Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Dubbelosix]

I have given two examples since then. Read them, reply if you can.

[marcospolo]

Ok, put it this way, and answer as honest as you can.

 

 

Einstein's theory overcame the Newtonian way of thinking.

 

Question, does this mean Newtonian mechanics has been ''disproven?''

Your statement is wrong. You only believe that Einstein's theory is some improvement over Newtons work.

So, no, Newton was never "wrong".

But YES, Einstein's additions have made him seem wrong.

But according to your ideas, then IF Einstein changed Newtons work, then that meant that Newton ideas were not complete, and as such were not able to be used accurately, so they are still wrong. (they give wrong results, Einstein had to fix Newtons wrong work)

There is no "sort of" correct in Physics or science. Unless its just an Hypothesis.

[Dubbelosix]

Right good.

 

In fact Newtonian math set the basic rules for Einstein's dream, with his additional propositions of course, which have been experimentally tested.

 

Now, what about the 100% accuracy post I speak of?

[marcospolo]

If a theory has been falsified, does that mean we at a 100% level degree of accuracy know the statements to be ''disproven?''

 

Absolutist statements are a folly, we can be really sure about something, but science doesn't work like the above, a scientist can never ascribe a 100% accuracy to anything.

So stop claiming that Relativity is correct then,

And stop saying that Quantum has been proven to the highest degree of accuracy of ANY theory!

 

But no, we cant KNOW everything about a subject, simply because we don't possess ALL information, and cant be sure we INTERPRETED the available information correctly.

 Which lead us back to the only things that we CAN use reliably, Reason, Rationality and Logic.

I use these concepts when I said that we cant know everything about a subject, we don't have all the information, and also when I said every "FACT" is but an interpretation.

[Dubbelosix]

I thought I had this covered? It's not about being correct, its about what experimentation agrees with. That's the primary source of life of any theory.

[marcospolo]

So if someone's ideas ARE inconstant with Reason, Rationality and Logic then the idea must be considered to be practically an impossibility.

 

Note that I did not mention Mathematically consistent.

Two reasons:

1. sound correct Math is often used for totally contradictory claims on the one topic, therefore Math can not be used in deciding the correctness of a hypothesis.

2. Math can lead to false conclusions, incorrect logic and irrationality. Therefore its useless or determining the validity of a claim. (do you really need me to give an example?)

[marcospolo]

I thought I had this covered? It's not about being correct, its about what experimentation agrees with. That's the primary source of life of any theory.

And I though I explained that this is NOT an accurate determination of a validity of an hypothesis?

It can support a hypothesis, but it can never constitute any proof.

But with just one example of an experiment that contradicts the hypothesis, it can be considered proven wrong.

(assuming that the observation in the Experiment is obvious)

So the primary source of life that precedes any observational support is the soundness of the hypothesis.

Unsound hypothesis, means no supporting observations can possibly save the day. (the meanings of all observations are all INTERPRETED)

[Sherwood]

my video and simple logic proves that it cant go in a zig zag, ever. Did you leave the building earlier and miss this?

Provide an illustration and post in your next comment so we can see exactly what you mean. one illustration is worth exactly 1000 words apparently.

Picture you photon going up and down between mirrors carrying a pencil and the moving reference frame being a sheet of paper.  The pencil will draw a zig zag on the paper.

[Sherwood]

I agree with dubbelosix.

It's one thing to propose something, it's an entirely different game to do science about it, a proposal will never be accepted until it has been proven continously. Though if it has been disproven or simply no action has been taken upon the proposal it's merit is of little value at all. Trying to debunk relativity. Good luck my man. It won't be lifted off the ground ever.

You will lose on this one.  Special Relativity (SR) is simply a mathematical translation, encryption, transliteration, etc. of Newtonian Mechanics.  Einstein didn't do it this way, but you get the SR equations and concepts when you assume, postulate, insist, etc. that anything at any speed goes the same speed in both of two frames moving with respect to each other.  The resulting SR math (logic) will give a result of that speed for two 'anythings' even going in opposite directions.  I'll be going into more detail in the future.

[Sherwood]

 

#154;

Quote

E = mc2 is wrong and leads to paradoxes.

 

 

[Nuclear reactions, as energy sources for power grids, submarines, weapons, medical treatments, etc. work as designed. Therefore the calculations must be correct.]

 

 

E=mc² is incorrect Special Relativity (SR).  The correct SR equation for total energy is E=mc² or E=gmc² where g is the gamma function if the Greek letter doesn't show up in the previous equation.  You can prove this to yourself by multiplying the Interval equation 

                        I² = ((ct)² - x²) = ((ct')² - x'²) = . . .

by (mc/t)²  which for x=0 gives

                       ((mc/t)(ct))² = ((mc/t)(ct'))² - ((mc/t)x')²

and rearranging yields

                            (gmc²)² = (mc²)² + (Pc)²

where P is momentum and (t'/t)=g is the gamma function (not the way you usually see it but this is also correct).  The equation is often written

                           E² = E₀² + (Pc)²

 E=gmc² or total energy and E₀=mc²or rest mass energy.  By the way, the x=0 simply represents an arbitrarily chosen 'non-moving' reference frame, the one in which SR time is 'proper time' (and the same as Newtonian time, a subject for another time).

 The SR total energy E changes because of changes in gamma, a function of velocity, not because of changes in mass. Mass does not vary with velocity or momentum.  Mass may interchange with energy but it doesn't do it because of kinetic energy.  If you think about it, everything in the universe is moving with respect to nearly everything else in the universe at various speeds and so would have innumerable masses according to E=mc².

Edited May 6, 2019 by Sherwood

[Sherwood]

Ok, put it this way, and answer as honest as you can.

 

 

Einstein's theory overcame the Newtonian way of thinking.

 

Question, does this mean Newtonian mechanics has been ''disproven?''

 

    Normally the answer would be "yes" but it turns out that Special Relativity (SR) is actually a 1:1 transformation of Newtonian mechanics (NM).  That is, for every physical location, time, velocity situation, you can give a NM description or a SR description.  The NM depiction can be translated into the SR depiction and vice versa.  To put it another way, if SR is correct, so is NM.  Of course the values for many quantities will come up different.  This is all demonstrable by only examining closely the SR equations and their meaning.  Post #96 did some of this.  

    This will not prove what I said above but is related.  The SR transform equation for time 

                                t' = gt + g(u/c²)x

(where g is the gamma function) is a function of time, location, and velocity.  The NM function of time is just that, a function of time only.  There is a SR function which is exactly the same as the NM function of time (t).  It is the SR Interval (I) divided by c

                                t = I/c

which is the same value as the NM time.  SR 'time' is a mathematical mixture of time, location, and velocity as shown above.  (The SR Interval (I) is simply the distance the light moved at speed © for time (t) in the reference frame arbitrarily chosen as non-moving--where the x value equals zero.)    

Edited May 6, 2019 by Sherwood

[Sherwood]

To the administrator,

    My purpose in referring to my web page was not aggrandizement but to offer the information on which my posts were based.  However, I can bite into Special Relativity (SR) a piece at a time and show why it 'works' and yet is silly.  

 

   For example, the SR Interval equation has the same numeric value in Newtonian Mechanics (NM).

                                    I² = (ct')² - x'² for SR   and   I² = (c't)² - x'² for NM

I'll explain what this means physically in other postings.

    Also, the SR gamma function (g) (I'm substituting the "g" for the Greek letter) has the same numeric value in NM.  SR gamma function is usually written

                                   g = (1 - (u/c)²) ^(-1/2)  

where (u) is the SR velocity between objects (which is always different from the NM velocity I call v) but if you square it

                                  g² = 1/(1 - (u/c)²) 

and multiply numerator and denominator by (ct')²

                                 g² = (ct')²/((ct')² - ((ct')(x'/ct'))² = (ct')²/((ct')² - x'²) = (ct')²/(cI)²

which in the rest frame, where x=0, is

                                g = ct'/ct    for SR

The NM value for g is

                               g = c't/ct    for NM

but the numeric value for g is the same in NM and SR.

    This subtle difference between c't and ct' is what turns NM into SR.  In later posts I will explain the significance of this.  It enables SR to be 'mathematically (logically) correct while based on a false premise, yet produce results which seem correct and are consistent.  SR probably 'works' because of its 1:1 tie to NM.  All this is based only on carefully examining the SR equations and their real world meaning.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Sherwood

[LightStorm]

 

[He didn't redefine inertia, but showed that the mass doesn't care how it's accelerated, by gravity, a propulsion unit, or manually.]

[Mach's idea of distant mass producing an equivalent reciprocal effect in a rotating body can be easily challenged. Two equal masses separated by a random distance rotate in opposite directions simultaneously. How can the universe produce those motions?]

 

 

He did redefine inertia (and therefore centrifugal force) as an entity arriving from distant stars via Mach's medium (ether). Here's the quote: 

 

 But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.

 

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

 

Einstein means to say that when you spin, your arms fly outward due to centrifugal force. And this is action at a distance. Of he is wrong there is no action at a distance with regard to centrifugal force or inertia. They are both products of 'contact forces'. Nothing rotates on its own.

 

[Mach's idea of distant mass producing an equivalent reciprocal effect in a rotating body can be easily challenged. Two equal masses separated by a random distance rotate in opposite directions simultaneously. How can the universe produce those motions?

 

I don't understand what you mean by the above. Two masses rotate in opposite directions when they are subjected to a contact force.

[sluggo]

The SRT pdf at trybasics is difficult to follow and unnecessarily complicated.

 

The phenomenon of time dilation is introduced via the light clock.

In fig.1 observer A at rest with the clock records light emitted from EmitterDetector in a direction p, perpendicular to x, and reflected from a mirror M a distance d=1, to ED. This represents one clock cycle for A.

In fig.2, A observes an identical clock B move along x to the right at speed v=.6c.

For the B-clock to function, the photon path must have an x and p component. The x component compensates for the motion of the clock at speed v. The p component becomes the active part of the clock. Since the photon speed is constant, its position must be on the circular arc for the 90º between the p axis and x axis, after a half cycle on the A-clock. This means the relative photon speed u, along p is

 

 

 

with a = v/c and u/c = 1/gamma, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past observer A. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions.

Fig.3 is the perception of observer B moving with the B-clock that is simultaneous with observer A in fig.1. Since his biological clock is also functioning at 80%, he is not aware of any change to his clock.

 

[Dubbelosix]

So if someone's ideas ARE inconstant with Reason, Rationality and Logic then the idea must be considered to be practically an impossibility.

 

Note that I did not mention Mathematically consistent.

Two reasons:

1. sound correct Math is often used for totally contradictory claims on the one topic, therefore Math can not be used in deciding the correctness of a hypothesis.

2. Math can lead to false conclusions, incorrect logic and irrationality. Therefore its useless or determining the validity of a claim. (do you really need me to give an example?)

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have already made it clear, reason is not enough. A logical idea is not enough. Experimental evidence, is consistent always, only because we can trust what we can measure and exemplify through a scientific reasoning. Practicality and impossibilities, are not the way of science. Logical thoughts are not even required, when did quantum mechanics rely on rational and logical thinking?

 

The quantum world defies rationality and it certainly does not abide by logical constructs.

[sluggo]

Sherwood#202;

 

E=mc2 is incorrect Special Relativity (SR). The correct SR equation for total energy is E=mc2 or E=gmc2 where g is the gamma function if the Greek letter doesn't show up in the previous equation. You can prove this to yourself by multiplying the Interval equation

​I2 = ((ct)2 - x2) = ((ct')2 - x'2) = . . .

by (mc/t)2 which for x=0 gives

((mc/t)(ct))2 = ((mc/t)(ct'))2 - ((mc/t)x')2

and rearranging yields

(gmc2)2 = (mc2)2 + (Pc)2

 

 

[E=mc^2 is correct for conversion of mass to energy in a rest frame, earth, where all the development happened.
In early experiments, additional energy produced diminishing returns in terms of kinetic energy of particles, and was misinterpreted as inertial resistance, or 'relativistic mass', a term now obsolete.]

[sluggo]

LightStorm 205;

 

I don't understand what you mean by the above. Two masses rotate in opposite directions when they are subjected to a contact force.

From the 1920 lecture at Lieden:
"The space-time theory and the kinematics of the special theory of relativity were modelled on the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of the electromagnetic field. This theory therefore satisfies the conditions of the special theory of relativity, but when viewed from the latter it acquires a novel aspect. For if K be a system of coordinates relatively to which the Lorentzian ether is at rest, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations are valid primarily with reference to K. But by the special theory of relativity the same equations without any change of meaning also hold in relation to any new system of co-ordinates K' which is moving in uniform translation relatively to K. Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable.

….

More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it."

 

[This is another example of Einstein's ability to analyze ideas for redundancy or usefulness. He easily discarded anything that served no purpose. Action at a distance is rejected, but space as a medium could still be useful.]

[My comments on inertia involve the equivalence principle, which states inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same. The perception of the person in the enclosed box, cannot distinguish between acceleration of 1g by gravity or 1g upward by some other means.]

[in SR, perceptions are reciprocal, like time dilation and length contraction. In GR, rotation is considered absolute motion, i.e. without reciprocal perceptions. The skater can spin with outstretched arms, which can be explained as centrifugal force, resulting from angular momentum of hands and arms, a local behavior. A reciprocal state would have the skater standing still with the same configuration, and all other objects in the universe rotating in the opposite sense. The distant stars would be moving at multiples of light speed c (a case for removal of c restriction). For the skater, her perception begins the instant she spins. The most distant objects would start rotation first, followed by closer objects, in order to produce the simultaneous motion as perceived by the skater. I.e. the 'fixed' stars, which haven't moved since humanity appeared, would have to move with all the objects beyond 100 ly, before the skater was born. The universe would have to magically spin on an axis at the skaters location. The skater can stop and start at will, but this could not be conveyed instantly to the distant objects. Now add a second skater within sight of the first, who spins simultaneously with her, but in the opposite sense, one cw, the other ccw. There seems to be more questions than answers!]

Edited May 7, 2019 by sluggo