Cut The Bullshit In Physics

Dubbelosix · April 29, 2019

I'm no sentence structure expert, but doesn't that statement just imply that if the model is crap, isn't the equation defining this model also crap? Or am I missing something here?

And how can an equation just 'approximate' measurable effects? It does or it doesn't mathematically describe net observations and/or measurements. 'Approximation' equations are mathematical equations, not physics equations.

To the first part, all I will say is ''yes''.... you are missing something here. For your second question, equations are always approximate, but that does not mean that the measurable effects have to be perfect. There are error corrections all the time in physics, of course.... that doesn't make a model right, no more than an equation can accurately describe a situation with 100% certainty.

marcospolo · April 30, 2019

Sure they are, Chem. But "science" generally deals with observable things, I thought. When you start making hypotheses which cannot be empirically verified, then you have moved into "pseudo-science," according to Popper, anyway. You can "explain" lots of things by positing invisible beings like ghosts, but that doesn't make your hypothesis "scientific."

Hey, Moronium, I have a challenge for you, which you will be easily able to solve, and there's a cash prize up for grabs.

You fervently believe that the Lorentz equation means something important in Physics, and Ive tried a few times to draw your attention that it simply cant. It needs to go the same way that you have sent Einsteins version of Time.

Here's the link:

https://sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge

I do hope you don't do your usual trick, and ignore it, claiming that its nonsense without explaining the reason why.

If you can solve this problem, then Ill jump on to your bandwagon re Lorentz.

But you cant utilize any of the ducking and dodging that Relativists do when they are confronted with reason.

Good luck, assuming that you take up this challenge.

Keep us posted, I would like to hear your solution so post the solution here as well as sending it in to claim your reward.

Edited April 30, 2019 by marcospolo

marcospolo · April 30, 2019

I will start I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework, I think that physics is frameworks that do not display all the exacting details of every aspect of physics need to be thrown out and redone. There should not be a discrepancy between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity nor any of the other interactions it should be unified into a single equation or framework. In my opinion that is just bad Physics Grammar if both supposedly correct frameworks are supposed to both be functional why is there a difference in the solutions? How can two correct frameworks show different results for the location of an electron, it is bullshit that needs to be fixed. I think it means we don't know as much as we tend to think we know about the universe there are no anomalies in the universe how can there be anomalies in the frameworks for it, our frameworks and models are fundamentally flawed as depressing as that seems, there should be no anomalies in physics.

The compatibility issues between Quantum and Relativity totally evaporate when one realizes that BOTH theories are 100% wishful thinking. Or Pseudoscience if you like.

We stopped doing useful physics from about Maxwell's time. (not meaning ALL work done by Physicists) but pertaining to any theory that hangs of either Quantum or Relativity. That rules out an awful lot of otherwise accepted science and cosmology.

If you think about it, the weird stuff that does not sit well with those who ask questions, all relate to Einstein or Quantum.

The Advice to those who were prone to ask awkward questions is "Shut up and calculate".

As if by some magic, Math is supposed to be able explain, prove and even make new discoveries.

This is Maxwell's fault. Einstein, Heisenburg, Minkowski, and Schrodinger and the rest, all took this idea way too seriously.

The result is the joke called theoretical Physics, and Particle Physics that cause so much argument today.

Someone need to give Mathematicians a Casio and lock them in a room. They have no business trying their hand at Physics.

The biggest insult was when they handed out Nobel Prizes to Mathematicians! Twice!

Modern Physics is a mess, its based on pure BS.

The observed evidences are interpretations of things we don't understand at all. Light is a Particle, wait no, its something else, I know its a wave! Wait, its a wave particle thingy! (none of the explanations actually fit what we see light really doing! So now you gunna make a pivotal Hypothesis that effects all of Physics, based on Light? And nothing but a bunch of meaningless equations involving our total lack of knowledge about light?

Sherwood · April 30, 2019

The compatibility issues between Quantum and Relativity totally evaporate when one realizes that BOTH theories are 100% wishful thinking. Or Pseudoscience if you like.

Modern Physics is a mess, its based on pure BS.

I can't speak for much of physics. I can speak about Special Relativity (SR) which was sort of the beginning of modern physics. The following will show why supposedly no object can go faster that light according to SR. It will also show that there is no 'time dilation'. Both of these ideas are logical mathematical conclusions from a flawed premise. These conclusions come only from carefully examining the SR equations and their derivation, as follows.

Derive and Understand Special Relativity by this Simple Example

by Sherwood R. Kaip ©

[email protected]

Special Relativity theory (SRT) can be derived from Newtonian Mechanics (NM) in a simple

way that exactly shows the similarities and differences between them and makes (SRT) much

more understandable.

There is an object (Obj1) which is not moving. It sends out a timing signal from itself at a

known speed s in all directions. Let us consider that portion of the timing signal going in one

direction, call it the “y” direction. Hereafter, this will be called the “vertical” direction. The

signal can be considered a timing signal because its speed has been measured many times in

(Obj1)’s reference frame and s is always the result.

A second object (Obj2) is moving by in a perpendicular direction which will hereafter be

called “horizontal”. When the moving (Obj2) passes the non-moving (Obj1), (Obj1) sends out its

timing signal vertically (as well as spherically) at speed s. Later, the timing signal, during the

time (t), has traveled the vertical distance I=st. In the meantime, (Obj2) has traveled the distance

x´ horizontally. The velocity of (Obj2) with respect to (Obj1) is

v = x´/t = x´/(I/s) = (x´/I)s

the ratio of the distance (Obj2) traveled, x´, to the distance the signal traveled, I, times the speed

of the timing signal, s.

During the time t, the objects have moved the distance x´ horizontally from each other and

the timing signal has moved the distance I vertically from (Obj1). So during the time t, the

timing signal has moved the combined vertical and horizontal distance H along a diagonal path

relative to (Obj2). This distance H equals

H = (x´2 + I2)1/2

The ratio H/t can be called s´ and is the speed of the timing signal in (Obj2)’s reference frame.

So H=s´t. s´ is obviously a greater speed than s. We can now rewrite the previous formula

as

I2 = H2 – x´2 = (s´t)2 – x´2

I can be named as the “Interval” because it is the distance the timing signal has traveled in its

own (i.e., (Obj1)’s) reference frame.

Note that if (Obj2) had traveled at any different speed v´´ for the different distance x´´, I would

still be the same and would represent the time t, since the timing signal always travels at speed s

from (Obj1).

A term I has been defined, although there would seem to be little use for it in Newtonian

Mechanics (NM). Another variable can be defined as gamma ().

() = H/I = s´t/I = s´t/st

() is essentially the ratio of the distance (H) the timing signal traveled in the moving (Obj2)

frame to the distance I the timing signal traveled in its own non-moving frame.

page 1 of 4 Friday, April 12, 2019

Later, () will be shown in another form that is probably more familiar. It will still be the ratio of

these two distances.

This has all been very straightforward, though unusual, Newtonian Mechanics (NM). But let

us change something. Suppose we insist (propose, postulate, etc.) that (Obj1)’s timing signal

travels the same speed in both (Obj1)’s and (Obj2)’s reference frames.

If you think about it a bit, this is physically impossible. Nothing moving away from its

source (the timing signal) can possibly move the same speed with respect to an object moving

toward or away from the source. A man running forward on a moving train is not running the

same speed with respect to the ground as he is moving with respect to the train. Not if

considering what we normally mean by distance, time, and velocity. A flag being raised at 3 m/s

vertically on a train moving 4 m/s is moving up and forward at 5 m/s with respect to the ground,

not 3 m/s. But let’s proceed anyway.

In other words, s’=s or H/t=I/t, which means I=st and also H=st or I=st=H which is obviously

not the case. But if we let I=st and H=st´ then the fact that H is greater than I is no longer a

problem. What we now have is

I2 = H2 – x´2 = (st´)2 – x´2

Gamma () is still

() = H/I

but now

() = H/I = st´/I = st´/st

If you put the Interval equation in the form of a triangle where the vertical leg is the

distance (I) that the timing signal traveled at speed (s) for time (t), the horizontal leg is the

distance (x´) that (Obj2) traveled from (Obj1) during the time (t), and the hypotenuse is H=st´, the

distance the timing signal traveled in (Obj2)’s reference frame, what preceded and what follows

may be clearer.

While we solved the problem that H ≠ I, we have a new ‘problem’: deciding which ‘time’ to

use for calculating the speed of the moving object relative to the non-moving object. Since the

‘prime’ moving (Obj2)’s reference frame seems to have a new time, we will define (a different)

velocity between (Obj1) and (Obj2) as

u´ = x´/t´

u´/s = x´/st´ = x´/H

Remember that was defined above as = (H/I)= (s´t/st)= (st´/st). Looking again at ,

2 = H2/I2 = (st´)2 / ((st´)2 – x´2)

Dividing through by (st´)2 yields

2 = H2/I2 = 1/ 1 – (x´2/(st´)2)= 1/ (1 – (u´2/(s)2)) = 1/ (1 – (u´/s)2) and

= (1 – (u´/s)2))(–1/2)

which, if c is substituted for s, is the usual way gamma is written in Einstein’s Special

Relativity theory (SRT).

We now have enough information to determine quantities in the moving frame from

quantities in the non-moving frame. In terms of t

x´ = (st´/st)(x´/t´)t = ut = (u/s)st

t´ = (st´/st)t = t and st´= st

page 2 of 4 Friday, April 12, 2019

The full transform equations in Special Relativity (SRT) are

x´ = (x + ut) = ut + x = (u/c)ct + x

t´ = (t + ux/c2) or ct´ = ct + (u/c)x

where c replaces s as explained below. These are the same as the “s” equations except for the

added term in each. There are two more SRT transform equations for values of x and t in terms of

x´ and t´ which can be derived by manipulating these.

If you change all the above s’s into c’s, you now have the equations (and concepts) of Einstein’s

theory of Special Relativity derived by turning the NM form of the Interval equation into the

SRT Interval equation. Obviously H is greater than I and therefore the speed of the timing

signal in (Obj2)’s reference frame, s´, is greater than the speed s of the timing signal in (Obj1)’s

frame because of the added horizontal component. However, by ‘postulating’ that the velocity

of the timing signal is the same in both frames and compensating for the fact that H>I by

making a ‘new’ time, (t´), greater in the moving reference frame of (Obj2), Einstein’s theory of

Special Relativity (SRT) has just been created. This is the exact point where (NM) becomes

(SRT).

The full SRT transform equations add x to the first and (u/c2)x to the second. These

two equations in terms of s and the other two (reverse) transform equations, derivable from the

above, can be used to derive the x and (u/c2) needed to complete the SRT transform equations.

This will not be shown here but can be seen online in section 5.5 of the article titled “A simple

Special Relativity model is offered which easily explains the ‘twin paradox’, why c is a maximum

speed limit, and makes the concepts of SR easy to understand,” available in the Special Relativity

section of the website www.trybasics.com and also referred to as “SR Model”. Accessed 4/11/19.

The important thing to note here is that these (SRT) equations were based not on the speed of

light but only on a timing signal of some known speed s. The speed s is totally arbitrary. It

doesn’t have to be the speed of light, usually written c. The equations in terms of s are exactly

the same as the (SRT) equations in terms of c. This demonstrates that (SRT) is about

mathematics, not physics in the real world. Notice also that there was only one physical

situation described and it was described correctly for both (NM) and (SRT). This demonstrates

that there is a 1:1 mathematical correspondence between (NM) and (SRT).

From either the s equations above or the same actual c equations of (SRT) it can be seen

why, according to (SRT), nothing can go faster than light speed c. (SRT) velocity is

u´/c = x´/ct’ = x´/(x´2 + I2)1/2

which will obviously always be <1.0. On the other hand NM velocity v/c = x´/ct. The distance

(Obj2) has moved past (Obj1) is

x´ = vt = (ct´/ct)(x´/t´)t = ut

When working from one point in the non-moving reference frame (x=0), to convert from (SRT)

to (NM) or vice versa

v = u

u = v/

= H/I = (ct´)/I (SRT) = (c´t)/I (NM)

but has the same numeric value in both, i.e., (ct´) = (c´t),

2 = (v/c)2 + 1

t´ = t

[(SRT) ‘time’ (t´) is a function of (NM) time, velocity, and location],

t = t´/ = I/c

equals (NM) time and (SRT) ‘proper time’.

page 3 of 4 Friday, April 12, 2019

I2 = ((ct´)2 – x´2) (SRT) = ((c´t)2 – x´2) (NM)

but has the same numeric value in both. The speed of the timing signal, s or c, is not needed in

(NM) unless velocity is being expressed as v/c. The timing signal only serves to provide the time

which is the same in all reference frames (as is (I/c) in (SRT)).

Either (NM) or (SRT) can be used to solve time/distance/velocity problems; however NM does

not mess with concepts of time and distance. Since any SRT time/distance/velocity problem

can also be accurately described in NM, there is therefore no time dilation and consequent

length contraction.

Objects can go any speed, including faster than light according to (SRT), as shown by

x´/I = (u/c)

wherein the distance (x´) traveled by (Obj2) from (Obj1) approaches ∞ as (u/c) approaches 1.0

because of . Of course, (u/c) will always be <1.0 for moving objects.

Momentum in (NM) is P=mv and P=mu in (SRT), but since v=u, the value for momentum

(P) is the same in both. Since collision problems can be solved using only momentum (P) and

mass (m), solving collision problems can be done without invoking (SRT) because P=mu=mv.

Multiplying the Interval equation

I2 = (ct´)2 – x´2

by various values is the easiest way to get some of the other formulas used in (SRT). Without

further explanation, here are some examples the author has derived in this way:

(mc2)2 – (mc2)2 = (Pc)2

E2 – (E0)2 = (Pc)2

E0 = mc2

E = mc2

2 – 1 = (v/c)2 = ((u/c))2

The famous Einstein equation E = mc2 is incorrect— E = mc2 is the actual correct (SRT)

equation. m is a constant that does not vary with velocity or kinetic energy— does. This does

not meant that mass and energy cannot interchange—just not due to velocity or kinetic energy.

Notice also that E0 is due to mass (m) and therefore (E) is merely a stand-in for

momentum (P) and is a stand-in for the (NM) value (v/c) (or (SRT)’s ((u/c)) if you prefer).

What has been shown is that (SRT) is derivable from (NM) in a way that shows it is always

convertible into (NM) with total accuracy, and vice versa. However, since this (SR) math

derives from a physically impossible premise, it is silly to use it. The (SR) math, not reality, is

what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction

traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction

with various velocities.

By the way, there are other ways to show that (SRT) is just plain not possibly correct

even though time/distance/velocity and collision problems can be worked, thanks to its

relationship to Newtonian Mechanics (NM). To again show this relationship, go to the article

titled “How to derive Newtonian Mechanics Directly from Only the Equations of Special

Relativity” available in the Special Relativity section of the website www.trybasics.com and also

referred to as “NM from SR”. Accessed 4/11/19.

page 4 of 4 Friday, April 12, 2019

Dubbelosix · April 30, 2019

Where are you copying half these equations from, because the format appears to be off from paragraph to paragraph. I am just pointing it out... also, you really should learn latex so that people can follow what you are even trying to say. It makes it so much easier for the audience.

exchemist · April 30, 2019

The title of this thread seems to get more ironic by the day.

Now we have someone arguing that (mc²)² - (mc²)² =/= 0.

And perhaps best of all, that 2-1 = (v/c)² , apparently implying that the velocity of everything has to be +/-c.

But this poster may be a retired - and possibly very ancient - anaesthesiologst from El Paso. Spot of Alzheimer's?

Dubbelosix · April 30, 2019

The title of this thread seems to get more ironic by the day.

Now we have someone arguing that (mc²)² - (mc²)² =/= 0.

And perhaps best of all, that 2-1 = (v/c)² , apparently implying that the velocity of everything has to be +/-c.

Certainly a difference in energy may be non-zero, for instance, you have to define [math]mc^2 - Mc^2 \ne 0[/math] so long as you take [math]m \ne M[/math]. But a difference of energy is well known, what I am more concerned about is that the equations have been gathered from some other place and certain symbols have not been transposed properly. But this was my point of learning latex. Latex is our friend, including a clear and concise format. Also the ratio of [math]2 -1 = \frac{v^2}{c^2}[/math] could be rearranged as [math]-\frac{1}{2} = \frac{v^2}{2c^2}[/math] and so rearranging again would give [math]-\frac{2c^2}{2} = v^2[/math] this would obviously mean that [math]-c^2 = v^2[/math] which is of course, nonsensical.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Dubbelosix

Sherwood · May 1, 2019

The title of this thread seems to get more ironic by the day.

Now we have someone arguing that (mc²)² - (mc²)² =/= 0.

And perhaps best of all, that 2-1 = (v/c)² , apparently implying that the velocity of everything has to be +/-c.

But this poster may be a retired - and possibly very ancient - anaesthesiologst from El Paso. Spot of Alzheimer's?

Considering what you saw posted, your comments are very kind. Unfortunately the post left out the Special Relativity gamma function about 50 times because it would not print the Greek letter 'gamma' that was in the post. I thought I had checked to make sure it was there but obviously I didn't. This time should be correct using "g" for gamma instead of the Greek letter. My condolences to you for wading through such a mess. This time should be much much easier. My apologies and thanks for picking up the mess.