Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong

[Vmedvil2]

You are too far into Einstein to be able to take a step back and do revision.

That thumbnail shows exactly the reason why we need to take the speed of the wave, (Light, water, sound) and ADD or SUBTRACT our speed, meaning that we must measure incoming light at C +v or c - v.

 

This is not a difficult concept.

The light itself never changes speed, its only that we measure it as the combined velocity. 

This is where we all were before Einstein came along and said it was wrong, but neglected to explain why it was wrong, or how it could even be possible.

 

Ill stick with the rational understanding  of the addition of speeds thanks.

 

Because I've never heard a reasonable excuse to justify the acceptance of Einsteins version.

I am sick of arguing with people about SR, SR is correct and whatever you are saying is wrong, sorry but about every month this topic gets brought up and I don't feel like rehashing the stuff that has already been put up on this forum about how whatever you are saying is wrong and that SR is correct.

 

I will say this though your method that you have mentioned would allow light to move faster than light, which is impossible. There is no aether, SR disproved the aether theory, light does not move in one direction faster than light or slower than light.

Edited July 21, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

You are the type of person that goes into prison and punches the biggest dude in the mouth on  the first day aren't you?

So is that your best effort at a scientific statement?

[marcospolo]

No I'm just not a dumbass with imaginary zigzags of light that move faster then light, regardless of my position.

What sort of dumbass are you then?

The imaginary zig zags are not my idea, they are Relativists, and they don't move faster than light, so I really don't follow your thought process.

[marcospolo]

I am sick of arguing with people about SR, SR is correct and whatever you are saying is wrong, sorry but about every month this topic gets brought up and I don't feel like rehashing the stuff that has already been put up on this forum about how whatever you are saying is wrong and that SR is correct.

 

I will say this though your method that you have mentioned would allow light to move faster than light, which is impossible. There is no aether, SR disproved the aether theory, light does not move in one direction faster than light or slower than light.

Well you really don't know much about SR or Einstein then.

My (classical Physics) method does not ever claim that Light can move faster than it does. You are wrong in your lack of understanding about this.

Also, its only "impossible" because you THINK it must be, you don't actually know, its not guaranteed, and I don't know either. Stop making wild unsupported claims. 

 

Einstein himself says there MUST be an ether, and it was never disproved in any way by SR, or by the M&M experiment. That's one conclusion, but its not the only conclusion possible.

How come you guys are so cock sure of yourselves over things that we really don't have enough information about? I would err on the side of caution myself.

 

I never said light moves in any direction faster or slower than "light speed", YOU are inferring this stupid conclusion, if you think that a photon  in a light clock, mounted in a fast moving ship, would be seen as a zig zag.  (it cant be) 

 

To add another level of confusion, (god knows you are confused enough already) Einstein himself was quite happy to state that the speed of light is NOT constant even in a vacuum, it could go faster or slower by virtue of nothing more than its current location in the vacuum of space, which Einstein agreed constituted an "absolute un-moving ether", which he said was ESSENTIAL if we wanted to understand Physics.

 

These statements of Einstein were made after 1920, he retracted his original claims that the ether does not exist, and the other claim that light speed is always c in even a vacuum.  (which can only mean that he was hinting that his 1905 paper was incorrect, as SR cant work if light speed is not constant or there is no possible "absoluteness" to space.)

 

So, don't go calling me names, call your god Einstein names.

 

And you don't even have to be a genius to realize that if someone is claiming that light has an ABSOLUTE speed of c, then that means that there MUST be an ABSOLUTE "NOT c".   If light speed is "absolute", then that speed c minus 300 million meters per second constitutes an ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY position. This is Einstein's "new ether". (really its the old ether too)

 

Saying the light speed is absolute positive without having the opposite possibility is counter to every concept or observation man has ever made in every field of science.

Edited July 21, 2020 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

" If light speed is "absolute", then that speed c minus 300 million meters per second constitutes an ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY position. "

 

And you said you didn't believe in math. c-c=0, brilliant! Except it's not.

 

PS To be precise there's a different answer if your talking about closing speed (ans= 0) as opposed to relative velocity (ans=c) which is subject to the relativistic velocity combo formula).

Edited July 21, 2020 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

Marcos;

 

facts 1-8

Your facts are distorted.

My basic source is the 1905 paper, OTEOMB.

Einstein's 'principle of relativity' used the real world example of induction, as a case for relative motion, and the failure of the MM experiment to detect absolute motion, as a basis for Special Relativity. He could find no need for an absolute reference frame.

As usual, the theory is based on the work of others before him.

SR is restricted to inertial (constant velocity) motion, and insignificant effects of mass, thus the title.

He includes the effects of SR on spatial and time measurements, electrodynamics, doppler effects, the electron, etc. which would have to include fundamental constants.

Relativistic mass increase has been corrected to kinetic energy increase, since rest mass is constant.

Most experimental evidence is in agreement with SR.

In 1915 he completed the extended General Relativity to include gravitational effects, but removed the constant light speed restriction.

Most experimental evidence is in agreement with GR, with new experiments being planned.

Length contraction is another manifestation of time dilation.

 

It may not be a final theory, but is much improved over previous ones.

[marcospolo]

" If light speed is "absolute", then that speed c minus 300 million meters per second constitutes an ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY position. "

 

And you said you didn't believe in math. c-c=0, brilliant! Except it's not.

This is sensible?

" c-c=0, brilliant! Except it's not"?

[Orion]

The fact you keep trying to push this is just amazing.

The only way what you suggest happens is if light bounces off of the wave guides. (That's not something you can argue.)
To do that after the first initial Bounce on the inside wall it would have to increase its speed to catch up with the outside wall to even get a second bounce.

Which is impossible. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Orion

[marcospolo]

 

Marcos;

 

 

facts 1-8

 

Your facts are distorted.

My basic source is the 1905 paper, OTEOMB.

Einstein's 'principle of relativity' used the real world example of induction, as a case for relative motion, and the failure of the MM experiment to detect absolute motion, as a basis for Special Relativity. He could find no need for an absolute reference frame.

As usual, the theory is based on the work of others before him.

SR is restricted to inertial (constant velocity) motion, and insignificant effects of mass, thus the title.

He includes the effects of SR on spatial and time measurements, electrodynamics, doppler effects, the electron, etc. which would have to include fundamental constants.

Relativistic mass increase has been corrected to kinetic energy increase, since rest mass is constant.

Most experimental evidence is in agreement with SR.

In 1915 he completed the extended General Relativity to include gravitational effects, but removed the constant light speed restriction.

Most experimental evidence is in agreement with GR, with new experiments being planned.

Length contraction is another manifestation of time dilation.

 

It may not be a final theory, but is much improved over previous ones.

 

There was nothing wrong with the previous theory of classical Physics.

If light speed is not a constant, then bang goes the 1905 hypothesis. 

If space can be considered as an absolute frame in which to do physics, then again, bang goes Special Relativity.

Does Einsteins have to come back from the dead to smack you in the face with these facts?

What experimental experiments confirm either SR or GR?

Nothing that cant be better explained by classical principals, with out the magical stuff of Einstein.

 

Which part of the "curved spacetime" concept being nothing but a pure mathematical construct never intended to describe reality don't you understand?

To spell it out for you, in the simplest term possible, a "pure mathematical construct" is an IMAGINARY conceptual mathematical method, and bears no resemblance to the real universe.

 

Nah, you guys got nothing. Its all an imaginary fantasy pseudo scientific world you live in in your heads.

 

Name one solid experiment that could conclusively be claimed to only be able to be explained by GR.  You have none for SR. (but you do have lots of paradoxes)

Length Contraction has never been observed, nor has Time Dilation. Clocks dont keep accurate time under varying conditions, but that's hardly evidence for Time changing. Just shitty clocks.

You don't get to pick the possibility you like the most. It is more likely and sensible that clocks just don't keep the correct rates under different physical conditions, than "Time has warped".

 

Come on guys, you are beating a dead horse with Einsteins silly theories.

 

Physics is much more interesting without the irrational SR and GR crap.

[Orion]

The fact you keep trying to push this is just amazing.

The only way what you suggest happens is if light bounces off of the wave guides. (That's not something you can argue.)
To do that after the first initial Bounce on the inside wall it would have to increase its speed to catch up with the outside wall to even get a second bounce.

Which is impossible. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Orion

[marcospolo]

The fact you keep trying to push this is just amazing.

 

The only way what you suggest happens is if light bounces off of the wave guides. (That's not something you can argue.)

To do that after the first initial Bounce on the inside wall it would have to increase its speed to catch up with the outside wall to even get a second bounce.

Which is impossible. 

I know, I'm amazing. Thanks.

I'm not sure I follow your idea here, I'm talking about the light clock in a fast moving ship.

To be sure, watch my video which explains even for the simplest minds, the ONLY possible thing that could happen for a photon expected to bounce between two mirrors, if those mirrors are moved away at very high speed.  The "photon is not influenced by the motion of either the source or the target", so there is not other option than what the video shows.

[Orion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_3wQHcm_Y
 

The fact you keep trying to push this is just amazing.

The only way what you suggest happens is if light bounces off of the wave guides. (That's not something you can argue.)
To do that after the first initial Bounce on the inside wall it would have to increase its speed to catch up with the outside wall to even get a second bounce.

Which is impossible. 

[Dubbelosix]

Zig zag motion does not mean it has moved faster than light in the moving fame but it does mean from the stationary frame light has slowed down in the of moving frame from respect of the rest frame. The only way to solve the paradox is through a preferred frame of reference I'm a Lorentz violation.

[Dubbelosix]

The fact you keep trying to push this is just amazing.

 

The only way what you suggest happens is if light bounces off of the wave guides. (That's not something you can argue.)

To do that after the first initial Bounce on the inside wall it would have to increase its speed to catch up with the outside wall to even get a second bounce.

Which is impossible.

Exactly.

[Dubbelosix]

I argue the first bit though lol with you arguing... See light is a propagator with wave packets. It has itself a guiding wave that can move faster than light but should not contain a photon.

[Dubbelosix]

No, a Lorentz violation just means that certain cornerstones are violated. For instance, the matter over antimatter is a special case of a Lotentz violation in special relativity.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[OceanBreeze]

I know, I'm amazing. Thanks.

I'm not sure I follow your idea here, I'm talking about the light clock in a fast moving ship.

To be sure, watch my video which explains even for the simplest minds, the ONLY possible thing that could happen for a photon expected to bounce between two mirrors, if those mirrors are moved away at very high speed.  The "photon is not influenced by the motion of either the source or the target", so there is not other option than what the video shows.

 

Ah, I see marcospolo has returned once again, but with the same tired old arguments.

 

OK Marcos, keep in mind that this is a thought experiment:

 

What if the light clock is at rest with respect to you, the observer?

 

Do you agree the beam of light will be seen as moving up and down vertically?

 

Now, keep the LC at rest and you are moving inertially (without acceleration) at some high speed, say 0.8c, relative to the LC, horizontally.

 

What would you see? I predict you would have to see the beam of light traversing a zigzag path as seen from your frame that is moving relative to the stationary LC.

 

If you disagree, explain why.

 

Do you agree with the Galilean principle of relative motion?

 

If so, then you will have to agree that if it is you that is at rest, and the LC that is moving at 0.8c, you will see the exact same zigzag motion.

 

If there is a difference, you are then denying even Galilean physics, which you claim to believe in.