Personal Topic

[Moronium]

my solution actually solves the dilemma of those pesky "major problems" of science.

 

 

What is "your" solution, exactly?  You've never said.  And what problem(s) do you think it solves?

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I do use t but not as an axis. ct is not time, it has distance units. As I said many times before, relativity takes English words and redefines them into its own language. Since there is no English to relativity dictionary and since no one is going to tell you what the words mean, I have to slowly figure them out for myself. Distance is actually a duration, a separation between either points in time or points in space. Both are given distance units. Time comes into the picture when you talk about rate. So ct/t is the rate of time duration per time and x/t is the rate of distance per time. This is how t enters the picture. Sorry you don't like that. Sorry I have to repeat this again to you. Sorry you can't understand Sluggo's explanation that all this is to make the math easier, not to suit how you understand things.

[Moronium]

Anything can be questioned, and if having been questioned, it remains possible that the original claims may have been asking all the wrong questions, then my position remains as valid an argument as yours, but my solution actually solves the dilemma of those pesky "major problems" of science.

 

That's the fuller context of your statement.

 

Trying to make sense of it, it appears that your "solution" is to say that the scientists "may have been asking all the wrong questions."  What problems does that solve?

[marcospolo]

Just for the record, I know that time is a concept, just like I know the difference between a verb and a noun.  It's pretty much a matter of a priori definition.  Like any concept, it is an idealized abstraction which is essentially "absolute" by definition.  It has no tangible existence; it's strictly a mental construct.  Any attempt to hypostatize and reify it is a prima facie category error. My knowledge of this is not a matter of "instinct,"

 

But, as usual, you miss the whole point of the post you're addressing. I'm not claiming that no one can know anything.

 

I do also argue that the only way to properly characterize "time" in a theory of motion is as absolute.  Any claim that it is relative ends up being misleading, an inevitable cause of inconsistencies, and, ultimately self-refuting.

I agree with you. But my point is that practically every other person who has been to university and learned about Physics, (and therefore is a Relativist) will say that you are wrong about Time.  This is what you have been debating on this forum since the day you joined.  "Time is but a concept and that concept must be considered as absolute if we wish to use it in Physics" VS Time is real, and is relative to every other thing, So its different for each observer".

 

Now winning this this debate has proved impossible not just for you, but for anyone who has tried.

 

Why is the debate not able to be settled on this subject?

 

I submit its because everyone must be asking the wrong questions, because they have a mindset that is ALREADY adversely influenced by prior beliefs that were incomplete, wrong or just missed the mark, or some other reason. (there is always more than one choice)

 

I believe this, JUST for this unique case, I don't believe this as a world view of everything!

[ralfcis]

You can believe what  you want so long as you can rationally back it up. As I said there is no way a future spaceport on earth won't have all velocities and time relative to it. That's still relative velocity and the fact that it's to a common point shouldn't matter. You can choose whatever frame you want as stationary so that is earth in most examples.

 

Length can be measured using non-relativistic means and a ship travelling to proxima centauri knows it's 4 ly away. Who cares what its perspective of the distance is at speed. So it covers that distance in less of its own time. Who cares what a muon's perspective is of the distance it travels to earth? If you believe time is a concept, it's much easier to bend a concept than shrink an iron bar. Can't we just employ shortcuts of understanding?  Relativity can  be taught as practical relativity and it will make far more sense to everyone. Others who want to study impractical relativity for a universe where only 1 or 2 things exist, they can have at it. But the current way practical relativity is taught is purely impractical so let's get rid of it.

Edited February 15, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 my point is that practically every other person who has been to university and learned about Physics, (and therefore is a Relativist) will say that you are wrong about Time.  This is what you have been debating on this forum since the day you joined. 

 

 

As far as other members of this forum goes, they can, and do, say what they want.

 

What they don't do is offer any argument, justification, evidence, or any other rational basis for their assertions.  They just assert them.  Then assert them again. Ad infinitum.

 

When you ask them questions, they just go away.  Then they come back later to repeat the same assertions, then they leave again if questioned.

 

As far as "winning a debate" goes, that's not the point for me, nor is it really relevant.

 

The point is to be able to explain why you make the assertions you do, and to ascertain if those assertions have an articulable, intelligible basis.  There is no possibility of debate with anyone who can't do that.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

There are more relativist cranks who tell you to go read a book and they can't argue intelligibly about what's in it. They don't care. The answers are in the book. Why would any dern fool look for answers when they're in the book? That's how they view the bible as well. All the answers to any question you need to know are in the book. When your computer gets a virus, just open the book and the answer is right there and the search engine also starts with "go".

Edited February 15, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Why did both Galileo and Newton claim that you can never determine absolute speed?

 

Because, they said, to determine that, you would have to first know what is absolutely at rest.  And we don't know that.  Until you know that, you can only measure relative speed. .

 

I agree with them on that.  But both still insisted that time and motion are absolute.  One has nothing to do with the other.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But what if they had known that clock rates can change with speed.  Wouldn't they then be forced to concede that time is merely relative?

 

No.  Why would anyone think that?

[marcospolo]

What is "your" solution, exactly?  You've never said.  And what problem(s) do you think it solves?

You already listed the"Major problems" that Minkowski, Lorentz and Einstein and others were trying to come to terms with, resulting in this mess of weird possible solutions, none of which you agree with. ( you do agree with a specific use of Lorentz solutions)

 

My "solution" is NOT a solution that supplies an answer to those Questions, ( i.e. why M&M experiment gave a null result when it should not have)

 

But my solution simply shows that the Problems are only problems IF you ask the questions in the way they have been asked. (based on prior assumptions that we had it correct regarding fundamental rules)

 

Ask the right questions, and you will get better answers.

 

All I'm saying is that IF some of the key fundamental rules, specific and only related to the subject of Time and Space, were  assumed to be established facts, when in fact they were only assumptions, and actually were incorrect assumptions , THEN and only then, one can rightfully say that those "major problems" disappear.

 

In their place, are a bunch of questions that remain unanswered, and that is exciting, as we can now think outside the self imposed boxes of our own making.

 

We may be now able to revise our understanding of how the world works, unfettered from the blinkers and chains that have restricted free thought for so long.

 

Or there may be nothing to it at all. And god just set up Physics so that people would argue about these details endlessly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Moronium]

My "solution" is NOT a solution that supplies an answer to those Questions, 

 

Ask the right questions, and you will get better answers.

 

 

Well, until you think you know the right questions, and can supply what you think are the right answers, then it's totally inappropriate to call this a "solution."

 

In the process, you should easily be able to demonstrate the errors which led each of those other fools to ask the wrong questions.  That's how we would know that you have the "right" questions, eh?

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

I do use t but not as an axis. ct is not time, it has distance units. As I said many times before, relativity takes English words and redefines them into its own language. Since there is no English to relativity dictionary and since no one is going to tell you what the words mean, I have to slowly figure them out for myself. Distance is actually a duration, a separation between either points in time or points in space. Both are given distance units. Time comes into the picture when you talk about rate. So ct/t is the rate of time duration per time and x/t is the rate of distance per time. This is how t enters the picture. Sorry you don't like that. Sorry I have to repeat this again to you. Sorry you can't understand Sluggo's explanation that all this is to make the math easier, not to suit how you understand things.

Ok, You have a plot, a graph is about the be drawn showing a speed, NOT velocity, as the graph is already labeled as having the motion direction aligned along the distance (horizontal) axis.

 

As we are plotting speed, and we have one axis as distance, then the only other thing the vertical axis could possible be is a time axis.

This is because v = d/t

 

So, the ct you have is NOT another distance, it MUST be time.  Its the time taken by light traveling a fixed distance. To say its a distance measure, would mean that your plotted points on the graph are now LOCATIONS on a MAP,  where x position and y position (or ct as you label it) are the extents of the map.

 

So you cant get a graphical representation of the speed of something unless you have distance and time as the axies.

 

Or im missing something really basic.

[marcospolo]

Well, until you think you know the right questions, and can supply what you think are the right answers, then it's totally inappropriate to call this a "solution."

 

In the process, you should easily be able to demonstrate the errors which led each of those other fools to ask the wrong questions.  That's how we would know that you have the "right" questions, eh?

Its not a solution as to what is time, or what is light, its only a solution in as much as it removes the problems your predecessors were contemplating.

The question of why did the M&M experiment give a null result, presumes that it was possible that it could have given some other result.

 

My solution in that case is to say that their assumption that the experiment was ever going to be able to measure anything meaningful to the questions, was itself an incorrect assumption. 

 

Its a bit hard to prove that someones assumption is not warranted, yet the results are NOT showing that my claim is wrong.  Their null result can be seen as supporting my claim that their assumptions were wrong in the first instance. This is not the same as "my claims are true, but they cant be ruled out as possibilities, due to some results proving that they are wrong.

 

I use the same logic for the other problems you listed.

 

The next step would be to identify the incorrect or possibly dubious early assumptions made by the early Physicists, that were assumed to be true, and therefore immutable laws, yet had no real proofs.

[Moronium]

Its not a solution as to what is time, or what is light, its only a solution in as much as it removes the problems your predecessors were contemplating.

 

How does the always obvious possibility that an assumption could be wrong possibly "remove" the problem?  I don't get it.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

How does the always obvious possibility that an assumption could be wrong possibly "remove" the problem?  I don't get it.

 

 

Suppose, for example, that I'm getting leaks through my roof, and, after investigation, I find that some shingles are missing.  I assume that the's problem.  What if my assumption is wrong and that' s not the cause of my leaks.

 

How does that remove the problem.  Does my roof quit leaking now?

 

Or is the idea that I should just assume that it's not really leaking, because the "assumption" that it is leaking could be wrong?  I could be hallucinating, for example.  Then the problem will be "removed,"  Just stick your head in the sand, deny the facts, and the problem will disappear, that the idea?

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Lets look at how many assumptions M&m had to believe were true if they expected to measure the motion of the Earth relative to Aether.

 

1. assume that light always goes at some set speed dependent on the medium.  Air is what they tested it in.

2. assume that light also must need an additional medium to wave in, when in free space, therefore they assumed an aether medium.

3. assume that this aether existed everywhere, in space, in our atmosphere and even in glass or water.

4. assume that the aether was essentially not moving, or at least not carried along locally, together with the earth atmosphere.

5. assume that the pattern seen in their equipment was cause by interference of light waves.

6. assume that the pattern changes were representative of changes in measured velocity of the light as it passed through the aether.

7. assume that light would be measured relative to the motion of the observer, i.e. measured value would be c + /- the speed of the observer.

8. assume that the earth was actually moving in the first place

9. assume that light speed is not affected by the motion of the source.

10.assume that light actually moves somewhere in the first place, that it travels from here to there . some part of light is really moving, has a velocity.

 

Now some of these things although not proven, were impossible to deny. Number 8 for instance, although some still insist that its not moving.

But many other assumptions were just that, assumptions based on speculation with not even supporting evidence offered.

 

Others like number 10, are so regularly assumed and stated, that its even hard to consider that they are nevertheless still just assumptions. The affects of light are arguably instant, but that the recognition or measuring of the light has a delay, linked to the intensity. So maybe the light from stars in NOT billions of years old after all. Maybe when you see a distant star explode, its happening NOW, as it seems.

 

The explanation as to what the interferometer is really showing, those "interference patterns" is just a hypothesis, based on assumptions.

 

There are enough weird things that light does, that tell me that there is more to light than meets the eye. (clever use of words there!)

 

Its possible that all the effects noticed in an interferometer have nothing to do with splitting and recombining the light, but rather the effects are caused in the splitting half silvered mirrors, and the plane mirrors used.

 

Now if you can split and recombine a beam of light, why cant you simply begin with two separate light sources of specific matched wavelength, and combine them?

This suddenly is impossible.

 

Why?

 

Prove the the interferometer is doing what you say it is, in the way you say its occurring.. and not some diffractive effect actually caused by the half silvered mirror in the first place. Come up with a second apparatus that creates an interference pattern from two separate light sources, without having to pass the beams through the half silvered mirrors.  If you can combine a single split beam with a series of half silvered mirror, then you should be able to combine two separate light sources into one. After all, the light all around us right now, is all mixing, its coming at us from every conceivable angle, and mixing to produce the white light illuminating the wall.

But I never see interference patterns.

 

I see diffraction, in rainbows, in soap bubbles, oil film on water.  but not interference patterns. I see refraction when I'm fishing, and in a mirage.

Where are the natural occurring examples that show that interference of light is possible?

Where is the lab experimental evidence to prove that it is possible, that removes the possibility that its an effect caused by the half silvering process. (a fine mesh of dots allowing light to pass through the gaps. Everyone knows what you get when you pass light through a small orifice, you get diffraction. Through a lot of close holes, you get refraction.  My mom needed reading glasses, she used instead of lenses, a mesh of fine holes in a plate to steel. It had  the affect of clearing her vision, as if she was using glass lenses.

 

Nowdays they don't use the interferometer to measure light speed relative to the aether, they use it to measure changes in length of the interfreometer itself.

At least that's the assumption used by the LIGO team.

 

But maybe they are only seeing the result of the inherent effects one gets when shining two lights through a half silvered mirror?

If that is the case, then all their calculations are wrong.

[ralfcis]

What does .6c + .6c equal? Relativity has a speed limit. x/t alone doesn't take that into account. x/ct doesn't work because that equals 0 within a frame. x/ct' between a stationary frame and a moving frame limits c, which is the speed we are always moving at through time and space. The faster an observer sees you move through space, the slower he must see your rate through time to keep everything at c. You got an old squeaky wheel upstairs which is still in the 1800's and won't accept the new definition of velocity. Too bad. You can't be helped. I will no longer read your posts.

Edited February 15, 2019 by ralfcis