Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

 

"the mathematical relationship is repeatedly verified, just as the Pythagorean theorem is in a plane, so I would accept it on that basis alone.  "

 

Yet every working example available from lecturers from Yale, Harvard and numerous sources, that steps through the derivation of LT is mathematically a mess. Logical failure and completely nonsensical.

 

Pythagorean theorem I can see clearly that its correct. but LT math, concept and geometry is rubbish from start to end.

Exactly the same is demonstrated when they try to explain Minkowski's geometric drivel.

 

 

I don't understand how you can buy into it.

[Moronium]

.We need to recognize that if Physics (in this case) is coming up with irrational claims, then that's a sure sign that there could be missing information that is indispensable to a workable understanding of the problem.  

 

 

I completely agree with this, at least in certain cases.  But I don't reject ALL physics on that ground.  I take you to be saying that you don't either.

[Moronium]

I don't understand how you can buy into it.

 

 

I've already told you why.  Because it solves certain puzzles that would otherwise be insoluble.  And I don't mean "theoretical" puzzles.  I mean puzzles closely related to everyday sense perception.

[Moronium]

After Galileo invented (and demonstrated the existence of) the concept of inertia (later refined by Newton) all the ancient arguments supposedly "proving" that the solar system was geocentric were effectively refuted.

 

I happen to believe, on what I take to be solid grounds, that the earth actually orbits the Sun (solar barycenter) rather than vice versa. Even if I can't absolutely "prove" that it's true.  But assuming that's true, then other puzzles arise.

 

In an earlier post, Marco, you seemed to imply that heliocentricism was a "flawed" theory, but you didn't say why.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

After Galileo invented (and demonstrated the existence of) the concept of inertia (later refined by Newton) all the ancient arguments supposedly "proving" that the solar system was geocentric were effectively refuted.

 

I happen to believe, on what I take to be solid grounds, that the earth actually orbits the Sun (solar barycenter) rather than vice versa. Even if I can't absolutely "prove" that it's true.  But assuming that's true, then other puzzles arise.

 

In an earlier post, Marco, you seemed to imply that heliocentricism was a "flawed" theory, but you didn't say why.

Nope, I'm not into the idea that the Earth is stationary or any such thing. I may have been criticizing all the insane conclusions and hypothesizes of modern cosmology in an earlier post.( Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Virtual particles, CMB, Black Holes, Parallel Universes, Accelerating, Expanding Universe faster than light speed, Red shift can only be a doppler effect and Gravity is THE force in the universe, responsible for everything, you know, those insane concepts.)

 

But I'm curious about your comment that LT exclusively solves otherwise unsolvable puzzles.  What puzzles precisely? I would like to check them out.

[Moronium]

'm curious about your comment that LT exclusively solves otherwise unsolvable puzzles.  What puzzles precisely? I would like to check them out.

 

I already gave you a rather lengthy response to the private message where you asked about that.  You seemingly ignored it, or dismissed it out of hand.  But it's still there if you want to look at it again.  My answer hasn't changed. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But as LT is nothing but a fudge to fix an erroneous theory, it cant be real or applicable to anything can it? How can you justify the need for a fudge factor for an error?

 

What, in your opinion, is the "error" supposedly being "fudged," here?

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

ct is not time, it doesn't have the units of time, it's distance. It's distance because relativity defines time as another dimension of space resulting in 4 space dimensions. 

 

The equation c² = v_x² + v_t²  represents we are always travelling at c which is composed of the velocity through space and the velocity through time components.

 

From this you can derive v_t = c/Y = ct'/t where t = Yt' is the formula for time dilation.

 

So the velocity through time is the rate of  ct' (which is in distance units) over t and the velocity through space is x/t. (Important)

 

In a spacetime diagram there are two coordinate systems, the cartesian and the sort of rotated Minkowski. Mathematically, the Minkowski could be a fully rotated cartesian but relativity insists on length contraction and I see no mathematical reason for that concept except Einstein had a brain fart to appease Lorentz.

 

What's interesting about the little math I showed and the fact that there two rotated coordinate systems is that there are two "time" axes, ct and ct'. If you get rid of all the t denominators, you'll get v= x/ct and Yv= x/ct' as the slopes of the ct' axis. It's basically a cheat to allow relativity to pretend these are genuine time axes when they are not.

 

Let's use .6c to put some numbers to this. The slope of this line is 3/5 so using the ct axis at ct=4, x will equal 2.4 but using the ct' axis x will remain at 2.4 but ct' will be 3.2 and Yv will be .75. Yv represents Alice's velocity using her dilated time relative to Bob's time to cross Bob's distance. It is Alice's true velocity from her perspective, she will reach Proxima Centauri at Yv using much less of her time relative to Bob's time. Relativity does not allow this conclusion, even though it's an indisputable physical fact, because from Alice's perspective Bob has aged much less back on earth than Alice has aged from Bob's perspective. There has not been a disturbance in the relative velocity so no permanent age difference can be established, only perspective based time dilation. This is what all you are arguing about.

 

I've tried to figure out the math to convert the ct and ct' axes into true time axes but so far I've been unsuccessful. I doubt anyone will understand what I've been talking about because it involves algebra instead of wiki based proof.

Edited February 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Just to pile it on for the skeptics who think E=mc2  "came from," and/or is exclusive to, SR, here's another excerpt, from Marmet:

 

E=Mc2 before Albert Einstein.

 

When you read the original papers on relativity and physics, we find that E=Mc2 is a relationship, which is much older than Einstein. This relationship was not included within the original Einstein paper but in a later paper.  The relation between mass and energy began in 1881 with Thomson’s electromagnetic mass and was modified in Heaviside formula in 1889.  Poincarré in 1900 represented the mass by r and the energy density J of a fictitious fluid of radiation by the equation J=r/c2.  In 1904 Hasenorhl showed that the energy in a moving cavity would increase by 8E/(3c3), which Abraham persuaded him to change for 4E/(2c3). Also Soddy in 1904 suggested that the process of radioactive decay involves a conversion of mass into energy.

 

But the idea of E=mc2 as a potential energy for the potential of light is also explicit in Newtonian corpuscular theory.  In Newton`s Query 30, we read: "Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, . . . "  In nature, we can just transform mass into energy and energy into mass. We cannot create energy or mass from nothing. Of course, we need a constant of proportionality between mass and energy.  The constant of proportionality is c2.  Surprisingly, Einstein`s general relativity is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation (see reference).  That is a fatal error.  That is illogical. Furthermore, special relativity is not much useful, because it cannot deal with gravity or the acceleration of matter.

 

Equation 11 shows that the increase of mass of a moving particle is a direct consequence of mass-energy conservation. This is the demonstration of the relationship used in chapter 2 and 3 of the book: “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics”.

 

https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/gamma_mass_13.html

 

 

 

The c-squared constant is just a matter of quantification.  It could be anything and it wouldn't change the fundamental concept. You can leave it out and still have the essential "quality" of the concept, i.e., E=M

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Relativity does not allow this conclusion, even though it's an indisputable physical fact, because from Alice's perspective Bob has aged much less back on earth than Alice has aged from Bob's perspective. There has not been a disturbance in the relative velocity so no permanent age difference can be established, only perspective based time dilation. This is what all you are arguing about.

 

I've tried to figure out the math to convert the ct and ct' axes into true time axes but so far I've been unsuccessful. I doubt anyone will understand what I've been talking about because it involves algebra instead of wiki based proof.

 

 

I can't figure out what you're really trying to say here, but when you say "it's an indisputable physical fact, because from Alice's perspective.." you are treating subjective perception as equivalent to, and/or determinative of, "indisputable physical fact."  That is a fundamental category error, and you're on a wild goose chase trying to prove, mathematically or otherwise, that time dilation is reciprocal but aging is not.  As one goes, so goes the other.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I already gave you a rather lengthy response to the private message where you asked about that.  You seemingly ignored it, or dismissed it out of hand.  But it's still there if you want to look at it again.  My answer hasn't changed. 

Well I went to the private messages for a second look.  But there is no lengthy explanation related to Physics or LT, just a note that you would reply to one of my two questions in the forum. Care to cut and paste it again? as I cant find it, so I have no idea what special problems LT alone has solved.

[marcospolo]

What, in your opinion, is the "error" supposedly being "fudged," here?

Maxwell's equations are not invariant if motion is considered. With motion, they don't remain correct. So numerous solutions were considered that would allow science to keep the cherished Maxwell equations but add some other modifiers that could solve the problem.  Lorentz had a solution, a fudge, without any supporting reason as to why or how it could possibly work in the real world. It is a hypothetical fudge to overcome a mathematically imperfect series of equations, that approximate what we see in reality.  What is an electron exactly? Its nothing more than a concept offered as a possible way that electricity could work. A mulit-meter is not measuring electrons, its reacting to something, and does it reliably, but to what and how is not known. We just give things names, labels and pretend that labels mean we understand whats occurring, how its occurring.   But we dont.

 

The largest fudge factor ever offered by science to the trusting public is that of Dark Matter and Dark energy, along with Black Holes.  These fudges were invented so that cosmologists did not have to admit that they had no idea how the universe hangs together, or whats it really doing now.

Science absolutely must keep an expanding universe, and its back tracked age of 14 billion, to prevent anyone suggesting that God has some part to play in the universe, That's the only and complete reason for having an expanding universe, and its used to support that other theory that scientists MUST protect, namely Darwinian Evolution.

 

Today, E=mc2 and mass IS just energy, is totally a religious based idea, based on a world view, not on science, and is straight from the mystical religions text books.

Much of today's science is driven from ancient teachings of the Kabbalah.

 

The other religious based concept that is pushed like its a drug to hookers, is the idea from ancient Numerology, Alchemy, and is known as "mathematics is the language of he universe, and as such, it can PROVE concepts".

 

Sorry, but LT and SR and GR demonstrate that Maths can be pushed and pulled around to support any crazy idea.

 

"show me the math" is never going to help sort out a problem, you must have a sound, logical and rational concept to begin with, then maybe use some math for predictive purposes, not as proof.

Edited February 8, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

Well I went to the private messages for a second look.  But there is no lengthy explanation related to Physics or LT, just a note that you would reply to one of my two questions in the forum. Care to cut and paste it again? as I cant find it, so I have no idea what special problems LT alone has solved.

 

I posted it here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-18  (posts 292-93)

 

The most relevant part is this:

 

3.  Let's start with Lorentz's theory, which is where the transformations came from (Einstein just co-opted them, he didn't invent them).  Here's the basic problem.  We "know," or think we know, that certain objects are moving.  Like the earth rotating on it's axis while revolving around the sun, for example.

 

Given this, the expectation was that here on earth, we would measure the speed of light to be different depending on which direction it was going.  But the M-M experiment showed that we could not detect this.  So what's up?  Is the earth really motionless, while the Sun orbits it and the rest of the universe revolves around it?

 

Not likely.  That would violate virtually every aspect of physics known to man.  So, what' up?

 

Lorentz said that the earth (and other objects) really are moving, but we simply can't detect that "real motion?"  Why not?  Because, he said, the measuring instruments used (rods and clocks) get distorted with speed.  By "co-incidence" the "incorrect" measurements generated by those distorted instruments are such that we measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, even though it really isn't.

 

Lorentz had a very elaborate and sophisticated theory involving atomic changes and stuff, to explain it.  His theory was actually pretty good in many ways, but far from perfect, so it was just a "work in progress."

 

 

 

The L.T were developed around 1899 as a direct response to the (lack of) findings of the M-M experiment--not Maxwell's equations.   Maxwell's equations presented some "puzzles" too, but it was Einstein who was fixated on those puzzles more than Lorentz.

 

The Earth travels very quickly (more than 100,000 km per hour) around the Sun.  If aether exists, the Earth moving through it would cause a "wind" in the same way that there seems to be a wind outside a moving car....They found that there was, in fact, no substantial difference in the measurements. This was puzzling to the scientific community at the time, and led to the creation of various new theories to explain the result. The most important was the Lorentz factor, which is used in Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity.

 

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

 

What I find in this forum is that most posters here seem absolutely incapable of distinguishing between what a thing is, and what it is measured to be.

 

I blame this inability on the lingering effects of philosophical positivism, which is why I have taken time to address  Mach, Percy Bridgeman's book on the philosophy of science, etc., in previous posts. University professors today are still using the same tired arguments from the 1920's to "answer" questions about SR, i.e., so-called answers spawned by logical positivism, which has long since been completely discredited. 

 

Students are often told, for example:  "Time is what a clock measures, no more, no less.  There is no possible "meaning" of time apart from that."  Students begin to think that clocks define time, rather than merely measure it, however imperfectly.  They end up thinking that the ticking rate of a clock IS time.  Minkowski's naive interpretations of time and space played a big role in this too.  His woeful concoction called "spacetime" contributed greatly to this misconceived view about what "independent reality" is. 

 

Einstein too, with his attempt to elevate subjective sense perception to the level of physical reality.  E.g., if I claim that I'm not moving, then, by God, I aint moving.  That's the end of it.  Game over,  Beyond debate.  My subjective conclusions are 100% valid, 100% of the time.  Well, unless I should happen to conclude that I am moving, that is.  For SR such a conclusion is utterly blasphemous, and will quickly get you excommunicated from the church of SR.

 

It doesn't seem to help any, as my recent exchange with Popeye demonstrates, it you paid any attention to that.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The other religious based concept that is pushed like its a drug to hookers, is the idea from ancient Numerology, Alchemy, and is known as "mathematics is the language of he universe, and as such, it can PROVE concepts".

 

"show me the math" is never going to help sort out a problem, you must have a sound, logical and rational concept to begin with, then maybe use some math for predictive purposes, not as proof.

 

 

Yes, we are in complete agreement about this.  Again many, probably most, posters here seem to think that physics IS math.  They therefore tend to think that if you put your hypothesis (no matter how unsound) into mathematical form, then deduce the mathematical consequences of your postulates, then you have "proved" that your hypothesis is correct.  They also think that if they understand the math, then they understand the concepts underlying it, often a total self-deception. Guys like Ralf (he aint alone, there are many others) actually think that math gives answers to, and solves, conceptual problems.

 

It is irrefutably true, hypothetically and mathematically, that if I have $10 million in my bank account, then add another 10 million, I will have $20 million in the bank!!!  True, but that little demonstration of your ability to reason mathematically didn't put a single penny in your bank account, sorry.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But this takes Newtonian mechanics and in the author's words, "relativises it" by introducing the Lorentz γ factor, which contains c² of course. So it's not surprising he comes out with E=mc². The question that arises is on what basis does he introduce the γ factor, if he is not assuming SR?

 

Einstein's biggest achievement was to demonstrate why E=Mc2 holds true even for an object at rest.  Modern physics says there is no mass other than rest mass, which is frame independent, and that the concept of "relativistic mass" is misleading.  So, you're just talking about a run of  the mill Newtonian situation in that event.  Nothing necessarily to do with objects moving at relativistic speeds.  It can be extended to that, if you want, which is all Einstein, Poincare, et al, did.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Today, E=mc2 and mass IS just energy, is totally a religious based idea, based on a world view, not on science, and is straight from the mystical religions text books.

 

 

Somebody should have told those sorry japs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that, eh?  With the right "religion" they would have been unscathed.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Of course they are not all correct!

 

How you got that idea from my post is beyond me.

 

Maybe you need to read it again.

 

I got it from your claim that the ticking rate of various clocks, and the reliability (or correctness) of each, was somehow essential information, knowledge of which was required to answer the question I asked.

 

The implication is that the rate at which some (any) clock, anywhere in the universe, ticks somehow "determines," or somehow affects, the length of the interval between the time I say "go" and the time I say "stop."  A broken wristwatch does not cause time to "stop."  It can have no effect whatsoever on "time."

 

Of course my example was designed to put all clocks in close proximity to each other with all in the same inertial frame of reference.  But your response seemed to ignore that. Even in those circumstances your suggestion seemed to be that the interval in question depended on the clocks, not the interval itself.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium