Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong

[ralfcis]

Hey Popeye, you're too busy to be engaged in this. I thought you were busy finding flaws in my "crank" ideas.

[marcospolo]

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. 

watch the video, i forgot to provide the link before.

This is the only possible action of the photon. 

If you want to know why plotting a parabolic curve of a ball that is tossed up and down in a moving vehicle is just an illusion, watch this video:

[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.

 

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).

I know you have some theory of your own, and love math more than women, but the only equation required for relative velocities is "measured velocity of light = c + v,  or c-v." these equations work perfectly.

[marcospolo]

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.

No, you are making a fatal error of rational thinking.

First, (talking about the zig zag clock thing) it does NOT necessarily mean that light has slowed down in any frame at all.

This is a false conclusion based on your incorrect assessment of whats happening. Of course you will get a wrong conclusion.

 

And the statement, "the only way to resolve the paradox is such and such math tricks....",  again is an error of rational thinking.

The correct solution is that there is NO paradox.  The very fact that you believe there is some paradox, is a red flag that your thinking is wrong somewhere.

There is no paradox, because no that photon will never make a zigzag path ever, nor will it be able to keep bouncing between the mirrors because you have moved the mirrors away before the photon got there! 

 

The photon does not have a AI guidance system to always track the mirrors no matter what you do with them.

[marcospolo]

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.

and you all know this about Light because your Casio calculator told you so?

Wave packet?  Guiding waves?  Photons"  really you've see these yourself?  Or are they yet more concepts invented by people in an effort to try to explain how Light could possibly work?

You KNOW that the "guiding wave" can go faster but the photon can't?   Is that a inbuilt function on your Casio too?

[marcospolo]

Exactly.

This is the level of your science understanding, go back and learn more from the next episode of the Simpsons.

[marcospolo]

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.

I can claim that you have the "tired old arguments", so again you just cant discuss Physics ideas rationally, you always need to make personal attacks against anyone who does not agree with your own cherished faith based beliefs.

Now this is going to come as a shock to you, but you have an unnatural, unhealthy  obsession with Galilio's and Newton's concepts of "reference frames".

I hate to break it to you, but THEY DON'T EXIST!

They are imaginary geometric constructs useful sometimes to aid in the assessment of distances and velocities between objects of particular interest. If I am not trying to measure anything, then I never need to invent any frames ever.

I'm happy to just observe whats going on.

You should be able to figure out that your obsession with IMAGINARY Inertial Frames of reference has become mental health issue, when you are willing to accept Einstein's claim that  a train carriage can rightfully claim that the Earth is doing all the moving under it, while it remains stationary.

A sane person stops right at this point, and thinks quietly to himself, "this is BS".

 

But Einstein does not stop there, he has a dozen really insane Paradoxes stacked against his theories, all of which are dismissed with the most ridiculous excuses ever heard.

 

But apparently doing the math is great fun for math nerds.

 

I personally find Physics more interesting.

 

So, in answer to your question, No, I would never "see" the photon (itself a myth) doing a zig zag under any conditions.

If it were even possible to bounce a photon or a very short light pulse between two mirrors, (which its not) I would see that pulse bouncing between the two mirrors while I zoom past. 

Exactly like I see a man tossing a ball up and down, while I drive past in my car. I never see the ball doing a parabola.

I never "see" a particular spot on a train wheel moving backwards in relation to the forward direction of the Train. 

What I see is the wheel and train moving horizontally as the wheel rolls.

No part of the wheel has magically reversed direction and momentarily gone back the way it came. It would be a great mechanical advantage to cut that spot out of the wheel, as a lot of wasted energy could be recovered!

 

What SEEMS to be going "backward" is only a graphical PLOT of a chosen spot on the wheel rim, that as been superimposed on an imaginary background structure. 

I just posted a very short video showing that these plots are NOT representing Physics. 

If these PLOTS were real, then the engineering calculations to decide the required strength of the axle for example, must include the fact that, from the wheels Frame of Reference, (IMAGINARY) that axle must be able to support the whole weight of the earth as the Earth revolves around the stationary wheel!

 

So I never HAVE to conclude ANYTHING about my "state of rest", or lights "imaginary frame of reference" , so I never get into the problems such as those that befuddle your mind, and cause you to think irrationally, resulting in a an endless series of Paradoxes and wacky math.

Edited July 22, 2020 by marcospolo

[Dubbelosix]

Before you make more silly claims, look up the phase and group velocity in regards to the guiding wave packet of a photon.

[marcospolo]

 

 

This is all we needed to hear.   dumbass.

 

Try not to be a dickhead, i realize that's going to be hard, but try.

If you have something about Physics to say in response to my sentence, then explain yourself.

I find your childish baseless remarks are revealing your level of intelligence. And its not looking good.

[marcospolo]

Before you make more silly claims, look up the phase and group velocity in regards to the guiding wave packet of a photon.

What? more weird ideas that i'm supposed to just accept because some scientist says he knows what he is talking about?

What about looking up all the critical assessments of those views? 

Anyway, I'm not done with Einsteins nonsense yet. 

If Mainstream science endorses Einstein, then I don't hold out much hope for some other wacky mainstream theories about how light is supposed to work.

 

What possible reason would you have to think for a second that there is a "group speed  or a wave packet"? 

Its just more stabs in the dark by people who think they are smarter than the average.

 

The smartest guy when asked about such things said, "I don't know".

At least he was honest.

So before you send me off on wild goose chases about "wave packets", you need to decide if the concept is really just a interesting idea by a guy with a good imagination, or its solid Physics.

"Wave packets" and "group speed" are just imaginative concepts, not any more real than Santa.

Edited July 22, 2020 by marcospolo

[Vmedvil2]

What? more weird ideas that i'm supposed to just accept because some scientist says he knows what he is talking about?

What about looking up all the critical assessments of those views? 

Anyway, I'm not don't with Einsteins nonsense yet. 

If Mainstream science endorses Einstein, then I don't hold out much hope for some other wacky mainstream theories about how light is supposed to work.

 

What possible reason would you have to think for a second that there is a "group speed  or a wave packet"? 

Its just more stabs in the dark by people who think they are smarter than the average.

 

The smartest guy when asked about such things said, "I don't know".

At least he was honest.

So before you send me off on wild goose chases about "wave packets", you need to decide if the concept is really just a interesting idea by a guy with a good imagination, or its solid Physics.

"Wave packets" and "group speed" are just imaginative concepts, not any more real than Santa.

Special Relativity is experimentally proven to be true and so are wave packets it seems you are the one living in a fantasy, these both being theories that are correct and accepted in physics. 

[marcospolo]

Special Relativity is experimentally proven to be true and so are wave packets it seems you are the one living in a fantasy, these both being theories that are correct and accepted in physics. 

SR has not been experimentally proven.

When was Length contraction observed?  (not in some electron acceleration type experiment, {which is open to many interpretations} no, show an actual length of a physical rod, contracting?)

When was Time shown to be locally dilating?  Clocks running at differing rates is not TIME, its CLOCKS running inaccurately. 

When was Mass of an object shown to be greater?  (not another sub-sub atomic invisible particle "observation", no, show me a 1kg mass growing more massive, or its just conjecture on your part.

 

But worse than this, is the fact you love to totally ignore:-

 

THE HYPOTHESIS IS IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL,  CONTRADICTORY, and the CONCLUSIONS are NONSENSE. Plus the MATH is rubbish.

So how come you are getting supporting evidence for a rubbish hypothesis?

 

Every experiment you have is involving invisible theoretical "particles", distances impossible to imagine, and measurements of practically nothing, 

 

And in EVERY case, there are far simpler explanations that don't involve having to believe in magic.

 

You have bought into a cult like belief system, and are lost in a morass of complex mathematical jargon, that cant be shown to represent what we actually observe.

 

One result of this delusion is the insane statement of Physicists that the universe is hiding 97% or itself, in the form of impossible to detect Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Where did these ideas come from?

Well, when the Einstein based Physics was applied to observation of the Galaxies, the numbers were wildly inaccurate, so, instead of admitting that the was clearly something very wrong with Einsteins theories, the Cult member Relativists had to pull out of thin air, without any observational evidence or even rationality, the concept that almost all of the observed Universe was impossible to see, measure, detect or even comprehend.

 

If you really accept this as a reasonable explanation then you are truly mentally ill.

 

The fact that "the scientific community" accepts this is just demonstrating that the community is just a bunch of wacked out cult members that believe in their own special status of self claimed superiority.

[Vmedvil2]

SR has not been experimentally proven.

When was Length contraction observed?  (not in some electron acceleration type experiment, {which is open to many interpretations} no, show an actual length of a physical rod, contracting?)

When was Time shown to be locally dilating?  Clocks running at differing rates is not TIME, its CLOCKS running inaccurately. 

When was Mass of an object shown to be greater?  (not another sub-sub atomic invisible particle "observation", no, show me a 1kg mass growing more massive, or its just conjecture on your part.

 

But worse than this, is the fact you love to totally ignore:-

 

THE HYPOTHESIS IS IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL,  CONTRADICTORY, and the CONCLUSIONS are NONSENSE. Plus the MATH is rubbish.

So how come you are getting supporting evidence for a rubbish hypothesis?

 

Every experiment you have is involving invisible theoretical "particles", distances impossible to imagine, and measurements of practically nothing, 

 

And in EVERY case, there are far simpler explanations that don't involve having to believe in magic.

 

You have bought into a cult like belief system, and are lost in a morass of complex mathematical jargon, that cant be shown to represent what we actually observe.

 

One result of this delusion is the insane statement of Physicists that the universe is hiding 97% or itself, in the form of impossible to detect Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Where did these ideas come from?

Well, when the Einstein based Physics was applied to observation of the Galaxies, the numbers were wildly inaccurate, so, instead of admitting that the was clearly something very wrong with Einsteins theories, the Cult member Relativists had to pull out of thin air, without any observational evidence or even rationality, the concept that almost all of the observed Universe was impossible to see, measure, detect or even comprehend.

 

If you really accept this as a reasonable explanation then you are truly mentally ill.

 

The fact that "the scientific community" accepts this is just demonstrating that the community is just a bunch of wacked out cult members that believe in their own special status of self claimed superiority.

crank 

n. a crazy person, especially someone who purports to be a scientist or inventor who has discovered the answer to some important problem facing mankind, like curing all diseases, unlimited energy, levitation, aliens, etc.

 

He defends his claims with the most ridiculous pseudoscientific crankisms, and claims that the government/mainstream science/experts are suppressing the truth.

Sometimes cranks are businesspeople, selling such wares as Q-ray bracelets that align your chi using q ions to give you enhanced energy.

 

Probably the best known internet crank is Gene Ray, for his Time Cube site.

Edited July 23, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

 

crank 

n. a crazy person, especially someone who purports to be a scientist or inventor who has discovered the answer to some important problem facing mankind, like curing all diseases, unlimited energy, levitation, aliens, etc.

 

He defends his claims with the most ridiculous pseudoscientific crankisms, and claims that the government/mainstream science/experts are suppressing the truth.

Sometimes cranks are businesspeople, selling such wares as Q-ray bracelets that align your chi using q ions to give you enhanced energy.

 

Probably the best known internet crank is Gene Ray, for his Time Cube site.

 

IDIOT: 

Person who cant answer simple questions but thinks that personal attacks solve the problem.

See:  VictorMedvil.

[sluggo]

Marcos;

 

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.
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?
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".

 

Classical physics was a first approximation to a general theory of physics. Human thinking tends to start with the simplest concepts that explain the known behavior of the universe. As experimentation expands into new and unknown areas, revision is typically required.

Here (edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/index.html) is a source of experimental verification of SR.

Time dilation was detected for particles in accelerators vs the same particles at rest.

SLAC, a linear accelerator at Standford U., California, has for 50 yrs, studied electrons at near light speed. Length contraction is detected indirectly via the increased electric field intensity resulting from deformation. O. Heaviside predicted this in 1889 using Maxwell's equations. People other than Einstein, contributed to the 1905 theory.

GR explained the rotation of Mercury's orbit, where Newton could not.

Inquire to NIST, their business is 'time'. They will tell you, all clocks (including atomic) lose time from the effects of motion and gravity. It's not random variation but predictable and measurable. The GPS system is corrected daily, because so much human activity is dependent on it.

 

I see a curved path in space vs a path in curved space, so don't make decisions on my behalf. I have my own opinions of 'Relativity'. Do more research and get up to date.

You may feel comfortable with older simpler science, but most people would not want to regress to the primitive practices of yesterday.

[sluggo]

Marcos;

 

Some one mentioned 'gap' speed.

 

Let's consider a simple problem in basic algebra.

You are observing from the bank.

The criminal robs a bank and speeds away in a car at 50 mph.

The police begin a chase in a car at 60 mph, after a sighting of the robber 1 mile away. How soon do they overtake the robbers car?

For the robber, x=1+50t.

For the police, x=60t.

If 60t=50t+1, then t=1/(60-50)=1/10 hr =6 min.

There are 2 objects in motion, at 50 and 60 mph.

There is NOTHING moving at 10 mph.

The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of 10 mph.

The gap is not an object, but a spatial relation relative to the cars.

 

Using the same scenario,

You are observing from the space station launching the device.

A mirror is fixed .3m (1 nanosec) distant from an emitter in the x direction.

The device is moving in space at .6c in the x direction.

A light pulse is emitted at t=0. How soon does the pulse overtake the mirror?

For the mirror, x=1+.6t

For the pulse, x=t

If t=1+.6t,then t=1/(.4)=2.5 ns.

There are 2 objects in motion, at .6c and 1.0c.

There is NOTHING moving at .4c.

The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of .4c.

The gap is not an object, but a spatial relation relative to the pulse and the mirror.

 

1905 paper, par. 1

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

 

In the 1900's, 'velocity' was synonymous with 'speed', and direction was an additional statement. This is evident in the writings of Einstein and Born in publications on SR.

This allows for a change in direction, without a change in speed.

In the process of 'logical thinking', a light clock on the earth changes direction continuously in its orbit. If the vertical light component within the clock didn't adjust for direction, the clock would not function, yet it does. This would also be true of mechanical clocks, since atoms are governed by em interactions.

[marcospolo]

 

"Classical physics was a first approximation to a general theory of physics." 

No, its not, you are just making stuff up.

 

"Time dilation was detected for particles in accelerators vs the same particles at rest."

 

No, all observations in Particle accelerators are DERIVED via Math based on prior assumptions as to whats going on, no sub atomic particle can be observed, or measured, and one flying past at near light speed certainly cant be measured either.

 

Particle Accelerator Physics is on the fringe of real Physics, as its mostly like trying to figure out what the Universe looked like by examining cosmic dust, ans assuming that the dust must have once been a Planet. 

 

 

" Length contraction is detected indirectly via the increased electric field intensity resulting from deformation. O. Heaviside predicted this in 1889 using Maxwell's equations. "

Heavyside and Lorentz were trying to make excuses for the M&M experiment INTERPRETED results, that would allow them to keep Maxwell's equations in tact. Their efforts are adhoc solutions without any physical relationship. There is no reason to ASSUME that the electromagnetic field calculations of Maxwell are directly applicable to Physical matter. Its ADHOC, and was already an EXCUSE rather than a hypothesis.

 

 

"GR explained the rotation of Mercury's orbit, where Newton could not."

Newton did not explain, but 220 years later, we have more information, more data,  and computers, so others much later than Newton HAVE EXPLAINED using the basic Physics principals of Newton.

 

"Inquire to NIST, their business is 'time'. They will tell you, all clocks (including atomic) lose time from the effects of motion and gravity."

Oh yes, NIST, that would be the LIARS who REFUSED to examine the 911 debris for the presence of  explosives, despite the fact that its the LEGALLY binding procedure, and they claimed that they had "no reports of explosions"  Despite all the hundreds of reports by eye witnesses and even TV news recording of explosions, who used the exact words, MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS".

 

If anyone mentions the words "conspiracy theorist" in a derogatory way, then they are mindless sheep, incapable of any non approved thought. How can such people imagine they can do Physics with such boxed in, 'approved by the authorities',  and sealed thought?

 

 

"I see a curved path in space vs a path in curved space,"

If you "see" that in space, then you are delusional, there's nothing there anything like that. Einstein's spacetime is ONLY a MATH construct, he even said its not representing actual Reality.

 

 

"Do more research and get up to date."

Says the guy who is still following exactly a half baked idea from 1905.

 

 

" the primitive practices of yesterday."

 

Yes, those primitive Newtonian practices that have successfully put men on the moon, created the computer that you are using, and the TV that you watch Bevis and Butthead on. None of which required anything from the Physics that was supposed to overturn Newton. 

 

I've already said about a million times, that EXPERIMENTAL supportive evidence is NOT conclusive as it can always be interpreted by more than one hypothesis as to the meaning.

 

The ONLY way to decide if Einsteins work is worthy of a place in Physics is to CRITICALLY examine the hypothesis, a task that you ALWAYS refuse to do.