Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

No, the LT doesn't say that.  It says nothing at all about ends of objects.  It just says that, given a certain speed of an object, it's lengths and clocks will be affected to a certain degree.   In this case, the object would be your car.  If your car is going 100 mph (distance/time) then that's what it's going.  The LT doesn't tell you that.

Jesus, of course the equation does not say that. Its an equation, it says nothing, equation can't talk. So now we have that sorted, lets USE the equation, that's what its for, using.

Which is exactly what our crank friend did in the video you cant figure out.

He used the equation, as per the examples taught in University courses. He had x=0 and X prime = 0 as per the classic (sorry) examples.

In the moving frame, there is the obligatory rod made famous by Albert. It has clocks on each end.

The only thing this guy did was to not only consider the LT contraction of the rod, which all LT fans accept, he ALSO examined what would happen to the clocks at the different X prime locations in the moving frame. (using the approved methods)

The result is that the times are different for the two ends of the same rod.

As I mentioned, this is not physically possible.

 

The ONLY possible conclusion is that the equation is wrong, it only works under unique circumstances, possibly only under one specific circumstance, such as x = 1, and no other value.

 

We know that this is the right conclusion, because already we have had to sit through an hypothesis that is just nonsense. So of course the equation when applied must show up errors. This is one of them.

The error is expected.

[marcospolo]

There is a hypothesis which justifies the development of the LT.  I've already pointed it out to you.

 

Could that hypothesis be wrong?

 

Sure, it could be.  But it's not like Lorentz just concocted some formula for no damn reason, by flipping coins, to decide what the next symbol in the formula would be, or something.

Yes, he must have done it that way, flipped coins, as the hypothesis is nonsensical and has logic errors. The derivation is also naturally full of errors of logic and math.

 

As soon as anyone suggested that physical objects  shrink but only in one direction, and time shrinks too when something goes fast, everyone in the Physics world should have told him to wake up. Actually many did at the time and have done since.

[marcospolo]

I came across this announcement of an imminent "press release" concerning the good doctor of chemistry, Vesselin C. Noninski, on the internet.  Apparently he couldn't get full attention of the National Academy of Science, so he decided to announce the time of an upcoming press conference entitled "Einstein’s Relativity Must be Removed from Physics."

 

 

I wonder if anyone attended?  No matter, I guess, He's plastered himself all over youtube and disseminated his unique insights that way.

And your point is?  Ever considered that he may be correct? What if he is all over youtube? whats that to do with anything? Are you going to pull the argument from authority card on this one now?

[marcospolo]

I'll quote Hume again (leaving some out for now):

 

 

 

Here's the part I left out:

 

 

Your virtually continuous contemptuous attempts to ridicule, demean, and insult me over your last few posts is just one aspect of why it is, to use Hume's word, "irksome" to even try to communicate with you, Marco.  But that's not even the main reason.  The main reason is contained in the first part of Hume's quote which I posted above.

 

You continue to convey the impression that you are a fervent ideologue.  "Discussions" are not possible with such types.

But the shoe fits on your foot too I note.

Ive not made any attempt to demean you directly, if i did you would surely have noted it easily.

Certainly not any more or less that you are doing to me right now, with these comments that i'm not worth communicating with. And simply because I have raised questions that have not been answered very well, if at all.

[marcospolo]

I've made posts on this in this thread.

 

Take a stairway, 12 steps high, with each step being a foot higher than the other.  Then put an atomic clock on each step.  Now look at them all.  Each will be ticking at a different rate.

 

Replace them with 12 other clocks.  Same deal, same amount of changes.

 

But who are ya gunna believe?  Your own lyin eyes, or some guy on the internet who has a degree in chemistry and who says it is impossible for clocks to change ticking rates?

Yes, apparently we can see gravity effects clocks, but that is not a moving clock. Anyway that guy is not talking about hands on clocks, he was referring to absolute time not being changed by motion. Ive been over this with you but you refuse to accept it. ( that's a line I hear from you a lot)

[marcospolo]

What if we try 12 more new clocks?  Same thing.

 

How about we take the clock on stair two and put it on stair 8, and move 8 to 2.  Now the ticking rate of each changes, but they now match their new position.

 

So I asked the chemist about it.  His answer convinced me he he was right.

 

He said:  "Obvious clock errors, or maybe you just don't see so good, boy.  It is impossible.  It would contradict the absolute truth."

 

As Hegel once said:  "If the facts contradict my theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts."

He was referring to TIME, not to clocks, you do not follow his argument, you are being pedantic over the words when the inference is obvious. He believes in Absolute Time, exactly like you claim to. Are both of you cranks? OR neither of you?

[marcospolo]

To illustrate your point there's this link:

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/geometrical-view-time-dilation-twin-paradox/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

 

The guy starts out saying we get a ton of inquiries about how the twin paradox works and writes out this explanation that doesn't answer any of those enquiries except to relativist bobble-heads who can rercognize this as the answer they have been taught to recite without question. They are incapable of seeing the problems with this answer unless they are taught to recite another answer. Nothing blinds people to the truth like ignorant unquestioning beliefs,.

The minute they renamed the axis as "World lines" and then claimed that S frame should be some acute angle instead of also a regular graph with axis at 90 degrees, is the place where the errors begin.

Now you have drawn the S frame graph incorrectly, of course you are going to get errors in your results.

[Moronium]

. Anyway that guy is not talking about hands on clocks, he was referring to absolute time not being changed by motion. Ive been over this with you but you refuse to accept it. ( that's a line I hear from you a lot)

 

 

As they say, Marco, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.  The guy said what he said.  You want to revise what he said, and then claim that's what he said.

 

That's why it's virtually impossible to deal with you.  Listen to the video.

 

He was very clear and explicit about it.

 

The hands on the clock onboard a satellite must read exactly what the hands on his watch do.

 

The guy obviously can't even distinguish time from clock rates.  He's not alone there, but  that isn't his only problem.

 

Who knows what he was "trying" to say, or "meant" to say.  He's utterly inarticulate, incoherent, and lacking in fundamental logic.

 

Maybe I'm being too hard on him.  He looked like he had been hitting the crack pipe all day, and that may be the explanation.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

As they say, Marco, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.  The guy said what he said.  You want to revise what he said, and then claim that's what he said.

 

That's why it's virtually impossible to deal with you.  Listen to the video.

 

He was very clear and explicit about it.

 

The hands on the clock onboard a satellite must read exactly what the hands on his watch do.

 

The guy obviously can't even distinguish time from clock rates.  He's not alone there, but  that isn't his only problem.

 

Who knows what he was "trying" to say, or "meant" to say.  He's utterly inarticulate, incoherent, and lacking in fundamental logic.

But Ive since "translated" his ideas into more acceptable terms for your pleasure, yet I still get this insistence of you wanting to go back to the chemists video.

Please forget the chemist, Ive revised his concepts into different terms, what about that as a concept?

[Moronium]

The whole "moving rod" thing is just another example of the illogical equation of perception with reality.  It invokes the ridiculous concept of relative simultaneity.  It is worthy of criticism on that score.

 

But it has nothing to do with the LT, per se.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Drop a ball off a 10 story building and it will accelerate toward the earth.  How??????   Why????  If you can't answer those questions to my personal satisfaction, then obviously the ball can't, and doesn't, fall, right?

 

But, looky here....If I jump off the building with the ball in my hand, then let go of it in mid-air, it won't fall an inch.

 

So, then, I guess that proves it's not really falling, eh?

 

Well, at least not until my head hits the sidewalk and blows chunks all over creation like a water-melon, anyway.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

The whole "moving rod" thing is just another example of the illogical equation of perception with reality.  It invokes the ridiculous concept of relative simultaneity.  It is worthy of criticism on that score.

 

But it has nothing to do with the LT, per se.

Its beginning to seem that LT is untouchable in your books, because its always NOT what anyone else is talking about. Its getting hard to figure out exactly what is left for LT to actually be.  I fail to see what the example involving a rod has to do with perception vs reality. The perception IS that the rod moves, Reality also says its moving. Where is the fault? Also its not about relative simultaneity. How do you manage to lump it into that camp?

[Moronium]

Contradictions in Einstein’s Special RelativityTheory: Amending the Lorentz Transformation

 

Robert J. Buenker Journal of Modern Physics. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2015, pp. 14-18.

 

Symmetric and asymmetric time dilation are defined. It is noted that the Lorentz transformation (LT) of Einstein's original theory of relativity predicts that time dilation is always symmetric, i.e. that two clocks can each be running slower than the other, whereas experimental studies have invariably found that it is always possible to determine which of two clocks is slower than the other.

 

It is concluded on this basis that the LT is invalid and needs to be replaced by another space-time transformation that is consistent with asymmetric time dilation. 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 both Newton's First Law and the results of the above time-dilation experiments.

 

It is also perfectly consistent with the clock-rate adjustment procedure applied to satellite clocks in the methodology of the Global Positioning System (GPS); 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.

 

 

https://www.google.com/searchq=Contradictions+in+Einstein%E2%80%99s+Special+RelativityTheory%3A+Amending+the+Lorentz+Transformation&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS775US775&oq=Contradictions+in+Einstein%E2%80%99s+Special+RelativityTheory%3A+Amending+the+Lorentz+Transformation&aqs=chrome..69i57.935j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Anyone can download the entire PDF from google, if you're interested.

 

The LT is not invalid.  The way it is applied by SR is, though.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

https://www.google.com/searchq=Contradictions+in+Einstein%E2%80%99s+Special+RelativityTheory%3A+Amending+the+Lorentz+Transformation&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS775US775&oq=Contradictions+in+Einstein%E2%80%99s+Special+RelativityTheory%3A+Amending+the+Lorentz+Transformation&aqs=chrome..69i57.935j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Anyone can download the entire PDF from google, if you're interested.

 

The LT is not invalid.  The way it is applied by SR is, though.

Im downloading, and will take my time digesting it, thanks.

[marcospolo]

except that the link must be incomplete, as i get a 404 error

[Moronium]

I suspect you'll like this part, Marco:

 

Newton and other classical physicists were convinced that space and time are quite distinct from one another, exactly as one observes in everyday life. Einstein and his followers claimed to have overthrown this basic principle on the basis of the LT and its eq.(7). The judgment of the physics community over the past century has clearly been that Einstein was right and Newton was wrong.

 

The only rational way to settle this issue is by experiment.  The universal finding of clock-rate proportionality, reinforced by the straightforward argument given above for clocks at rest in inertial systems (Newton's law of inertia), leaves only one conclusion: eq. (1) is correct and eq. (7) is false. Time and space are distinct. Space-time mixing is a myth. It has given mathematicians a great opportunity to apply their trade and develop new theories that claim to have found solutions to important problems in cosmological, e.g. string theory [14]. 

 

The observation of strictly proportional clock rates tells us that there must be a different way to explain what occurs in the universe that avoids any assumptions that are in conflict with eq. (1).

 

[Moronium]

Well, try googling this:  "Contradictions in Einstein’s Special RelativityTheory: Amending the Lorentz Transformation"

 

You should get a link to a pdf right off the top