stupid now, a piss-weak theory based on a religious mystical belief system is now being photographed!

For the next trick, a quantum telescope will detect the return of the Messiah and his angelic army! 

 

You guys believe anything. anything as long as it's not rational or sensible.

 

Do scientists cheat and lie? Yep all the time, as long as there has been scientists, and governments and money. (look it up, I can't spoon feed you all the time!)

QUESTION EVERYTHING, especially the religious, irrational s**t.

Edited October 17, 2018 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

You're quite delusional. You presented no arguments. Nothing in the least which would topple relativity. You need to get real. 

so what was all my writing about, shopping for a new phone? I thought I was presenting something here. and the two videos? I imagined that they were being somewhat critical of relativity, and explaining exactly my argument nicely...... are you getting confused between an argument and a hypothesis?  I'm not proposing any new theories, I'm only challenging an existing and flawed hypothesis of Einstein.  Why you so opposed to the idea that Einstein could be 100% wrong? are you his grand son getting some financial kick backs or something?  What do you care if he is wrong?  Life would be much easier at UNI if we did not have to learn all his  "counter intuitive" crap.

 

Before Relativity can claim to be in a position where it can be toppled, the hypothesis must be intelligible, and rational. It fails right there, for the reasons I have explained at length. 

 

No counter arguments have been presented that have shown errors in my criticisms of Relativity, so the criticisms stand, and Einsteins Relativity must remain just a weak nonsensical hypothesis, with a solid error in the second paragraph, the postulate claiming that c is constant in every frame. You don't get to pass this assumption, and continue on as if this stupid claim could be correct.  

 

I may as well claim, "there is a GOD and  we are all clearly here, his creations, therefore he exists!, so this hypothesis is correct."

This is exactly what Einstein is saying, and exactly his logic. and you bought it! 

[GAHD]

The idea here in a forum where two people are putting forward their arguments, is that they actually put forward their argument!  

You method is to say "Ill give you some hints and you go figure it out yourself".   Well, some time years ago, I did go look at all the information, and I already did figure it out myself, and guess what? It turns out that I found huge problems with Einsteins theories, and then proceeded to gather the enormous wealth of information that exists that explain in great detail exactly why Einstein is wrong. So there are many people, including ALL of the scientists of Einstein's day that think the concept is just stupid.

And Ive never heard a single convincing counter argument to these criticisms from anyone, and now you can't even be bothered to explain your views.

 

Never mind, I never expected that you would have anything concrete to say about it, because there can be no reasonable defense for a stupid hypothesis.

 

See, all you've got is Rhetoric. Rhetoric works well in philosophy class, and at a bar with drunk people, and in general with people who's IQ a few decimals short of 140 outside of those 2 arenas. Rhetoric breaks down when it decides to ignore physical evidence, yours is doing this.

 

GPS Uses GR and SR, otherwise it breaks. Explain why? Math for it? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

CERN has visible relativistic events. Explain why if GR/SR wrong? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

LIGO, once again, GR effects (and possibly nBrane if you swing that way), explain why if wrong? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

 

I'll be kind enough to point you towards Lawrence Krauss, PHD Physicist, who explains things on the youtubes in a manner that is easy to understand. He might even bother answering you if you throw down your gauntlet and rent a debate venue. I'll even point you towards Walter Lewen, Experimental Physicist, who has many videos for free OpenCourseware style for you to educate yourself in a way that actually uses math and experimental results.

 

 

Ok, I went and looked.  Its just more mythical inventions by the church leaders as far as I can tell.

First, Quantum microscopes are a fable, all of Quantum Mechanics including Quantum Computers are fakes.  The d-wave is just a piece of silicon.

anyway, so you really think that they have "a photograph of a mathematical function"? while they are at it, get them to photograph 6*7=42.

This is getting really stupid now, a piss-weak theory based on a religious mystical belief system is now being photographed!

For the next trick, a quantum telescope will detect the return of the Messiah and his angelic army! 

 

You guys believe anything. anything as long as it's not rational or sensible.

 

Do scientists cheat and lie? Yep all the time, as long as there has been scientists, and governments and money. (look it up, I can't spoon feed you all the time!)

QUESTION EVERYTHING, especially the religious, irrational s**t.

Weird, Cause computer manufacturers for the past couple of years have been using that imaging technique to deal with us coming up on the end of Moor's law, what with our IC on CPU die being right up there on the atomic scale. I guess big business lies too. and those Quantum Computer guys havn't done anything. :thumbs_do

 

You seem to think you're entitled to have a "fair shake" of everyone else's time. You're not. I do not have the inclination to spoon-feed you a Masters in Physics, especially not when your attitude is this caustic. Have you even completed highschool physics and calculus? Linear algebra? Differentials? No? GTFO and talk when you've learned to math.

 

You "win" in that "I'm done interacting with you" and I've decided "you are beneath me."

 

Once you've got something more concrete I'll bother paying attention to you again. Till then, toodles.

[marcospolo]

 

See, all you've got is Rhetoric. Rhetoric works well in philosophy class, and at a bar with drunk people, and in general with people who's IQ a few decimals short of 140 outside of those 2 arenas. Rhetoric breaks down when it decides to ignore physical evidence, yours is doing this.

 

GPS Uses GR and SR, otherwise it breaks. Explain why? Math for it? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

CERN has visible relativistic events. Explain why if GR/SR wrong? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

LIGO, once again, GR effects (and possibly nBrane if you swing that way), explain why if wrong? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

 

I'll be kind enough to point you towards Lawrence Krauss, PHD Physicist, who explains things on the youtubes in a manner that is easy to understand. He might even bother answering you if you throw down your gauntlet and rent a debate venue. I'll even point you towards Walter Lewen, Experimental Physicist, who has many videos for free OpenCourseware style for you to educate yourself in a way that actually uses math and experimental results.

 

 

Weird, Cause computer manufacturers for the past couple of years have been using that imaging technique to deal with us coming up on the end of Moor's law, what with our IC on CPU die being right up there on the atomic scale. I guess big business lies too. and those Quantum Computer guys havn't done anything. :thumbs_do

 

You seem to think you're entitled to have a "fair shake" of everyone else's time. You're not. I do not have the inclination to spoon-feed you a Masters in Physics, especially not when your attitude is this caustic. Have you even completed highschool physics and calculus? Linear algebra? Differentials? No? GTFO and talk when you've learned to math.

 

You "win" in that "I'm done interacting with you" and I've decided "you are beneath me."

 

Once you've got something more concrete I'll bother paying attention to you again. Till then, toodles.

CERN, LIGO, GPS have all been debated elsewhere and its not a clear win for the mainstream. There are valid issues that have not been answered, so none of these things prove your claims about Relativity. You can look the issues up yourself, but you will not find anything in the UNI library of "approved" material.

 

But your first paragraph got me!  "all you've got is Rhetoric. Rhetoric works well in philosophy class, and at a bar with drunk people, and in general with people who's IQ a few decimals short of 140"    Well that must include the champion of Rethoric, Einstein himself, who ONLY EVER used "thought experiments" or rhetoric in every one of his papers!

 

Then he got his best buddy to go "find" evidence of the bending of light, which the buddy promptly "found" after a good deal of FRAUD. 

 

Today, the evidence of the bending of light can be simply explained by other classical physics means without having to enlist the magical and mystical SR or GR.

[Moronium]

 

GPS Uses GR and SR, otherwise it breaks. Explain why? Math for it? No? Waste of my time interacting with you.

 

 

I completely disagree with this.  The GPS decidedly does NOT use "SR."

 

It does, without question, use the lorentz transformations, but that is NOT SR, even though many seem to think the two are identical.

 

The GPS relies on a neo-lorentzian theory of relative motion which assumes, incorporates, and employs the notion of absolute simultaneity.  It rejects the relative simultaneity posited by SR.

 

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

The GPS relies on a neo-lorentzian theory of relative motion which assumes, incorporates, and employs the notion of absolute simultaneity.  It rejects the relative simultaneity posited by SR.

 

 

This claim is easily understood and demonstrated by anyone who understands the difference.  The following is an excerpt from a  relatively recent article published in the "Journal of Astrophysics & Aerospace Technology:"

 

In relativity theory there are two versions of time dilation: symmetric and asymmetric. In the first case, it is assumed that a moving clock always runs slower than the observer's local clock, so it is just a matter of perspective which of two clocks runs faster. By contrast, asymmetric time dilation assumes that if two clocks are running at different rates, one of them is unambiguously slower.

 

 

The latter view incorporates absolute simultaneity, the former view is propounded by  SR.  Put another way, the question is "Is time dilation reciprocal (SR) or directional (LR)?"  To continue from the article:

 

The Lorentz transformation (LT) of Einstein's special theory of relativity (STR) predicts that only symmetric time dilation occurs in nature. However, experimental studies of the rates of atomic clocks on airplanes, as well as of the second-order Doppler effect using high-speed rotors, find that time dilation is exclusively asymmetric, in clear contradiction to the LT [used by SR].

 

 

 

The form of the LT is identical in both LR (lorentizian relativity, which posits a preferred frame), and SR, but the interpretation (substance) differs.  The v (for velocity) of SR is relative whereas for LR it is absolute.

 

In the present work, it is shown that there is another space-time transformation that also satisfies Einstein's two postulates of relativity, but one which assumes that clock rates in different rest frames are strictly proportional to one another. It is therefore in complete agreement with the results of the above time-dilation experiments and also with the clock-rate adjustment procedure applied to satellite clocks in the methodology of the Global Positioning System; hence the designation GPS-LT for this alternative space-time transformation. Unlike the original LT, the GPS-LT is consistent with the absolute remote simultaneity of events, and it eliminates the necessity of assuming that space and time are inextricably mixed.

 

 

Think about that.  Does anybody actually care about empirical facts?  Or is what one has adopted as accepted dogma to be strictly adhered to in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary?

 

although the LT satisfies both of the relativity postulates, it fails to predict the results of a number of experiments that were carried out in the latter half of the 20th century. Evaluation of these experimental results, which were not available to Einstein at the time of his landmark paper, allows for a more precise statement of the physical requirements that must be satisfied in order to obtain a completely satisfactory theory of motion in the absence of gravitational fields. The technology of the Global Positioning System (GPS), particularly the manner in which it makes use of atomic clocks in obtaining accurate estimates of distances on the earth’s surface, will prove to be a key element in the following discussion.

 

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gpscompatible-lorentz-transformation-that-satisfies-the-relativity-principle-2329-6542-1000115.php?aid=55849

 

The author here is not some rogue, heretical physicist.  The points he makes are accepted by mainstream physics (since they are correct).  I have summarized and explained these points in this forum numerous times, but as far as I can tell, until recently, not a single poster here understands the issues.

 

I find it frustrating that such simple, self-evident concepts are so routinely rejected by those pretending to be knowledgeable and informed.

 

The conception of reciprocal time dilation propounded by SR is prima facie self-refuting and I am amazed that so many can't (or won't) acknowledge that obvious observation.

 

As any physicist (or any other rational person) will readily admit, it is logically impossible for each of two clocks to run slower than the other.

 

Those who do not see this as intuitively obvious need only look at the Hafele-Keating experiment, conducted about 50 years ago, for empirical confirmation of this logical necessity.  Or to the GPS, which confirms directional (not reciprocal) time dilation thousands of times every day.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I do find this author's suggestion about the history of the LT (lorentz transformations) to be misleading, however.  Reading his article, you would likely get the idea that the concept of non-reciprocal time dilation is a modern refinement.  But it is not.

 

The LT preceded Einstein and were developed in conjunction with a theory of asymmetrical time dilation and the assumption of absolute simultaneity.  It was Einstein who first modified the original LT, not the other way around.  His was not the "original LT," as this author suggests.

 

Unfortunately for Al, his modification cannot withstand the scrutiny imposed by modern experimentation (or rigorous logic, for that matter).

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The author here is not some rogue, heretical physicist.  The points he makes are accepted by mainstream physics (since they are correct).  I have summarized and explained these points in this forum numerous times, but as far as I can tell, until recently, not a single poster here understands the issues.

 

 

The "single poster" I have in mind is Marcospolo.  It is clear to me that he understands the fundamental differences in the alternate theories of relative motion and understands the self-evident flaws in SR.

 

That said, I think he frequently obscures the relevant points by making (as his opponents usually do) repetitious, unsupported assertions, with a tinge of charged emotion to them  In my view, he would do better to stick to the facts and concepts and forego the distracting red herrings raised by resort to polemicism.  Conclusory statements of a disparaging nature are simply not any kind of rational argument and are totally lacking in any persuasive power or evidentiary  value.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In relativity theory there are two versions of time dilation: symmetric and asymmetric.

 

 

That is from the scientific paper I just cited, and relates to another issue that always seems controversial, i.e., the relationship between math and physics.

 

There are many who  essentially  believe that physics IS math, that theoretical physics is derived from math, and that the math resolves any issues between competing theories.

 

I believe the opposite.  The math utilized comes from the theories in question, not vice versa.   Math does not "solve" differences, it merely follows the orders of its commanders (the theorists).

 

For example, the Lorentz transforms will, in all pertinent theories, predict that the "moving" clock runs slower.  But the mathematical formula employed can never tell you which clock is the one moving. That is an empirical question answered by objective reality, one might think.  But it isn't that simple.  The answer to that question comes from the theory you happen to subscribe to.  And every theory is simply based upon unproven hypothesis, not empirical fact.

 

That's not to say that some theories aren't inherently more credible and persuasive than others, but, still....

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But, with respect to competing theories of relative motion, the empirically ascertained facts can, in certain circumstances, resolve the theoretical issues.

 

Take SR vs LR.  Both theories say that it is the moving clock which slows down, so there is no theoretical difference there.  So, based on that, there is a simple way to determine which of two (or more) clocks is moving.  And this has been done.  When two clocks have been moving relative to each other, it is a simple matter to see which one has recorded less elapsed time.  That will be the one which was moving (faster).

 

No experiment has ever (nor can any ever) compared two clocks and found that each has been running slower than the other while in uniform motion. Only one will be slower, and only one will be faster, if there is any difference at all, and that has been empirically demonstrated.

 

Not good news for the faithful devotees of special relativity, I'm afraid.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Oh man, this thread is just terrible. It would take months to untangle the tsunami of misconceptions here. If I even start to engage I'd be thrown off this forum by day 2. My hopes of getting my own question about relativity answered here are over.

[A-wal]

No experiment has ever (nor can any ever) compared two clocks and found that each has been running slower than the other while in uniform motion. Only one will be slower, and only one will be faster, if there is any difference at all, and that has been empirically demonstrated.

This is total bollocks! He's made this same ridiculous claim countless times and it's no more valid now than it was the first time, and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the most basic aspect of relativity. I'm going to explain one last time why Moronium's claims of a preferred frame and absolute motion are so absurd, not for his benefit because he's clearly made up his mind.

 

 

Observer-1 and Observer-2 start off in the same frame of reference. This can be any reference frame you like, it makes absolutely no difference. They then accelerate away from each other until they're moving at half the speed of light relative to each other in their new reference frames. Observer-2 is now time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of Observer-1s frame and Observer-1 is time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of Observer-2s frame.

 

If Observer-1 were to then accelerate to Observer-2s frame then Observer-1 will see Observer-2s watch speeding up and overtaking their own watch before reaching Observer-2s frame and it will be Observer-1s watch that's behind Observer-2s watch but if Observer-2 were to accelerate to Observer-1s frame then Observer-2 will see Observer-1s watch speeding up and overtaking their own watch before reaching Observer-1s frame. No preferred frame frame, no inconsistency.

 

 

The whole idea of a preferred frame doesn't even make any sense. Although a preferred frame would work in principle, it would raise the question of how one particular frame rather than any other could be the frame in which absolute motion is measured. And as I already explained to him before (and he completely ignored), if there were a preferred frame then time dilation and length contraction would have to be direction dependent.

 

If an object accelerates in a certain direction then they would have to be either speeding up or slowing down relative to the preferred (and presumably magic) frame and so an object that accelerates in the opposite direction would be slowing down relative to the magic frame if the first one was speeding up relative to it and speeding up relative to the magic frame if the first one was slowing down relative to it.

 

The only way that both could be speeding up relative to this mystical special frame so that they're both time dilated and length contracted from the perspective of an observer who stays in their original frame is if that original frame just happens to be the magic frame.

 

It would mean that direction of motion has no effect on time dilation and length contraction not because this is simply the frame in which we find ourselves but because there is for some unknown reason a preferred frame (just what it is about this particular frame that could make it special nobody knows) and the Earth just happens to be in it despite its motion through the solar system, the solar system's motion through the galaxy and the galaxy's motion through the universe, and all other potential observers in the universe agree on this absolute frame.

[Moronium]

I haven't read your rant, A-wal, but let me ask you:  Did you even glance at the paper I cited?

 

Are you even remotely aware that both the Hafele-Keating analysis and GPS must utilize a preferred frame to arrive at accurate predictions of clock readings?

 

Obviously not.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I haven't read your rant, A-wal,..

Yea you always chose to simply ignore points that can't be refuted so it's no surprise.

 

..., but let me ask you:  Did you even glance at the paper I cited?

 

Are you even remotely aware that both the Hafele-Keating analysis and GPS must utilize a preferred frame to arrive at accurate predictions of clock readings?

 

Obviously not.

This is a lie! If it were true then the calibration needed to sync the GPS could be used to work out Earth's motion relative to the magic frame.

[Moronium]

As I have repeatedly explained, recent findings show that there is no one single "magical" frame.  There is no universally valid "preferred frame."

 

As Einstein himself said, "all physics are local."

 

The proper choice of the preferred frame that needs to be employed to get accurate predictions is the barycenter of the dominant gravitational influence of the locality in question.

 

For experiments on or near earth, that frame is the (non-rotating) ECI.  For observations made on interplanetary scale, it would be the barycenter of the solar system, and so on.

 

You might, instead of calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar, actually read some of the relevant scientific literature, eh?  Hafele and Keatings analysis of their findings, for example.