Personal Topic

[OceanBreeze]

 

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.

 

 

Ha! You think writing in Bold Font  gives your nutcase ideas any more credence?

 

Whether you are considering the two ends of a long rigid rod, or two events that are separated in space and time, the finite speed of light prevents an observer from having information about both ends at the same instant in time, unless the observer happens to be at the exact center and even then the times would be equal but not zero!

 

Do you think when an astronomer looks at a distant object in his telescope, he is seeing it as it really is right now, or as it was billions of years ago? The object may have already ceased to exist, right now!

What does "right now" even mean in that context? The universe does not exist and move according to the time on your watch! By assuming that your watch keeps "absolute time" you are assuming a special reference frame for the universe, and it revolves around you!

 

The crank in the video is starting out with an absurdity to make his argument. This is a classic example of argumentum ad absurdum. Almost all cranks, and I now include you in the list, use such an argument.

 

No, we are not all the same, you are a crackpot! I have the weight of scientific experimental evidence and correct mathematics on my side. You have cranks and absurd thought experiments. Don't try to claim our arguments are on an equal footing; they are not!

 

Continue your discussion with Moronium, I have no more time to waste with you.

[marcospolo]

I mean, really, Marco, what is your great alternative assessment?  Boiled down, it seems to be that:

 

1.  The ticking rates of clocks cannot change, and any apparent empirical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it just doesn't happen.

 

2.  Therefore all clocks tick at the same rate, at least if they're not defective.

 

Sounds like the chemist, sho nuff.

 

And yet you appear to claim that you are able to make a distinction between "time itself" and clocks.

 

You also appear to concede that the ticking rates of clocks can change with gravity.  This at least concedes that external conditions can affect internal clock ticking rates.  But how do you explain that variety of "time dilation?"  Without an explanation it's "impossible," right?

 

Even using the phrase "time dilation" reveals a confusion of clocks with time, but it is built into the vernacular these days.

 

My position makes a distinction.  I say that, although clocks rate do vary with speed, that has no effect on time itself, nor does "time itself" affect clocks. Clock retardation does not occur because "time" slows down.

 

I also think I can also rationally reject the proposition that my dog pissing on the lawn is the cause of "time dilation."

 

I'm comfortable with saying what does not cause "time dilation" even if I can't precisely say what does.

 

I suppose I could say that "speed" causes time dilation.  But only because there seems to be an invariable correlation between the two.  That doesn't "explain" it.

Well apart from the fact that you got all the points wrong, your assessment of what I think is not good.

 

1. I never said anything about clocks, clocks are just machines, Ive only ever wished to discuss the concept of time. It has nothing to do with clocks.

2. I dont care what clocks do.

 

The chemist guy in my opinion also does not care for clocks.

There is some distinction between A/ employing a series of virtual, pretend, make believe clocks in a thought experiment as a means of illustration only, so that everyone can IMAGINE what the hypothesis is saying about TIME/ and B/ discussing grandfather clocks placed around a room. Do you get it?

 

No one is discussing clocks, I hate clocks from this moment on. If I ever set eyes on another clock again, I swear I'll go mad and adopt Relativism.

 

I and most probably the chemist of whom we are not mentioning, (or is it who?) agree 100% with your statement, Quote: "My position makes a distinction.  I say that, although clocks rate do vary with speed, that has no effect on time itself, nor does "time itself" affect clocks. Clock retardation does not occur because "time" slows down.".

 

The only possible worry I have is the quality of the evidence that clocks are indeed observed to be slower when moving, an I'm not 100 % about lifting them up on a table is making a difference either.  Could be, I cant decide on that yet. But its not pivotal to the discussion.

 

You are talking for me again, but saying stuff I dont believe. I DO NOT think that something is impossible  IF I dont have an explanation. You are misrepresenting my beliefs.

 

Velocity for no apparent reason MAY cause physical processes to get upset from the norm, and so may gravity intensity. We also dont understand why that may happen. Certainly both these effects are practically unmeasurable, with any certainty. Simply because the clocks used cant even maintain synchronicity whilst residing in the same room! Sure they divide the second into tiny increments, but they can be just as out of "time" as my wrist watch.

It bugs me that every aspect of SR/ GR and Lorentz Transformation only can be really noticed if you are going at a good percentage of light speed. How convenient, a bunch of untestable theories. The results we CAN measure at our low speeds are inside the margin of error part of a clocks range of capabilities. Its not clear cut.

[marcospolo]

In another sense, you can be seen as ratifying and adopting the Minkowski view.  From a rational viewpoint, the LT effects on clocks and rods must be seen as strictly illusory (non-existent) in that interpretation.   Like you, they need to say that clocks do NOT slow down, if they are to be consistent.  Same with length contraction.

 

Per Minkowski, clocks do not "slow down," time does.  Rods do not contract, space does.

 

By trying to say there is no "physical meaning" to the LT, you (and the chemist) are putting yourself directly into their camp.

 

As I said to you at the get-go (not that you paid any attention), for many decades that was the accepted view of the LT by SR theorists, i.e. that the LT were strictly illusory phenomena.  It was only after empirical findings showed that the effects of the LT were actual and real that they were forced to change their tune.  But that concession also undercuts, and basically destroys, the whole Minkowski spacetime "geometrical" interpretation of SR.

 

Not that they will admit that.  As always, they just try to account for internal inconsistencies by hand-waving, then go on their merry way.

Minkowski was wrong the minute he sat down with a piece of paper and a pencil.

There is nothing redeemable one can salvage from his butchering of geometry and math.

I am not fond of Minkowski's ideas, you might say.

I dont concede that by some logic of yours, that Im automatically in Minkowski's camp.

[Moronium]

I dont concede that by some logic of yours, that Im automatically in Minkowski's camp.

 

You're in his camp to the extent that I said.  You both claim that the LT have "no physical meaning."  Clocks do not "really" slow down, and rods do not "really" contract. Minkowski would say, with the good chemistry prof, that the ticking rate of a satellite clock has not changed at all.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Ha! You think writing in Bold Font  gives your nutcase ideas any more credence?

 

Whether you are considering the two ends of a long rigid rod, or two events that are separated in space and time, the finite speed of light prevents an observer from having information about both ends at the same instant in time, unless the observer happens to be at the exact center and even then the times would be equal but not zero!

 

Do you think when an astronomer looks at a distant object in his telescope, he is seeing it as it really is right now, or as it was billions of years ago? The object may have already ceased to exist, right now!

What does "right now" even mean in that context? The universe does not exist and move according to the time on your watch! By assuming that your watch keeps "absolute time" you are assuming a special reference frame for the universe, and it revolves around you!

 

The crank in the video is starting out with an absurdity to make his argument. This is a classic example of argumentum ad absurdum. Almost all cranks, and I now include you in the list, use such an argument.

 

No, we are not all the same, you are a crackpot! I have the weight of scientific experimental evidence and correct mathematics on my side. You have cranks and absurd thought experiments. Don't try to claim our arguments are on an equal footing; they are not!

 

Continue your discussion with Moronium, I have no more time to waste with you.

 

No, you are being foolish. Im writing in bold so that you can differentiate my lines from yours!

You have no idea what you are talking about. A bunch of statements about stuff I never said, or believe in?

This sentence of yours (following) shows me that you are incapable of grasping what I was relating in my previous reply to you.

"Whether you are considering the two ends of a long rigid rod, or two events that are separated in space and time, the finite speed of light prevents an observer from having information about both ends at the same instant in time, unless the observer happens to be at the exact center and even then the times would be equal but not zero!

 

Which part of ""we don't need to consider how long information takes to get here!""  don't you understand!

 

We are in a THOUGHT experiment, where we can "see" every part of our experiment instantly, that's the beauty of a Thought experiment, and why Einstein used them, plus his ideas could never be demonstrated in the real world, cause they don't work!

 

Clearly you have no idea, other than what you have been told by your teachers. Your comments are not going to be missed, as they miss the point every time.

 

And you dont have "scientific evidence" at all, you have interpretations  by people who have a particular world view, about questionable observations. And you math is flawed by the way, not that math matters too much to a discussion on Physics. And you cant even figure out why!

Edited February 14, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

You're in his camp to the extent that I said.  You both claim that the LT have "no physical meaning."

I also think that the LT has no theoretical meaning, but although similar thoughts may be shared by others of Minkowski leanings, that does not mean that I must be burdened by the derogatory label of a Minkoskitie! There must be other camps that hold this view that dont agree with Minkowski! If not, then ill have to make up one.

[OceanBreeze]

 

Which part of ""we don't need to consider how long information takes to get here!""  don't you understand!

 

We are in a THOUGHT experiment, where we can "see" every part of our experiment instantly, that's the beauty of a Thought experiment, and why Einstein used them, plus his ideas could never be demonstrated in the real world, cause they don't work!

 

 

 

 

That is exactly where you are going wrong! You cannot see every part of the experiment instantly because of the finite speed of light!

That is why there is relativity of simultaneity and both SR and LR depend on the constant speed of light.

 

The finite speed of light is verified and the constant speed of light is verified locally to an extremely high precision. It is constantly being tested and re-verified.

 

By assuming that you can see every part of the experiment instantly, you are assuming a god's eye view that does not conform to reality.

 

Einstein's thought experiments were the exact opposite of what you are talking about. He realized that how we observe and the order of events depend on the constant speed of light and our relative position in time and space, to those events. That is relativity and that is reality.

 

Do you enjoy imagining that you have a god's eye view of the world? I call that insanity!

[Moronium]

I also think that the LT has no theoretical meaning, but although similar thoughts may be shared by others of Minkowski leanings, that does not mean that I must be burdened by the derogatory label of a Minkoskitie! There must be other camps that hold this view that dont agree with Minkowski! If not, then ill have to make up one.

 

 

Well, you can basically be in any damn camp you want to create IF you also make up your own facts.  Both Lorentz and Einstein were seriously concerned with the major physics issues of the day.  The state of physics had become very uncertain and chaotic.  They were both grappling with "puzzles" caused by new experiments and theories, such as the M-M experiment, the ambiguities of Maxwell's equations, the nature of light, the existence (or not) of an ether, the structure of the atom, etc.

 

You can ignore all that, and make no attempt to reconcile any of the competing theories and seemingly contradictory findings (then and ever since), if you want.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This second rate acquisition of working knowledge that you think you're getting isn't working out for you. You're not me.

 

Earlier we got into it about preferred frames, we started adding up all of the angular momentum in the universe (such as using the great attractor as a reference frame, or the CMB) and stated that an absolute frame of reference was only a few decimal places off from any preferred frame. You never seemed to understand that concept, arguing that from the great attractor's perspective it wouldn't make sense to talk about perspectives of time here on Earth, when in fact GR states the contrary.

 

I didn't say anything about being only a few decimal places off, so I have no idea where that's coming from.

 

The topic was the proper use of preferred frames in connection with LR (vs SR), not GR.  What GR might say is essentially irrelevant to that discussion.  That said, in connection with GR, Einstein said that "all physics is local."  Among other things, he was saying that there is no uniform structure of space/time which applies to the entire universe.  In essence, that was my only point about LR, i.e, that there is no one, universal preferred frame which is appropriate for all measurements of relative motion.

 

The proper preferred frame is the center of the gravitational mass of the "'dominant" gravitational field in the vicinity you're dealing with.  That varies with the "scale" of the phenomena you are trying to measure, i.e., what "vicinity" means in the context.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm saying that distortions in the spacetime will only get more accurate after adding up all the angular momentum in the universe.

 

 

Yeah, well, good luck with that.  You better have an extremely durable adding machine, know what I'm sayin?

[marcospolo]

That is exactly where you are going wrong! You cannot see every part of the experiment instantly because of the finite speed of light!

That is why there is relativity of simultaneity and both SR and LR depend on the constant speed of light.

 

The finite speed of light is verified and the constant speed of light is verified locally to an extremely high precision. It is constantly being tested and re-verified.

 

By assuming that you can see every part of the experiment instantly, you are assuming a god's eye view that does not conform to reality.

 

Einstein's thought experiments were the exact opposite of what you are talking about. He realized that how we observe and the order of events depend on the constant speed of light and our relative position in time and space, to those events. That is relativity and that is reality.

 

Do you enjoy imagining that you have a god's eye view of the world? I call that insanity!

No, you are on the wrong track STILL.

The thought experiment im using is NOT imagining what light might be doing, or how fast we may get the message. Thats another guys thought experiment.

Mine you can easily imagine what conditions are like at a distance, instantly. You can imagine sun shining in London, you dont have to wait a week for the ship with mail to dock.

 

"relativity of simultaneity", is an hypothesis that actually makes no sense, as one MUST make bizarre assumptions first, in order of right idea to work out. Even then its still crappy idea.

 And you do NOT have "The finite speed of light is verified and the constant speed of light is verified locally to an extremely high precision. It is constantly being tested and re-verified."

 

You only have the interpretation of questionable data that requires a prior set of assumptions to be true, and they have never been proven to be so. You cant even PROVE that light "travels" at all!  Its "agreed by committee" to be traveling, not proven or demonstrated to be by experiment. There are always other explanations for observed "evidence". But they never examine those, you will just learn what the authority, the custodians of all truth tell you, if you expect to get your degree.

 

You may have results down to 20 decimal places, but that just shows that you can be wrong to 20 decimal places.

 

So stop with the "we have evidence" crap.  You have only ever been told what the mainstream approved version of reality looks like, by people with vested interests.

You think the UNI is going to tell you all the problems with SR? Not on your life.

Many things in science and  Physics are set in stone, others are still wishful thinking masquerading as stone.

Einstein's hypothesis is one such instance.

 

I don't believe in a God, but seems you do, as I'm not allowed to think outside my lowly position HE gave me, right?

[marcospolo]

Well, you can basically be in any damn camp you want to create IF you also make up your own facts.  Both Lorentz and Einstein were seriously concerned with the major physics issues of the day.  The state of physics had become very uncertain and chaotic.  They were both grappling with "puzzles" caused by new experiments and theories, such as the M-M experiment, the ambiguities of Maxwell's equations, the nature of light, the existence (or not) of an ether, the structure of the atom, etc.

 

You can ignore all that, and make no attempt to reconcile any of the competing theories and seemingly contradictory findings (then and ever since), if you want.

Here's how to solve those major Physics issues>

 

1. M&M experiment was a failure of the designers to realize that the equipment could never work as they had expected. So any results or NULL results are without bearing on the questions that were asked.  There, forget that experiment, it is useless to shed any light on anything at all.

2. Maxwell's equations are clearly an approximate representation of electro dynamics. But some info is missing, and so the results are not always correct. Try again with better hypothesis then make up a new set of equations. Don't hang everything on Maxwell, as we know that the equations dont work perfectly.

3. we know practically nothing about light, why try to invent theories about what its doing, when we dont know how its working in the first place?

4. we needed the Aether because we THOUGHT light TRAVELLS as a wave like water waves.  But water does NOT travel to the shore, only the wave is traveling. Same with light PERHAPS. Its not moving anywhere, just the wave is. But we are only guessing here about light. A guess is insufficient to base a major theory around.

5. we also are just assuming , postulating and literally guessing about inside atoms, if there are insides to them at all!  Ernest Rutherford observed stuff, then assumed that he had a decent answer as to why stuff he saw was doing what it was. But there is no guarantee that its not happening due to totally different reasons.

Particle Physics is the most absurd science since blood letting.

 

So, now we have no "major issues" that require a fudge to rectify. Albert and Lorentz were fixing problems not with reality, but with our limited understanding and already incorrect theories on what going on really. Too many assumptions had already been passed off as science, there is the root cause of the trouble.

 

You get contradictions and people argue endlessly when something is really wrong!

I believe that the root cause is that we have been wrong from the beginning about some things. and its just ballooned from there.

Partly correct, should have never made it to the status of a theory or a law.

 

This is a totally reasonable way of understanding science as we know it today, given that there are way too many people who disagree with every aspect of certain famous theories.  It should not be so. Einsteins ideas are not difficult to understand, just difficult to accept that they could possibly be correct.

 

.

Edited February 14, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

But why do Relativists always just skip over this clear contradiction between SR and reality?

Certainly they have never supplied any rational response to justify their beliefs on this point.

 

There's also a form of fallacious thinking, kinda the opposite of the argument from personal incredulity, called, in latin, "Credo quia absurdum."  Translated that basically means that "I believe it BECAUSE it is absurd."

 

It's the kind of thing Goebbels was exploiting with his use of the "big lie."  The idea being that, while people may be dubious of a questionable claim in a minor matter, if the lie is "big" enough, people will tend to believe it, coming from authority, because, the assumption is, that no one would dare make such an outrageous claim unless it were true.

 

Many people find SR so anti-intuitional that they think is HAS to be true if their professors are telling them it's true.  Such claims could not be the product of some minor oversight or routine mistake.  It must be the product of extensive reflection, analysis, and empirical verification they figure. So, they end up believing it precisely BECAUSE it seems absurd.  There's no reason to debate the issue of whether it's absurd.  That is taken for granted.

 

Of course the process of inducing such belief is also often accompanied by blustering, bullying tactics from the professors.  Anyone who is not satisfied with glib, superficial and/or evasive "answers," and who asks too many questions, is ridiculed and dismissed as being just too dense to "understand."  That sets an example for anyone else who might have doubts.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Ha! You think writing in Bold Font  gives your nutcase ideas any more credence?

 

Whether you are considering the two ends of a long rigid rod, or two events that are separated in space and time, the finite speed of light prevents an observer from having information about both ends at the same instant in time, unless the observer happens to be at the exact center and even then the times would be equal but not zero!

 

Do you think when an astronomer looks at a distant object in his telescope, he is seeing it as it really is right now, or as it was billions of years ago? The object may have already ceased to exist, right now!

What does "right now" even mean in that context? The universe does not exist and move according to the time on your watch! By assuming that your watch keeps "absolute time" you are assuming a special reference frame for the universe, and it revolves around you!

 

The crank in the video is starting out with an absurdity to make his argument. This is a classic example of argumentum ad absurdum. Almost all cranks, and I now include you in the list, use such an argument.

 

No, we are not all the same, you are a crackpot! I have the weight of scientific experimental evidence and correct mathematics on my side. You have cranks and absurd thought experiments. Don't try to claim our arguments are on an equal footing; they are not!

 

Continue your discussion with Moronium, I have no more time to waste with you.

Ok, but before you bury your head in the sand, please at least answer the final part of my post, despite the fact that its in BOLD. Here it is again.  Try some sort of answer.

 

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.

 

How can you answer this? Or someone else perhaps?

It's rather important, as much of modern physics depend on v=d/t in the derivations of the equations. But you cant enlist the very concepts you claim are wrong, within your theory as part of the proof. It automatically renders the theory self contradictory.

Edited February 14, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

It might be worth noting that, originally, at least, Einstein gave full faith and credit to Newtonian mechanics (not withstanding his rejection of absolute space and time).  He even defined an inertial frame as one in which physical laws (including Newton's laws of motion) held true (in their simplest forms).  He did not view time as a "fourth dimension"  Minkowski was the one came up with that "new independent reality," a few years later.

 

After Minkowski came around, Einstein initially called his analysis of "spacetime" an instance of "superfluous over-learnedness."   At one point Einstein said:  "Since the mathematicians got involved, I no longer understand special relativity myself."

 

Al should have stuck with his instincts.  Instead he eventually came to adopt a more mathematical approach to physics.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

"Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".  (Hermann Minkowski, 1908)

 

 

Oooooooh.....how mystical.

 

The road to an escape from "shadows" toward true "independent reality" has opened, and the cult begins.

 

Time is the fourth dimension, I tells ya!  Who knew!?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I always kinda thought that "independent reality" was "out there" somewhere.  Come to find out that it aint.  Turns out, it's on a piece of graph paper.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium