Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

[marcospolo]

Bye bye Marco. I haven't seen any lines on this forum but you definitely crossed one. Does the Aryan brotherhood have a physics website?

I'm not interested in Aryan brotherhoods or any other politics or religions.

I'm just saying that a quick way to determine who is genuine may be if they can see and admit the Holocaust for the lie it most certainly is.

 

Any Orwellian law that makes a criminal out of a person who questions the accuracy of an event in history, is a sure sign that the event is a tool of propaganda.

The same group that are behind the hoax called the Holocaust have also taken control of education, as it's now full of ****, designed to confuse. Which has worked rather well.

[ralfcis]

Sad. I'm trying to get you booted just so you know.

[marcospolo]

Sad. I'm trying to get you booted just so you know.

What do you have a problem with?  Do you possess some information about the topic that I've not read? Maybe you should share it, so I can be informed...

 

Are you ignorant about history as well as physics?

Edited July 8, 2019 by marcospolo

[GAHD]

LOOKS LIKE SOME PEOPLE NEED TO READ THE RULES AGAIN. THEY ARE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED IN A LINK ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF EVERY PAGE.

See you in 30 days Marco.
Warning to you Victor; #83 is also crossing lines.

 

User Bans: Users may be banned for infringing the rules above, or for behavior that is inconsistent with our goals on this forum, including but not limited to:

• Posting incoherently
• Posting repeatedly debunked theories or hoaxes
• Annoying our members
• Trolling or generally being rude without contributing positively

 

[exchemist]

LOOKS LIKE SOME PEOPLE NEED TO READ THE RULES AGAIN. THEY ARE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED IN A LINK ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF EVERY PAGE.

 

See you in 30 days Marco.

Warning to you Victor; #83 is also crossing lines.

 

I think you are very generous. :)

[Vmedvil2]

LOOKS LIKE SOME PEOPLE NEED TO READ THE RULES AGAIN. THEY ARE CONVENIENTLY LOCATED IN A LINK ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF EVERY PAGE.

 

See you in 30 days Marco.

Warning to you Victor; #83 is also crossing lines.

 

 

My bad I didn't realize you couldn't just post anything on these forums and get away with it. There are rules that is news to me.

Edited July 8, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

OK GAHD I recently found the answer to your question of how do you know you're moving. 

 

 Distance can be established without using clocks. We know Proxima Centauri is 4 light years away in our low speed frame. If someone were to pass by Earth at .8c, when they pass by Proxima Centauri they look at their stop watch which they zeroed as they passed Earth (no need to even sync with Earth time) and see 3 years have passed on their watch. This seemingly impossible speed is Yv = x/t' not v = x/t. No one moved the entire universe past their window. They've actually gone from point A to point B while Earth is stuck at point A. No need to invoke reciprocal perspective of distant clocks because their watch is right beside them.  Earth's watch  would see its distance from Proxima Centauri remain the same year after year so its velocity to the earth/proxima frame would be 0 light years per year. Any other calculation of distance travelled relative to the earth/proxima frame divided by the time on your watch means you're the one who was moving. This is not about an absolute motion to the universe because the earth/proxima frame could be moving at any velocity relative to that. The ship's watch would not be able to detect that. But between two participants relative to a designated common stationary frame, you can tell who's moving and who isn't just by the time on their watches without even needing to compare watches.

 

So if you were running a marathon dragging an atomic clock behind you and you also had a radar gun pointed at the finish line, your clock would measure your velocity as Yv which would not agree with the radar gun's velocity which would be measuring v. The finish line's relative velocity to the earth is 0 whereas yours is not. This becomes even more painfully clear if your calculations of distance over time were showing gamma velocities above c without even needing to reference the radar gun readings.

Edited September 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[GAHD]

OK GAHD I recently found the answer to your question of how do you know you're moving. 

 

 Distance can be established without using clocks. We know Proxima Centauri is 4 light years....they look at their stop watch which they zeroed as they passed Earth ...dragging an atomic clock behind you and you also had a radar gun pointed at the finish line, your clock would measure your velocity as Yv which would not agree with the radar gun's velocity which would be measuring v. The finish line's relative velocity to the earth is 0 whereas yours is not. This becomes even more painfully clear if your calculations of distance over time were showing gamma velocities above c without even needing to reference the radar gun readings.

I think you're missing a few base points there. Good try though even if it's not internally consistent, let alone reality consistent. :)

 

You can't tell your absolute speed, only relative speed, which is the big old ball of worms I opened with that "how do you tell if you're the one moving" bit. You also can't tell weather the finish line and everything round it is moving or you re, though the math is easier if it's you. ;)

[ralfcis]

 I'm just establishing who's moving between the two people involved relative to a common background frame which is the background grid in a Minkowski STD. This is a standard relativity scenario. Let's say the earth is a giant treadmill only controlled by your footsteps. Right off the bat we know that's impossible because the earth's mass can't be pushed by your footsteps. Secondly, you're the only thing the finish line could aim it's radar gun at that would register a velocity. You could aim your gun at the start or finish lines, the earth only has one point, you have at least two. That alone differentiates the two perspectives. The finish line can't establish a velocity relative to the start line, you're the only one who can establish a relative velocity to both which means you're the one physically moving relative to the earth and it's not the earth frame physically moving relative to you. Mathematically if you considered yourself stationary and the earth was running the marathon, your feet would not be touching the earth and you'd be suspended in a coordinate frame outside the universe. That's the very definition of an absolute motion which is impossible.

 

PS. Your read markings in the quote seem to imply I contradicted myself. The distance of a marathon can be measured by a tape measure. How far planets and stars are can be measured in other ways, supernovae for example.

Edited September 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

GAHD no need to wander off into reciprocal time dilation land. This is it in a nutshell. Your watch tells you you have travelled 4 ly in 3 yrs relative to the earth/proxima frame. Separately, Bob on earth has travelled 0 ly in 3 yrs relative to the same common earth/proxima frame. So you are the only one who's moved relative to the same frame just according to your watch without ever seeing Bob's watch. If A is relative to E (.8c) and B is relative to E (0c) then A is relative to B (.8c). Just because your Yv =4/3c does not mean you have reached proxima before light from earth did because light travelled at Yc which was 5/3 c. c was c from both your and Earth's perspective because c= x/t not x/t'.

 

PS. It doesn't matter what the earth/proxima frame's relative velocity is to a bigger patch of the sky but I assume the local area is not moving at relativistic velocities relative to the earth/proxima frame. This means B and A's relative velocity to local U isn't much different than B and A's relative velocity to E.

Edited September 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[GAHD]

...but that wasn't the point. The nasty thing about this is that it all falls apart with one small "what if."

What if you PC and your "race track" goalpost is actually moving counter to the direction you have laid out by any significant fraction of speed. Effectively your racer at that point is decelerating and "going backwards" along the raceway while the arbitrary finish line is "catching up" in the grand scheme of things. How do you tell witch of the two scenarios is reality? (racer is moving fast with racetrack stationary-ish, vs. racer is stationary-ish and racetrack is moving a relativistic speeds).

That's the can of worms I was trying to get Marco to explain away since they claimed to have the answers and "proof" of it. How do you actually prove which one is moving in an absolute sense? This leads back to that "light shift" argument he was making which if it did work (spoiler; spectroscopy) in determining an absolute motion frame and settling the issue would be a Nobel prize from a couple hundred dollars in equipment setup in a a basement.

[ralfcis]

No matter what speed the earth/proxima frame passed by you, your watch would say you did the 4 ly trip in 3 yrs while the earth watch would say earth went nowhere relative to the earth/proxima frame. Relativity defines frames as points. So the only two frames are you and earth. But if you define a common frame that includes both start and end points and the relative velocities between the two point frames are defined through relative velocities to the common frame, you can re-define the word "moving" as distance moved according to a local watch, (instead of the other guy's watch). Therefore Earth's Yv is 0/3 and your Yv is 4/3c relative to each other through the common earth/proxima frame. Who's really moving in some universal sense doesn't matter and is superceded by the distance/local time metric which comes up with an unambiguous answer. There is no way the earth/proxima motion would come up with a relative velocity to the earth/proxima frame as witnessed on their local watch.

 

PS. Let's say you're hoverboarding a marathon and an asteroid hits the earth causing the finish line to hit you. The relative velocity is not between you and the finish line but between you and the race course start to finish. The finish line's relative velocity to the race course is unaffected by the increased spin of the earth but your relative velocity to the race course is. Sure the earth spun underneath you during the race but your watch says you alone got the boost in relative velocity.

 

This is no longer a scenario of constant relative velocity, though, unless the asteroid struck while you were hovering at the start line. If the asteroid had spun the earth in the opposite direction and the start line hit you from the rear halfway through the race, this would now be an example of the reverse twin paradox (Bob takes off from earth to catch up with Alice). Since the earth initiated the change in relative velocity, it's clock would end up having aged less than yours and would therefore establish the entire race course is also moving relative to where it was when the asteroid struck.

Edited September 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[GAHD]

..again, not the point in relation to the thread and Marco's claims. You're invoking things(relativity) he specifically claimed unnecessary and I think impossible though I'm too lazy to read back 6 pages to get a real quote. That brings this detour outside the scope; which is purely "ok, how do you(Marco) find this absolute motion you(Marco) describe"

You're not answering the question I posed to the other user in context, you're re-framing it to fit your digression. Catch that?

[ralfcis]

Yes re-framing it in a broader context. I'm answering the question of how to establish who's moving which refers to establishing a preferred frame (not allowed in relativity). I redefine both the words "moving" and "relative velocity". Moving is distance/local time relative to a common frame that includes both start and finish endpoints of a spacetime path. The one who's moving is the one who has a non-zero value for distance relative to the common frame over the time on his local watch of how long it took to move that distance. I did not intend to challenge Marco's notion of how to define who's moving which was probably wrong. I guess the question remains if my method would get me the Nobel prize 'cause I need the money.

Edited September 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[isaac]

Digging through the theoretical physics of his time, Einstein dug up "Lorentz transformations" and built "Special Theory of Relativity" on them. It turned out that this theory "holds the water", so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all, he also launched the "General Theory of Relativity", which was embraced by the "popularizers of science" and who from theory made their "business". And as is usually the case, the inventor was often unaware of what he had actually found. 

 

In 1927, the famous physicist and philosopher Heisenberg, introduced to the world his "Theory of Uncertainty" as a natural law, claiming that we cannot simultaneously accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle, because it is a dynamic and statistical problem and because our methods of measurement are such that they simultaneously disturb the position and velocity of the measured particle. This ingenious and crystal clear idea was immediately accepted by most physicists, but not by Albert Einstein, because he could not accept the idea that something "could not" be done. Therefore, Einstein "pushed with all four" to disprove this theory, without even being aware that as early as 1915, with his "Special Theory of Relativity", he actually confirmed and supplemented the same theory, adding: that apart from being unable to accurately determine the position and velocity of a particle, likewise, when we are forced to do so (and always are!), we measure "with an error" equal to 1-(1-(v/c)²)^0.5, depending on the relative velocity (v) of the inertial system in which we are measuring - AND THAT'S ALL!

 

It would be foolish and unscientific to say that in an inertial system, depending on its velocity, units of mass, length and time change, and that objects, space and time deform depending on the direction and speed of the system. Soon, Einstein himself realized this, as well as the fact that his "General Theory of Relativity" was "nonsense²" because it violated almost every law of physics. But why deny what is selling very well? Well, man has to live - from something!

So every honor and glory to Mr. Einstein but save us God from all the "popularisers of science" and physics professors who don't know physics!

 

A good scientist is always looking for evidence to refute a theory, and a bad scientist is looking for evidence to support it (Popper)! That is why new theories should always be refuted, and if they are correct, they will be proven by themselves! So let's refute the "General Theory of Relativity" (GTR):

 

Is measuring time with two watches proof of GTR validity? If one traveler has two identical watches and leaves one at home and with the other, he goes on the road "GTR supposedly says each watch will show a different time?". How is that possible? If both watches are identical, how does the traveler know which watch he brought and which one he "left"? How does a traveler know which of these two watches is "stationary" and which one is moving? If a passenger noticed that one watch was hurrying by 1s then he must have noticed that another watch was delayed by 1s so the total result of his measurement was 1-1 = 0! If the traveler claimed to have measured different times then he would have refuted the initial thesis that he had two identical watches and applied the principle of relativity to them! In fact STR strictly "FORBIDDES" this "measurement", that is, the so-called "twin effect"!

 

Is the shift of the ray of light near the star evidence for the validity of the GTR? We have all heard of the Fermat principle, which says that light moves between two points so that it takes the least time, that is, the shortest path. If the GTR were correct then light would have to move through the gravitational field such that the incident angle of light into that field was equal to the light output angle from that field, so the observer should not really see any "displacement". But if an observer has noticed a shift of a beam of light near a massive star, this is evidence that an optical phenomenon called refraction or diffraction has occurred. Therefore, according to GTR, it is not at all possible to have a phenomenon called "gravity lensing" by "astrophysicists", but rather a phenomenon that real physicists call "fatamorgana".

 

Is the "discovery" of gravitational waves an GTR confirmation? So how was that experiment designed? "Physicists" are allegedly trying to measure the change in the length of some bodies due to the passage of a gravitational wave, ignoring the fact that the passage of that wave would also change the length of the meter by which they measure, so the measurement result should always be 0. But they supposedly measured something!? Nature teaches us that all stochastic processes that can influence this experiment are inherently made of similar fractals, so what is the "probability" that our experimenters have declared the invention of two similar fractals to be the discovery of gravitational waves. Quite. In addition, the most important feature of a good experiment is its reproducibility. And how many times did the gentlemen repeat their experiment? Not once! That is why performing such "blind" experiments is complete nonsense.

 

Is the happening in an elevator, which is in free fall for the passenger of that elevator, proof that there is no gravity? Yes, until the elevator lands in the basement, then the passenger will realize the gravity and deformation of their space and the shortening of their length and time (of life). So how can anyone believe such nonsense? Well, in Newton's law of force F = ma, all members of the equation (F, m, a) are constants, while in Newton's law of gravity F_G = mg is a constant only mass m, while F_G, and g are variables because g = GM/r². That is why anyone who says "g = constant" and that "g" and "a" can be replaced, or canceled, is telling us nonsense. Well, we already realized this in elementary school!

 

Does our space have more than 3 dimensions? Is time a 4th dimension? No. It is not. If our space had more than three dimensions then God would probably give us senses for those dimensions as well. Instead, we were given a MIND which, by using the IDEA of TIME as a category of MIND (Kant), realizes its three-dimensional space and the cause-and-effect flow of phenomena and the movements of matter and energy within it. The MIND realizes that it is in a space filled by countless harmonic oscillators, and he uses one of them as a reference (clock) to describe and recognize the movements of all others by means of it. Long ago, one smart MIND told the others: We must first comprehend "self"!

[Amplituhedron]

Issac,

 

The idiocy of your post is just beyond human belief or even comprehension. Just take this:

 

 

… so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all …

 

 

I mean, seriously … where are you getting this?

 

So, sez you, Einstein’s “happiest thought” was that there is no gravity at all?

 

Get an education.

 

The rest of your post is downhill from there.

[Vmedvil2]

 

Digging through the theoretical physics of his time, Einstein dug up "Lorentz transformations" and built "Special Theory of Relativity" on them. It turned out that this theory "holds the water", so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all, he also launched the "General Theory of Relativity", which was embraced by the "popularizers of science" and who from theory made their "business". And as is usually the case, the inventor was often unaware of what he had actually found. 

 

In 1927, the famous physicist and philosopher Heisenberg, introduced to the world his "Theory of Uncertainty" as a natural law, claiming that we cannot simultaneously accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle, because it is a dynamic and statistical problem and because our methods of measurement are such that they simultaneously disturb the position and velocity of the measured particle. This ingenious and crystal clear idea was immediately accepted by most physicists, but not by Albert Einstein, because he could not accept the idea that something "could not" be done. Therefore, Einstein "pushed with all four" to disprove this theory, without even being aware that as early as 1915, with his "Special Theory of Relativity", he actually confirmed and supplemented the same theory, adding: that apart from being unable to accurately determine the position and velocity of a particle, likewise, when we are forced to do so (and always are!), we measure "with an error" equal to 1-(1-(v/c)²)^0.5, depending on the relative velocity (v) of the inertial system in which we are measuring - AND THAT'S ALL!

 

It would be foolish and unscientific to say that in an inertial system, depending on its velocity, units of mass, length and time change, and that objects, space and time deform depending on the direction and speed of the system. Soon, Einstein himself realized this, as well as the fact that his "General Theory of Relativity" was "nonsense²" because it violated almost every law of physics. But why deny what is selling very well? Well, man has to live - from something!

So every honor and glory to Mr. Einstein but save us God from all the "popularisers of science" and physics professors who don't know physics!

 

A good scientist is always looking for evidence to refute a theory, and a bad scientist is looking for evidence to support it (Popper)! That is why new theories should always be refuted, and if they are correct, they will be proven by themselves! So let's refute the "General Theory of Relativity" (GTR):

 

Is measuring time with two watches proof of GTR validity? If one traveler has two identical watches and leaves one at home and with the other, he goes on the road "GTR supposedly says each watch will show a different time?". How is that possible? If both watches are identical, how does the traveler know which watch he brought and which one he "left"? How does a traveler know which of these two watches is "stationary" and which one is moving? If a passenger noticed that one watch was hurrying by 1s then he must have noticed that another watch was delayed by 1s so the total result of his measurement was 1-1 = 0! If the traveler claimed to have measured different times then he would have refuted the initial thesis that he had two identical watches and applied the principle of relativity to them! In fact STR strictly "FORBIDDES" this "measurement", that is, the so-called "twin effect"!

 

Is the shift of the ray of light near the star evidence for the validity of the GTR? We have all heard of the Fermat principle, which says that light moves between two points so that it takes the least time, that is, the shortest path. If the GTR were correct then light would have to move through the gravitational field such that the incident angle of light into that field was equal to the light output angle from that field, so the observer should not really see any "displacement". But if an observer has noticed a shift of a beam of light near a massive star, this is evidence that an optical phenomenon called refraction or diffraction has occurred. Therefore, according to GTR, it is not at all possible to have a phenomenon called "gravity lensing" by "astrophysicists", but rather a phenomenon that real physicists call "fatamorgana".

 

Is the "discovery" of gravitational waves an GTR confirmation? So how was that experiment designed? "Physicists" are allegedly trying to measure the change in the length of some bodies due to the passage of a gravitational wave, ignoring the fact that the passage of that wave would also change the length of the meter by which they measure, so the measurement result should always be 0. But they supposedly measured something!? Nature teaches us that all stochastic processes that can influence this experiment are inherently made of similar fractals, so what is the "probability" that our experimenters have declared the invention of two similar fractals to be the discovery of gravitational waves. Quite. In addition, the most important feature of a good experiment is its reproducibility. And how many times did the gentlemen repeat their experiment? Not once! That is why performing such "blind" experiments is complete nonsense.

 

Is the happening in an elevator, which is in free fall for the passenger of that elevator, proof that there is no gravity? Yes, until the elevator lands in the basement, then the passenger will realize the gravity and deformation of their space and the shortening of their length and time (of life). So how can anyone believe such nonsense? Well, in Newton's law of force F = ma, all members of the equation (F, m, a) are constants, while in Newton's law of gravity F_G = mg is a constant only mass m, while F_G, and g are variables because g = GM/r². That is why anyone who says "g = constant" and that "g" and "a" can be replaced, or canceled, is telling us nonsense. Well, we already realized this in elementary school!

 

Does our space have more than 3 dimensions? Is time a 4th dimension? No. It is not. If our space had more than three dimensions then God would probably give us senses for those dimensions as well. Instead, we were given a MIND which, by using the IDEA of TIME as a category of MIND (Kant), realizes its three-dimensional space and the cause-and-effect flow of phenomena and the movements of matter and energy within it. The MIND realizes that it is in a space filled by countless harmonic oscillators, and he uses one of them as a reference (clock) to describe and recognize the movements of all others by means of it. Long ago, one smart MIND told the others: We must first comprehend "self"!

 

Where is my crank stamp at, I just had it.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by VictorMedvil