Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

I take it you're talking about the ever-faithful old "light clock" here.  This is often used to "prove" that time dilation is "reciprocal."

 

But this too is based only on the SR dictate that you MUST consider your own frame to be motionless.

 

Say I have light clock, right next to me, and I'm looking at a guy going .6c relative to me, who also has a light clock.

 

So I'm looking at his clock, and he's looking at mine.

 

I conclude that his clock is slower than mine.  But on what basis?

 

On the basis that I'm at rest and he's moving (certainly an "unproven" assumption).

 

If I assumed that I was the one moving, (which would mean that my clock was slower, not his) then his clock would still look exactly the same to me.  I can't "see" or "observe" that his clock is slower.  I can only deduce it (based on the postulates and calculational dictates of SR).

 

Just another example of question-begging.  First assume the postulates are absolutely true, then "show" that, if you accept them, they are absolutely true.

No, Im talking about the logic employed by those trying to derive the LT. equation. They give the example of a light clock on a moving ship and two observers. One "sees" the light moving up and down in the clock, (the moving guy, and the other "sees" the same light moving across the sky as a zig zag.  This is the sole basis for the derivation of the LT, and its possibly the most stupid reason to do Physics Ive ever heard of.

[Moronium]

No, Im talking about the logic employed by those trying to derive the LT. equation. They give the example of a light clock on a moving ship and two observers. One "sees" the light moving up and down in the clock, (the moving guy, and the other "sees" the same light moving across the sky as a zig zag.  This is the sole basis for the derivation of the LT, and its possibly the most stupid reason to do Physics Ive ever heard of.

 

Well, we're talking about the same thing, then.  Maybe you didn't read my post too carefully.

 

But with this exception--I was talking about how it is used to supposedly "prove" that time dilation is "reciprocal."  A "proof" that fails miserably.

 

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with Einstein's derivation of the LT, but I do know this:  In essence he "derived" the LT from Lorentz, who derived it on the assumption that clock retardation is NOT reciprocal. 

 

As I recall, Einstein made 3 or 4 failed attempts to derive the LT from SR, over a period of several years, before he finally got it right.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

David Morin, the Harvard physics prof, said this:  "nearly all of special relativity can be derived by invoking only the second postulate."

 

This is related to the difference between a principle theory and a constructive theory that Chem and I were talking about earlier.  You make a simple declaration, call it a postulate, and everything else follows.  It's basically all deduction.  If you accept the postulate, then everything else logically follows.

 

For clarity, here's how Morin describes the "second postulate:"

 

 

So this is the "principle" in Einstein's "principle theory."  It's the "principle of relativity."

 

The same implications will follow from a given set of premises whether they are sound or unsound.  It's all just a matter of logic.

 

Elsewhere, Morin suggests that he's skeptical of the "truth" of Einstein's postulates.  Of course that doesn't stop him from teaching SR in good faith.  It's basically irrelevant.  All he's telling his students is "if this, then necessarily that."  That doesn't mean he's vouching for it.

Einstein's relativity hang totally one one major mistake, and its a mistake that is quickly inserted into the theory before anyone notices it.

After getting everyone to agree with his two reasonable postulates, he later slips in a condition that is totally wrong, and few notice, having already bought into the concepts.

The Postulate that Light always travels at C independent of the source of the light. This is agreeable by most people.

But then he adds that it will also be measured as C even if the observer is moving.  This is the error, as it cant ever be demonstrated and its irrational under the postulates he offers.

 

Every (imaginary) Fof R (frame of Reference) whether inertial or not, MUST reside in an imaginary, universal, absolute frame of reference. But Einstein discounts that obviously essential requirement of logic.  For Relativists, they can not ever agree that frames are (a) imaginary and (b) MUST reside within an equally imaginary an static absolute master frame.  For them all frames are floating around, attached somehow to every object, to every atom, and can affect the physical world by their mere presence, and are only related to each other, and there MUST not ever be one frame that  is relative to all other frames, that can be considered the main frame.  To accept that idea is to destroy SR and GR.

[marcospolo]

Because math liberates us from credulity and biased dogma.

 

Actually Math can "prove" that day is night and black is white and that the sum of all integers is minus 12.

 

Its USELESS unless one has a solid rational theory as to how things work.

 

You CAN study Physics principles and come to a useful workable knowledge of Physics without delving into the math.

But the reverse is NOT true. You CAN NOT understand Physics by only studying the Math.

[Moronium]

But then he adds that it will also be measured as C even if the observer is moving.  

 

 

I'm not aware of Einstein himself ever "adding" this. It is, however, commonplace for relativists to say that the speed of light is independent of the speed of either the source of the light or it's receiver.

 

And I don't see that as his "one major mistake," in any event.

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Yeah, if I understand your summary, I agree that's what Lorentz believed.  He, like Poincare, (each of whom Einstein acknowledged himself to be highly indebted to) went to his grave denying the validity of SR (even though he and Al became very close).

 

I've said a TON more in this forum.  Anything particular?

Nope, that's cool.  I agree with you and Lorentz then.

BUT I will still take you up on my claim that there is no valid reason to invent the LT.  I will address this later when I get time. I will use the summary as you just agreed was accurate. Please wait, **** is happening here... must do real stuff occasionally.

[marcospolo]

I'm not aware of Einstein himself ever "adding" this. It is, however, commonplace for relativists to say that the speed of light is independent of the speed of either the source of the light or it's receiver.

 

And I don't see that as his "one major mistake," in any event.

Its the ONLY thing that allows Relativists to conclude the time, distance and mass morph into other values. That's why its critical! 

If they don't have that one critical point, that light is always measured at c regardless of the velocity of the observer, then they cant ever complete the theory of Special Relativity. Its a dead duck without this one little change to the postulate.

[Moronium]

As I've said before, Einstein said he had struggled for 8 years to reconcile Galilean Relativity with Maxwell's equations and was finally ready to give up even trying.

 

But, at the last moment, he concocted the notion of "relative simultaniety."  This gave him the courage to finally just flatly assert, by fiat (postulate), that the principle of relativity pertained to "modern" physics.

 

The concept of relative simultaneity is what allowed him to invent his theory.  It is also, in my view, where it goes wrong ab initio.  It is this notion that results in all the inconsistencies and "paradoxes" which SR generates.

 

My very first post on this topic addressed this concept.  That was before your time here, but you can still look at it, if you want:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/

Edited February 10, 2019 by Moronium

[GAHD]

As most intelligible members here will have noted, every-time GAHD bans me he deletes all my posts to suppress the truth.

It seems this time you learned that I was serious when I warned you about nonsensicle spam and derailment of threads. If it's easier to click the "wipe out everything" button than to spend 2+ hours (estimate) weeding out and fixing  that kinda spam....Yup, I'll drop a nuke on a goldfish. I don't like doing work I'm not being paid for. If you make that kind of work for me, I do the job with wild abandon and little effort.

 

Let me publicly reiterate the warning I gave you, that you refused to read(according to the forum logs) for 6 hours and 20+ posts after I sent it to you; Absolute final warning on spamming and derailment. Zero tolerance after this point (4 weeks ago now?)

 

You've behaved this time, so far, but you are on extremely thin ice.

 

Ah...that Nazi GAHD, eh?  I see, now.

More so lazy than a German Socialist. TYVM

[marcospolo]

Not provided one has imagined THE geometry under which nature operates. That math would put the scientific method to shame in it's comprehensiveness.

Rubbish, THAT math, is but a flight of fantasy, not an empirical fact. Its all conjecture about a purely mathematical construct that ONLY exists in one's mind, (providing that one is a math nerd, and has no ability in practical real world physics.)

 

The math structure you refer to is as useful to Physics as the movie "The Matrix" (actually the movie is superior.)

[GAHD]

Before you were an admin I didn't see a problem with my behavior, from Buffy or Sanctus.

 

However other than some light-hearted amusement and dark humor as endearing I didn't display any true disrespect to anyone.

 

I can also delete my own posts, and I will take the time to be selective, before banning me without having to delete anything I wrote because prior to the next I'll do it myself.

 

Before you were an admin I didn't see a problem with my behavior, from Buffy or Sanctus.

 

However other than some light-hearted amusement and dark humor as endearing I didn't display any true disrespect to anyone.

 

I can also delete my own posts, and I will take the time to be selective, before banning me without having to delete anything I wrote because prior to the next I'll do it myself.

Ahh you seem to have couple misconceptions here:

Misconception the first: Buff, sanctus, myself, admin status. I was an Admin Long ago, 3 forums owners ago actually. and continued being one for quite a long tie till real-life made me unable to put in time. Right now, and during the time there was rampant spam of the "buy fake ID" and whatnot type going unmoderated I got dragged back in because right now THEY are too busy with real-life to babysit. If you bother to check, My account predates theirs by a few years. ;)

Misconception the second: Buffy and Sanctus didn't see a problem. It's not that they didn't they just didn't have time to do anything about it. We have logs for this kind of thing. I read them before I did anything but swat spambots. We Admins had some PM exchange, and I had some with you personally afterwards about behaving if you'll remember. Thank you for paying attention this time. You were the first one to reply during whimsy AND shaped up immidiately. Good job. Keep it up.

 

To eveyone else: Sorry for the interuption. Please get back to the topic at hand...And play nice, Please?

 

[Moronium]

I'll leave this very specific call to whever quotes and responds to this post first: Nuke the sockpuppet for this?

 

I'm the "target" of this triviality, and I would say no, that's no reason to ban the poor boy.

[Moronium]

Witty?  Well, I didn't say that.

[marcospolo]

When the truth is far less complicated, that there is an Absolute Relativistic Frame of Reference emerging just like a zero g lagrange point - and that can be treated as a recurring fractal pattern in boundless 9-vector space. In that frame of reference the speed of light may be a lot faster in some areas than we've been able to predict because the planck length might be larger, and the planck time might be faster in a vacuum than Max Planck was able to account for given that space has far far far less occupied waves.

 

Or the truth may be even be simpler that still!

 

There are no "frames of reference", only the concept of coordinate systems imagined by man.

And there is no such thing as 9 vector space.

And no such thing as the Planck Length.

These are all imaginary constructs invented to support someones point of view.

[OceanBreeze]

Your comments are not useful to the discussion Moronium and I are having at the moment.

 

 

Of course not. Facts and the mere mention of mathematics are never useful to a crackpot.

 

 

1/ Light requires a medium. Its called a vacuum. Spacetime fabric for you as a Relativist, is  " full of virtual particles that pop in and out of existance," (Lawrence Krauss) Aether for other folk.

 

 

The vacuum is considered to be the absence of any medium, but nice try.

 

 

2/ Sound can most certainly be substituted as a constant for light, and its way easier to measure. We already know way moore about sound waves than we do light, so a simple bit of Math by the moving observer will give him the corrected real vales for the speed of sound that he measures. The stationary observer does not need to compensate.

 

 

 

What possible good can it do to use the speed of sound in a Lorentz transform? It would give you a result that does not conform to reality. For example, a velocity at 0.6 speed of sound would yield a Lorentz factor of 0.5, indicating that time dilates and length contracts by that amount when something moves at 0.6 the speed of sound! Now maybe you can see why that is nonsensical? Then again, in your case, maybe not!

 

 

3/ You have not yet  proffered a hypothesis that there is such a thing a Relativistic effects yet.  We are currently looking at two hypotheses that should give us the same result, one using sound the other light speed as constants. So you dont get to dismiss the sound wave hypothesis with your light wave hypothesis till we see if they both work out similar results. The concept is the same for both, so if it works for light it will work for sound.  But it does not, showing us that we have done something wrong with the light based hypothesis.

 

 

 

I just showed you why the "sound wave hypotheses" otherwise known as the bullshit hypotheses, does not work and if you bother to check you can find many, many examples of experiments that have positively confirmed relativistic effects, such as time dilation, are very real and indeed we cannot accurately conduct meaningful science without taking these effects into consideration.

 

 

4/  Your math is a mess, give me your rational, logical arguments before you butcher the math.

 

 

You haven't even seen "my math" so how do you know it is a mess? Or, do you consider ALL math a "mess" because you don't understand any of it?

 

I have a lot of tolerance for people who have tried to learn the math and theory but still have some doubts. But I have no tolerance at all for science deniers.

[marcospolo]

Of course not. Facts and the mere mention of mathematics are never useful to a crackpot.

 

 

 

The vacuum is considered to be the absence of any medium, but nice try.

 

 

 

 

What possible good can it do to use the speed of sound in a Lorentz transform? It would give you a result that does not conform to reality. For example, a velocity at 0.6 speed of sound would yield a Lorentz factor of 0.5, indicating that time dilates and length contracts by that amount when something moves at 0.6 the speed of sound! Now maybe you can see why that is nonsensical? Then again, in your case, maybe not!

 

 

 

 

I just showed you why the "sound wave hypotheses" otherwise known as the bullshit hypotheses, does not work and if you bother to check you can find many, many examples of experiments that have positively confirmed relativistic effects, such as time dilation, are very real and indeed we cannot accurately conduct meaningful science without taking these effects into consideration.

 

 

 

You haven't even seen "my math" so how do you know it is a mess? Or, do you consider ALL math a "mess" because you don't understand any of it?

 

I have a lot of tolerance for people who have tried to learn the math and theory but still have some doubts. But I have no tolerance at all for science deniers.

Wow, you really dont get it do you?

There were no facts mentioned, and I dont doubt the value of Maths. I just dont over value it.

 

Recognized current experts in theoretical physics and cosmology today are claiming that the vaccuum of space is "Teaming with particles" so it cant be a vacuum then can it? They say there is no such thing as a vacuum, because their virtual particles are everywhere.  I do wish you could keep up wit  the current science.

 

The whole PURPOSE of using sound as the constant, PROVES that the Original Equation using light, is flawed.  I know it gives crazy results, that's why it can prove that the equation is stupid.  The equation SHOULD still give the same results regardless of the constant used. The purpose of the constant of light was simply to give both observers the same benchmark from which to do their comparative measurements.

 

 I don't agree that time dilates, maybe, just perhaps there is some evidence that supports the idea that clocks loose time when moving, but that's also not conclusive.

 

You math is screwed up because its not "your" math. You just accepted the whole lump of math gibberish from your lecturer and took in on as your personal belief.

 

If anyone is a science denier, its probably you. You prefer to believe whats told to you, I prefer to question everything, and prove whats true for myself.

I also have a world view that says that physics is rational, logical and not too hard to comprehend, once you have a few clues.

 

Einstein's view is that Physics must be incomprehensible, irrational, illogical and include bad math.

 

And Ive read every argument and many lectures on Relativity, understand exactly what they are saying, its perfectly clear, but I think its also perfectly incorrect.

[marcospolo]

Moronium.

About that summary of what Lorentz believed.

I agree with you that these are reasonable beliefs.

But if you stick with these beliefs, and apply then at each step in the development of the LT, then you hit a brick wall.

 

In your topic entitled Solipsists, you stressed that physics does not depend on what some observer thinks he is seeing, compared to another.

This is of course correct, but Relativists depend on subjective interpretation of events by Syphilis ridden quacks pretending to be scientists so that SR can appear to work.

 

But now I see that when I follow through a typical lecture on the derivation of the LT, they always fall into the very same trap that you exposed in your topic  called Solipsists.  The derivation of  LT depends on the difference between two observers subjective interpretation on what they think is going on with a pulse of light.

One single pulse of light is claimed to be doing two different real physics actions, according to our two observers, one who is stationary, and the other is moving but is forbidden to know it. (the window shades are drawn)

 

I don't think this scenario is sufficient ground on which to build a hypothesis that is supposed to be able to affect practically every aspect of Physics and some of other  Scientific disciplines as well.

 

What do you think? Have you retracted your views on the use of subjective interpretation in Physics? Just so that you can justify the LT Equation Derivation?

Can one event of one photon of light actually do two totally different physical motions just because two people are watching from different vantage points?

 This apparently only works if the moving guy is kept ignorant of his actual state of motion. Sounds like just more nonsense to me, but I might be missing something.