Personal Topic

[Moronium]

Quite a few theoretical physicists have noted the same problems with SR and they all end up "modifying" the LT.  The form of their "alternate transformation" may vary somewhat, but, essentially, they all revert to the "real" (original) form of the LT, i.e., basically the form developed by Lorentz himself.  

 

Einstein "modified" Lorentz's formulation.  So in essence nothing is really being modified.  They're just undoing  the improper modifications that Einstein made in the first place.

 

Like Lorentz, they all posit a preferred frame (prohibited by SR) and hence (re)establish absolute simultaneity, absolute motion, and Newtonian space/time (3 + 1).  The GPS does the same.  So did H-K.  They didn't want to, but they had to. They had to, to make sense of the clock readings their experiment generated.    They had expected to get readings that were in accordance with SR, but they weren't even close.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

 

If you pay attention, you'll notice that his video clip was recorded in 3-4 different segments.  He took some breaks.  For what?  The whole thing is less than 4 minutes long.  With each successive segment the chemist looks rougher.  I figure he was hittin the pipe in the intervals, ya know?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

And if you can't handle an automated voice narrator in a video, here's a real person speaking in a video on why LT can not be valid. He clearly spends too much time playing with his slide rule, but appearance aside, what is wrong with his statements?

 

Once I saw what he was doing, I wasn’t going to bother to reply.

 

But I can show he is a crackpot without needing to show the full coordinate transforms; just the Lorentz Factor applied to length and time. In another thread, or maybe this one, I plan to show the full derivation of the Lorentz factor and then show how it is used in the Lorentz transformations, but only if I can find the time. (the Lorentz factor and the Lorentz transforms are not the same thing)

 

His basic premise is that the ends of the “long skinny thing” must exist at the same exact time in any reference frame, because of his claim that time is absolute and the same everywhere.

 

This is easily shown to be false, since we know that the speed of light is finite, meaning that we can only obtain information about two events that are separated in space at the speed of c. And those two events can be the two ends of a long rod.

 

This finite and constant light speed is really what the theory of relativity is all about!

 

In his contrivance, he does not give actual dimensions, only calling the length of the rod 1.

 

For that sake of making my point, I will say that the rod is one Lyr long. If the observer is located at the origin of the frame, he can only receive information from the other, distant end at the velocity c. Since time = distance / velocity he gets that information in the time of 1 year ( 1 Lyr / c = 1 year. )

 

So, his claim  that time = 0 at both ends is now exposed as crackpottery. You don't even need to watch the video he has T1 =0 and T2 = 0 right there on the first frame.

 

The Lorentz factor he did at least calculate correctly as 0.8 for a velocity of 0.6C

 

We can apply that factor directly to both the length and the information time as it pertains to the rod.

0.8 x 1 Lyr = 0.8 Lyr of length

0.8 x 1 year = 0.8 year of time

 

The one thing that must remain constant is the velocity c

 

Velocity = distance/time

In the original, reference frame we had 1 Lyr/1 yr = c

Now in the frame relatively moving at 0.6c we have 0.8 Lyr / 0.8 yr = c

 

And everything checks out and I didn’t even need to use an NYU teddy bear to prove it.

He has no known affiliation to NYU, by the way.

[OceanBreeze]

I thought I was in purgatory but I see I was being overly optimistic.

 

You have opened the gates of hell and brought damnation down on all of us! :cussing:  :cussing:  :cussing:

[exchemist]

You have opened the gates of hell and brought damnation down on all of us! :cussing:  :cussing:  :cussing:

Yes, an epic crankfest, the like of which has seldom been seen, even here! But, it has to be said, the right people are now talking to one another on this topic. 

[ralfcis]

You know how a broken clock has the right time twice a day? I hate to admit it but sometimes these guys are right in parts but don't seem to know when. It's too difficult and futile to separate out the knotted strands of random thread to make a coherent string of logic. Can someone get me out of here and use their clout to get me back on thescienceforum?

Edited February 13, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

The thought occurred to me that we are all the same.

 

Moronium is an Absolute Time believer, and believes that Lorentz nailed it.

Relativists think he is wrong and the Einstein nailed it.

I think both of those camps missed the mark, and some other option is better.

 

We each think we have a better, more rational and logical way to understand this stuff.

 

We each think the others are not able to comprehend what we are saying.

 

We each believe that we are correct, therefore the others are wrong.

 

None of us has the guts on the topic that is sufficient to shut the others down.

 

If I argued that an apple will always fall to the ground, and offered a lab experiment to demonstrate this, and none had any contrary examples, then all three camps would be in agreement.

 

But despite 100 years of this stuff, there remain at least three differing views as to how the universe ticks, at least in regard to this subject.

 

Myself, Ill not accept any theory that has nonsensical claims or outcomes. I think there must have been some mistake somewhere, so I go looking for it.

 

To illustrate that science is not what its cracked up to be, consider this:

 

Scientists announced recently that they had built the world most accurate clock, and had it been running since the BIG BANG, then it would only be out by a few nano seconds.

 

I want to know HOW they could measure it's inaccuracy? To what more accurate clock did they compare it?

As humans cant measure less than a few nanoseconds, how small was the error of the clock considering that its only been running for a few weeks?

 

How could they tell it was not accurate?

 

How can they even claim that the clock could possibly be accurate in the first place? Given that the same people believe that TIME itself is like honey, and can distort, stop, speed up, slow down, and is not the same anywhere?

 

The claims are certainly contradictory and too extraordinary to be true.

 

I believe I have solid ground on which to stand when I say that those Scientists are talking BS.

 

Science is NOT what's its cracked up to be. it contains a good deal is BS. Like anything humans do, one has to sift through the BS to find anything useful.

Edited February 13, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

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

got it, now ill read up.  when ive time. more on this later.

[marcospolo]

Quite a few theoretical physicists have noted the same problems with SR and they all end up "modifying" the LT.  The form of their "alternate transformation" may vary somewhat, but, essentially, they all revert to the "real" (original) form of the LT, i.e., basically the form developed by Lorentz himself.  

 

Einstein "modified" Lorentz's formulation.  So in essence nothing is really being modified.  They're just undoing  the improper modifications that Einstein made in the first place.

 

Like Lorentz, they all posit a preferred frame (prohibited by SR) and hence (re)establish absolute simultaneity, absolute motion, and Newtonian space/time (3 + 1).  The GPS does the same.  So did H-K.  They didn't want to, but they had to. They had to, to make sense of the clock readings their experiment generated.    They had expected to get readings that were in accordance with SR, but they weren't even close.

I agree with this, but I think that despite Einstein stating that there is no preferred frame of reference, he then proceeds to make use of it anyway.

He admitted in writing late in life that SR requires an absolute frame, but no one mentions this.

[marcospolo]

If you pay attention, you'll notice that his video clip was recorded in 3-4 different segments.  He took some breaks.  For what?  The whole thing is less than 4 minutes long.  With each successive segment the chemist looks rougher.  I figure he was hittin the pipe in the intervals, ya know?

So after claiming that you are not influenced by a persons demeanor, as the important thing is the message, you proceed to ridicule this guy based on nothing other than your subjective opinions.  This is a prime example of an ad hominem attack, so the great and infallible Moronium is not above this manner of trying to discredit a concept using the unrelated circumstances. What you summarize about this guys personal life has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

[marcospolo]

Once I saw what he was doing, I wasn’t going to bother to reply.

 

But I can show he is a crackpot without needing to show the full coordinate transforms; just the Lorentz Factor applied to length and time. In another thread, or maybe this one, I plan to show the full derivation of the Lorentz factor and then show how it is used in the Lorentz transformations, but only if I can find the time. (the Lorentz factor and the Lorentz transforms are not the same thing)

 

Don't bother, just provide a link to a youtube lecture from your fav professor who has already worked through the derivation in minute detail. There are many such recorded lectures available on youtube.

 

 

His basic premise is that the ends of the “long skinny thing” must exist at the same exact time in any reference frame, because of his claim that time is absolute and the same everywhere.

 

This is easily shown to be false, since we know that the speed of light is finite, meaning that we can only obtain information about two events that are separated in space at the speed of c. And those two events can be the two ends of a long rod.

 

This is an assumption, that claims that "because we can only obtain information at light speed, then something must change in the physical world to compensate" (that idea is pure BS)

 

As all of these examples are ONLY THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, we NEVER have to wait for some INFORMATION to come from a light year away, to see what the result might be. We can CONTINUE to use the same imagination that began the thought experiment. Our rational minds are NOT limited to light speed. There is no information coming from one light year away in the experiment, so please never mention this excuse again!

 

This finite and constant light speed is really what the theory of relativity is all about!

 

And this claim is just conjecture, not an empirical fact. Light is not constant, and not necessarily of finite speed, in fact there is no evidence to prove that light travels at all!

It may be instant, but take some time to be adsorbed. there are alternative theories on how light works, as Ive said many times, we know bugger all about how light works. To base a critical theory of physics on an assumption about an observation of light about which we are largely ignorant, is asking a bit much. You can have a minor hypothesis on such a concept, but not a major theory that has ramifications throughout the rest of Physics.

 

 

In his contrivance, he does not give actual dimensions, only calling the length of the rod 1.

 

For that sake of making my point, I will say that the rod is one Lyr long. If the observer is located at the origin of the frame, he can only receive information from the other, distant end at the velocity c. Since time = distance / velocity he gets that information in the time of 1 year ( 1 Lyr / c = 1 year. )

 

So, his claim  that time = 0 at both ends is now exposed as crackpottery. You don't even need to watch the video he has T1 =0 and T2 = 0 right there on the first frame.

 

 

You are wrong here I'm afraid. First you are using the false postulate that we are limited to waiting for light to do its thing in a thought experiment. We don't need to wait a split second to summize whats going on at the other end of that long pole. We can in fact look at a pole that is only one foot long, same problems arise for Loreintz and SR in that case, for the same reasons. Or we can imagine the one light year long pole, and know without waiting one real year. When you are doing the math for this thought experiment, do you take a break of one year in the middle, while you wait for the results from the other end? NO? why not? Because its all happening in our mind, which does not need to wait for information.

 

Anyway, lets go with the idea that he does have to wait one year for a message from the other end of the pole. What does he conclude? Well he concludes that because it took one year for the message to arrive, then the other end of the pole, ONE YEAR AGO, existed at the exact same instant as the end where the observer was located one year ago!

 

 

The Lorentz factor he did at least calculate correctly as 0.8 for a velocity of 0.6C

 

But he's a crank.. how can he get it right?

 

We can apply that factor directly to both the length and the information time as it pertains to the rod.

0.8 x 1 Lyr = 0.8 Lyr of length

0.8 x 1 year = 0.8 year of time

 

The one thing that must remain constant is the velocity c

 

Why must it? Because someone said it was so. This is but a postulate, not a fact.

 

Velocity = distance/time

In the original, reference frame we had 1 Lyr/1 yr = c

Now in the frame relatively moving at 0.6c we have 0.8 Lyr / 0.8 yr = c

 

And everything checks out and I didn’t even need to use an NYU teddy bear to prove it.

He has no known affiliation to NYU, by the way.

 

So, no it does not all "check out" you are abusing the known factors by mixing them with the unknown, while claiming that they all are facts.

 

And finally, How can you possibly claim that you believe that Velocity = distance / time?

 

According to your beliefs:

 

First, there is no such thing as "time", its intrinsic with spacetime, and can't be singled out. So your equation must include the other three dimensions, or it's incomplete.

 

Next, time is not measurable because it changes willy nilly, depending on motion, and we cant know who is moving or not. So any value measurement of time is meaningless.

 

Same with distance, its all "spacetime", and its never stable, it morphs and twists and curves and shrinks depending on what  matter is floating about at the time.  Also, even Earth's gravity is supposed to extend in diminishing degrees forever into space, so therefore there exists not a single bit of space that is not distorted or curved.  So you cant EVER get any reliable measurements involving either time or space.  The trouble with Relativists is that they reject Newtonian Physics, then immediately depend on it totally to prove that it does not exist! 

 

V= d/t  is pure Newtonian physics, which CAN NOT BE USED by Relativists, as there is no "time" and no "distance" as used in Newtons formula.  Its all "spacetime" . Go get your own formula for calculating velocity, but first you need to define what velocity actually is, in the "spacetime" universe. Currently it's not even defined.

Edited February 13, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

Yes, an epic crankfest, the like of which has seldom been seen, even here! But, it has to be said, the right people are now talking to one another on this topic. 

And we think the EXACT same things about you, when you ramble on about SR. So you are cranks too! Welcome to the club. Its all subjective, so your thoughts are no better than mine.

[Moronium]

So after claiming that you are not influenced by a persons demeanor, as the important thing is the message, you proceed to ridicule this guy based on nothing other than your subjective opinions.  This is a prime example of an ad hominem attack, so the great and infallible Moronium is not above this manner of trying to discredit a concept using the unrelated circumstances. What you summarize about this guys personal life has absolutely no bearing on the subject.

 

I ridiculed the guy based on his utter lack of coherent argument.  I was actually trying to help the guy out when I suggested that maybe he wasn't ALWAYS that incomprehensible.  But sure, I was making fun of the guy.  He certainly invites it.

 

He's not a crank because of the way he looks.  Only the other hand, the fact that he's a crank helps explain his slovenly appearance, I figure.

 

His thoughts are certainly no model of disciplined organization, know what I'm sayin?  

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Cranks who can't do math are more authentic, that's the differentiiator.

[Moronium]

I agree with this, but I think that despite Einstein stating that there is no preferred frame of reference, he then proceeds to make use of it anyway.

He admitted in writing late in life that SR requires an absolute frame, but no one mentions this.

 

 

Of course. Just look at the twin paradox, for example.  Or the fact that he said a clock at the equator would run slower than one at the pole.  Many other examples, too.  He uses the notion of absolute motion to explain why simultaneity is "relative."  And of course that is done in his attempt to establish that motion is NOT absolute.  The concepts were all inconsistent from the get-go.

 

I'm not aware of any time where he expressly admitted that, though.  Do you have a passage in mind?  Why do you say that?

 

I agree that he pretty much said it indirectly, but not directlly.  He directly admitted, for example, that the speed of light is not invariant in GR (not that he could successfully deny it).  He also said that he was not justified in trying to force his GR spacetime to "reduce to" the flat spacetime of SR at low speeds in an attempt to "salvage" SR.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

And we think the EXACT same things about you, when you ramble on about SR. So you are cranks too! Welcome to the club. Its all subjective, so your thoughts are no better than mine.

 

As a rule Chem never says a word about SR, let alone does he "ramble on" about it.  He just comes around every now and again to denounce everyone as a "crank" without ever attempting to point out a single instance where he believes someone is wrong or has made a bad argument.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I ridiculed the guy based on his utter lack of coherent argument.  I was actually trying to help the guy out when I suggested that maybe he wasn't ALWAYS that incomprehensible.  But sure, I was making fun of the guy.  He certainly invites it.

 

He's not a crank because of the way he looks.  Only the other hand, the fact that he's a crank helps explain his slovenly appearance, I figure.

 

His thoughts are certainly no model of disciplined organization, know what I'm sayin?  

anyway, as I said, forget him.  Ive posted my revision of this ideas, dumbed down so you can follow, as apparently you are having trouble keeping up. You only reply was that its something to do with rods, and simultaneity of events, so you were not interested.

Actually the application of the LT to a hypothetical situation reveals that it gives nonsense results.  That is the issue, not if someone looks a crank or not.

I had no trouble following his drift, I cant understand what your problems is. Its not rocket science.