marcospolo Posted March 28, 2021 Author Report Posted March 28, 2021 9 minutes ago, write4u said: Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. To the observer in the box the effect is real and could be demonstrated by a camera. Indeed the observer can "calculate" the apparent deviation from a straight line to a diagonal or curved line, but the phenomenon is real. If the box were to travel downward, the effect would be reversed. Only to the man in the stationary box the light will travel in a direct straight horizontal line the shortest distance from wall to wall. This is somewhat similar to the doppler effect of an approaching or receding sound wave. A sound meter will in fact record the changes in pitch. It is up to the human to calculate the true pitch in between, when the sound source is stationary. After all that's predicted by the law of Special Realtivity, no? The claim of Einstein that because the man in a upward accelerating box of suitable acceleration, FEELS the same force as one that is on the Earth under gravity, is not rational grounds to claim that one is equivalent to the other. Gravity is NOT the same as Acceleration caused by motion, but in special cases the force experienced can seem the same. You don't think that an experiment can be done to determine if you are in one situation or another? Well its not hard to do, so bang goes Einsteins equivalence principal. Different Physics Laws are applicable for boxes under acceleration than are in play for a box on the Earth under gravity.
write4u Posted March 28, 2021 Report Posted March 28, 2021 (edited) 35 minutes ago, marcospolo said: Either way, Einstein is wrong. No, either way Einstein is correct. He explains the relative effects in all the possible scenarios. He is the one who privided the maths to do the calculations. He was the man in the box doing the calculations. 35 minutes ago, marcospolo said: Its interesting that with sound, the speed in air at sea level is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source. But the wave crests arrive with more frequently than they were generated if the source is moving towards an observer. Increasing the pitch but not the speed of each wave front. But to an observer moving towards the sound, he will measure the sound wave closing velocity as the speed of sound + his own velocity, and also having an increased pitch. I always liked the experiment of a train travelling at a high speed between two observers A and B, while sounding its whistle. Each man has a chromatic sound tuner which records the apparent actual pitch. When the two compare their results there will be a clear difference in pitch between the two recordings. These are true results but do not reflect the original pitch of the whistle emitted by the train if it were stationary. If asked each observer will tell the truth, but only one (C) can demonstrate the true pitch of the whistle at any speed To observer C on top of the moving train next to the whistle his recorder will record the true pitch that the whistle emits and which will lie between the recorded pitches of the observer A and B So, to the question of the true pitch of the train whistle, which observer speaks truth and which observer is wrong, the answer is that all three speak truth, but two are wrong. Only observer C speaks truth and is right. Edited March 28, 2021 by write4u
write4u Posted March 28, 2021 Report Posted March 28, 2021 (edited) It proves Einstein's posits of General and Special Relativity. He was never fooled by appearances. We are.....unless you are scientist.....☺️ Quote The statement that motion is relative is an important concept in physics. The meaning behind this statement is that the motion of an object is relative to either the frame of reference of the observer, or to another distinct frame of reference. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-meant-by-statement-that-motion-relative-624990 Edited March 28, 2021 by write4u
sluggo Posted March 28, 2021 Report Posted March 28, 2021 Marcos; Sorry for my lack of focus. In the HK experiment, there are other ways to represent it, especially since it involves absolute motion, rotation in 2 dimensions. There is no reciprocal td. The view is from above the South pole, showing the clocks varying speed of rotations relative to the earth center, and why the center is the common origin for this case. Since the earth radius R is 6400km, the aircraft paths would be very near the surface, and are shown at exaggerated heights for comparison. The speeds in km for W, G, and E would be 800, 1600, and 2400 respectively.
marcospolo Posted March 28, 2021 Author Report Posted March 28, 2021 4 hours ago, sluggo said: Marcos; Sorry for my lack of focus. In the HK experiment, there are other ways to represent it, especially since it involves absolute motion, rotation in 2 dimensions. There is no reciprocal td. The view is from above the South pole, showing the clocks varying speed of rotations relative to the earth center, and why the center is the common origin for this case. Since the earth radius R is 6400km, the aircraft paths would be very near the surface, and are shown at exaggerated heights for comparison. The speeds in km for W, G, and E would be 800, 1600, and 2400 respectively. Which part of this diagram shows any inertial frames of reference? Which part of an airplane flight is inertial? None are, so any math used to calculate imaginary time dilation would need to NOT simple be the math of Lorentz which is ONLY valid for pure inertial frames. Yet that's what they used, the wrong equations. In this diagram, which of the clocks on planes G and E would lose time and which would gain time? They both would experience time dilation, none could possibly experience negative time dilation, yet that's what they claimed. Clearly they were lying and making stuff up.
marcospolo Posted March 28, 2021 Author Report Posted March 28, 2021 7 hours ago, write4u said: It proves Einstein's posits of General and Special Relativity. He was never fooled by appearances. We are.....unless you are scientist.....☺️ https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-meant-by-statement-that-motion-relative-624990 Einsteins whole hypothesis is based totally on fooling you over relative motion, and what it is supposed to mean. Explain how a finite easily measurable speed of a photon, could still possible be measured at the same speed, even if you are flying alongside it at 99% light speed. Of lets just say 100% light speed, to make it easy. According to Einstein and every Physicist ever, "the Laws of Kinematics apply in ALL inertial frames of Reference", so, those laws dictate that the observer doing 100% c will measure light velocity as identical to himself, i.e, light is motionless relative to him. If you can explain that differently hen you are a magician, not a Physicist.
marcospolo Posted March 28, 2021 Author Report Posted March 28, 2021 8 hours ago, write4u said: No, either way Einstein is correct. He explains the relative effects in all the possible scenarios. He is the one who privided the maths to do the calculations. He was the man in the box doing the calculations. I always liked the experiment of a train travelling at a high speed between two observers A and B, while sounding its whistle. Each man has a chromatic sound tuner which records the apparent actual pitch. When the two compare their results there will be a clear difference in pitch between the two recordings. These are true results but do not reflect the original pitch of the whistle emitted by the train if it were stationary. If asked each observer will tell the truth, but only one (C) can demonstrate the true pitch of the whistle at any speed To observer C on top of the moving train next to the whistle his recorder will record the true pitch that the whistle emits and which will lie between the recorded pitches of the observer A and B So, to the question of the true pitch of the train whistle, which observer speaks truth and which observer is wrong, the answer is that all three speak truth, but two are wrong. Only observer C speaks truth and is right. If they are actual Physicists, and not high school students, every observer will use his instruments along with his knowledge of Physics to come up with the true pitch of the whistle. All 3 will have the same correct answer, each applying the laws of Physics to his measured result, and compensating if necessary. Einsteins does not allow this type of intelligent application of the laws of Physics in his SR hypothesis. The observer on the ship must remain a high school observer, ignorant of his condition, but the stationary observer does have all the necessary information. They are each working with a non comparable sets of data, and foolishly trying to do math on nonsense. In every hypothesis Einstein DEMANDS that one observer is ignorant, not possessing all of the necessary scientific facts, who then foolishly tries to do science. Einsteins is just a fraud, a deceiver.
write4u Posted March 28, 2021 Report Posted March 28, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, marcospolo said: If you can explain that differently hen you are a magician, not a Physicist. I am neither a scientist, nor a magician, but I used to be a professional musician. First, I have absolutely no problem understanding SR. In the train thought- experiment all three observers ARE telling the truth, but that only proves Einstein's theory. To the observers the whistle is experienced in three different pitches, of which only one can be said to be the basic pitch as produced by the train whistle. The 2 other recorded pitches are relative observations as experiences from the point of observation. GR is a different animal and more complicated, but even as I don't understand all the emergent relativistic states, I can certainly identify with the concept, that when I see a star in deep space, that star may no longer exist, because during the time of its light to reach earth the star may have gone nova and is long gone. Observation from different frames creates relativistic results. As to "c", I agree that is truly a bizarre process at the limits of expression in reality itself. I have a personal concept of the "quantum" phenomenon. I make no claims of any kind, but I'll posit my personal take. If fundamental reality occurs by production and renewal of quanta then there must be an accommodation for a quantum to renew itself. In a quantized world there can be no continuity, and each quantum requires an instant of renewal in reality, by whatever mechanism that happens. But even a single instant means that during the renewal of that quantum over distance the instants add up up to duration...."c". My question is what happens to the quantum during its instant renewal into the next quantum. It must disappear before the new quantum can become expressed, no? I visualize an incredibly short length of time where the quantum state is in a type of suspension and no longer exists, just for an instant, before a new quantum materializes.. IOW, we experience only 50% of reality, as it oscillates between On/Off/On, which of course happens at a rate completely unnoticable to us, but is noticable in the Cern collider, where the Higs boson was realized for a incredibly short time. Quote How long does a Higgs boson last? Scientists may have observed the Higgs boson doing a new trick: creating pairs of muons. The existence of the Higgs boson is fleeting — once it pops up, the particle "lives" for just 15.6 thousand-billion-billions (1.56x10^-22) of a second — almost immediately breaking apart into other particles.Oct 20, 2020 https://www.livescience.com/lhc-higgs-boson-decay-muon-pairs.html Does that count as a quantum event? Edited March 28, 2021 by write4u
marcospolo Posted March 29, 2021 Author Report Posted March 29, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, write4u said: SEE INSERTED COMMENTS First, I have absolutely no problem understanding SR. In the train thought- experiment all three observers ARE telling the truth, but that only proves Einstein's theory. To the observers the whistle is experienced in three different pitches, of which only one can be said to be the basic pitch as produced by the train whistle. The 2 other recorded pitches are relative observations as experiences from the point of observation. GR is a different animal and more complicated, but even as I don't understand all the emergent relativistic states, I can certainly identify with the concept, that when I see a star in deep space, that star may no longer exist, because during the time of its light to reach earth the star may have gone nova and is long gone. Observation from different frames creates relativistic results. OK nothing of what you just said required Einsteins relativity. Its all just Galilean Relativity so far. Just regular old relative motion and the understanding that starlight takes time to traverses a distance. All just classical physics. As to "c", I agree that is truly a bizarre process at the limits of expression in reality itself. No, Einsteins claim about Light speed is IMPOSSIBLE, not just a bit strange. I have a personal concept of the "quantum" phenomenon. I make no claims of any kind, but I'll posit my personal take. The whole concept of everything being "quanta" is nonsense. That's about all QM is worth as far as a comment goes. Nothing that CERN does counts as rational science. Its like looking at tea leaves in the bottom of a cup and trying to use that as a basis of science. They use pseudo science from places like CERN and LIGO to prop up pathetic theories like SR, GR and Quantum. If fundamental reality occurs by production and renewal of quanta then there must be an accommodation for a quantum to renew itself. In a quantized world there can be no continuity, and each quantum requires an instant of renewal in reality, by whatever mechanism that happens. But even a single instant means that during the renewal of that quantum over distance the instants add up up to duration...."c". My question is what happens to the quantum during its instant renewal into the next quantum. It must disappear before the new quantum can become expressed, no? I visualize an incredibly short length of time where the quantum state is in a type of suspension and no longer exists, just for an instant, before a new quantum materializes.. IOW, we experience only 50% of reality, as it oscillates between On/Off/On, which of course happens at a rate completely unnoticable to us, but is noticable in the Cern collider, where the Higs boson was realized for a incredibly short time. https://www.livescience.com/lhc-higgs-boson-decay-muon-pairs.html Does that count as a quantum event? Edited March 29, 2021 by marcospolo clarification
write4u Posted March 30, 2021 Report Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) On 3/28/2021 at 6:40 PM, marcospolo said: OK nothing of what you just said required Einsteins relativity. Its all just Galilean Relativity so far. Just regular old relative motion and the understanding that starlight takes time to traverses a distance. All just classical physics. I didn't say it required SR. I said it was an example of SR On 3/28/2021 at 6:40 PM, marcospolo said: No, Einsteins claim about Light speed is IMPOSSIBLE, not just a bit strange. That's way beyond my knowledge except that your comment is contrary to mainstream science, AFAIK. Can you explain why "c" is impossible and what replaces "c" as a limit? On 3/28/2021 at 6:40 PM, marcospolo said: The whole concept of everything being "quanta" is nonsense. That's about all QM is worth as far as a comment goes. Nothing that CERN does counts as rational science. Its like looking at tea leaves in the bottom of a cup and trying to use that as a basis of science. They use pseudo science from places like CERN and LIGO to prop up pathetic theories like SR, GR and Quantum. If the concept of "quanta" is nonsense, can you explain what replaces QM? Edited March 30, 2021 by write4u
sluggo Posted March 30, 2021 Report Posted March 30, 2021 Marcos; Which part of this diagram shows any inertial frames of reference? Which part of an airplane flight is inertial? None are, so any math used to calculate imaginary time dilation would need to NOT simple be the math of Lorentz which is ONLY valid for pure inertial frames. Yet that's what they used, the wrong equations. In this diagram, which of the clocks on planes G and E would lose time and which would gain time? They both would experience time dilation, none could possibly experience negative time dilation, yet that's what they claimed. Clearly they were lying and making stuff up. [The arrows are clock paths for West, Ground, and East. They would overlap at the surface (90° arc) due to the scale of the drawing, and farther above only for clarity. From the pov of the G clock, W is moving west and E is moving east, but H & K weren't interested in that. It was the time dilation of the three clocks relative to the earth center. That's the 'relativity' idea, motion must be relative to a reference point.] There is only one factor introduced via relativity theory, the Lorentz/gamma factor. It is a function of v/c or speed used to calculate time dilation. The reason for that is, light propagation in space/vacuum is constant and INDEPENDENT of the source, the caps the key word. The circular paths are constant speed and can be treated as inertial paths, for the purpose of calculating translational td. Additionally the gravitational td is calculated for the airplane altitude, approx. 9000 m for both.] [All clocks lose time via motion and gravitational fields. Only the differences can be measured. The W clock loses less than the G clock, which loses less than the E clock, when compared in the earth center ref. frame. When compared relative to the G clock, W clock rate is faster and E clock rate is slower. That's where some of the confusion originates. In GR, a clock runs faster the farther away from the mass. It gains time, relative to a surface clock. It is actually recovering time lost if it had not approached the mass or was built on the surface. The equation for this is not the same as for translational td.]
marcospolo Posted March 30, 2021 Author Report Posted March 30, 2021 15 hours ago, write4u said: I didn't say it required SR. I said it was an example of SR That's way beyond my knowledge except that your comment is contrary to mainstream science, AFAIK. Can you explain why "c" is impossible and what replaces "c" as a limit? If the concept of "quanta" is nonsense, can you explain what replaces QM? Its not an example of SR if it is already an example of classical Physics, the two are opposite claims. "C" is not impossible, its the assumed finite limit of the speed of light in a vacuum. Assumed because its impossible to verify in a one way experiment. What I said is that its impossible to have an observer who is traveling alongside a photon, at 90% of the speed of the Photon, yet somehow still measure that photons speed as c. This is supposed to be true even if the observer is doing 90% c in the opposite direction. This cannot be demonstrated, its flies in the face of all experiment regarding finite relative velocities, and no one has even been able to explain how it might work, in a ration manner. You just have to acept it without thought. Quanta is a math tool that is used by Mathematicians to make their equation fit what we think we are observing. QM a STORY that tries to put something difficult to understand, into a metaphorical structure to make it able to be visualized. But its not a description of reality. It is taken at face value because people forget that its a story. We then get errors of logic that end up with the stupid claims such as: a quantum particle can be here, there and everywhere while also being nowhere all at once. So QM as Physics is nonsense, but as a Math tool is might be useful, but math is itself like a rubber band, able to be stretched around any theory irrespective of how silly the hypothesis may be. So I don't need to propose a replacement for a nonsense hypothesis, in order to say we need to dump it now. What sane person holds on to a dead, rotten fish until he catches a fresh one?
marcospolo Posted March 30, 2021 Author Report Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, sluggo said: Marcos; Which part of this diagram shows any inertial frames of reference? Which part of an airplane flight is inertial? None are, so any math used to calculate imaginary time dilation would need to NOT simple be the math of Lorentz which is ONLY valid for pure inertial frames. Yet that's what they used, the wrong equations. In this diagram, which of the clocks on planes G and E would lose time and which would gain time? They both would experience time dilation, none could possibly experience negative time dilation, yet that's what they claimed. Clearly they were lying and making stuff up. [The arrows are clock paths for West, Ground, and East. They would overlap at the surface (90° arc) due to the scale of the drawing, and farther above only for clarity. From the pov of the G clock, W is moving west and E is moving east, but H & K weren't interested in that. It was the time dilation of the three clocks relative to the earth center. That's the 'relativity' idea, motion must be relative to a reference point.] There is only one factor introduced via relativity theory, the Lorentz/gamma factor. It is a function of v/c or speed used to calculate time dilation. The reason for that is, light propagation in space/vacuum is constant and INDEPENDENT of the source, the caps the key word. The circular paths are constant speed and can be treated as inertial paths, for the purpose of calculating translational td. Additionally the gravitational td is calculated for the airplane altitude, approx. 9000 m for both.] [All clocks lose time via motion and gravitational fields. Only the differences can be measured. The W clock loses less than the G clock, which loses less than the E clock, when compared in the earth center ref. frame. When compared relative to the G clock, W clock rate is faster and E clock rate is slower. That's where some of the confusion originates. In GR, a clock runs faster the farther away from the mass. It gains time, relative to a surface clock. It is actually recovering time lost if it had not approached the mass or was built on the surface. The equation for this is not the same as for translational td.] Nonsense. A number of critics (over the last 100 years) of Einsteins Special Relativity have presented papers that use experimental evidence to demonstrate that SR is incorrect, and they use circular motion. Without exception, these proposals never got past stage one, and were tossed out because they were not inertial motion. Now when it suits you, you are pronouncing that circle is close enough to straight line. Also you are discarding ALL of the conditions that Einstein set out for SR, namely, Inertial straight line motion, neither accelerating or decelerating, and no where near any gravitation field. So when it suits you its Ok to totally ignore every one of the core conditions that Einstein set out, for his SR math to be valid. But you have an even bigger problem with e H&K experiment. According to Einstein, (and you really should be able to demonstrate the H&F experiment did really match what Einstein claimed, ) ANY clock can correctly claim to be the stationary one, so the west bound plane can consider that he is stationary, and the Earth clock and the East plane are moving away to the East at different velocities. Therefore its the East bound clock and the Earth clock that must tick slower. The reverse is also true, the East plane clock is stationary, and so the west plane clock and the Earth clock tick slower. But weirdly we don't see this. Because this experiment is BS, that's why. You do realize that two "identical" portable atomic clocks cant keep accurate time even when sitting in the same room, let alone when placed in taxis, undergoing extreme accelerations is planes, under varying gravitation forces, and changes in pressure and temperature, vibrations etc. Not for split second during the whole experiment were those clocks under the inertial conditions that Einstein's math and theory demands. Not for one second. Also, the "scientists" got to pick and choose which clocks from an assortment of clocks would go on which plane. Plus these guys were 100% Einstein fans, so I would like to see actual critics of Special Relativity do this experiment, because scientists can be liars as much as a politician is or a used car salesman. There is no way an Einstein fan boy is going to do a much publicized experiment then come back with inconclusive of conflicting results. Edited March 30, 2021 by marcospolo typos
write4u Posted March 30, 2021 Report Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) 49 minutes ago, marcospolo said: Its not an example of SR if it is already an example of classical Physics, the two are opposite claims. Why the did Einstein use that exact example to demonstrate the doppler effect? Relativistic Doppler shifts You may be familiar with the Doppler effect: a change in the perceived frequency of a sound due to motion of the source or the observer. Notes on the ordinary Doppler effect The basic idea is that if source and observer move towards each other, the observer hears a higher frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_towards.gif if source and observer move away from each other, the observer hears a lower frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_away.gif if source and observer move transverse to each other, the observer hears the original frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_transverse.gif http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler.html AFAIK, every Doppler Effect is a relativistic event, even if it is also classical. Everything that is variable dependent on the point of observation is relativistic in its very nature, no? Edited March 30, 2021 by write4u
marcospolo Posted March 30, 2021 Author Report Posted March 30, 2021 8 minutes ago, write4u said: Why the did Einstein use that exact example to demonstrate the doppler effect? Relativistic Doppler shifts You may be familiar with the Doppler effect: a change in the perceived frequency of a sound due to motion of the source or the observer. Notes on the ordinary Doppler effect The basic idea is that if source and observer move towards each other, the observer hears a higher frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_towards.gif if source and observer move away from each other, the observer hears a lower frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_away.gif if source and observer move transverse to each other, the observer hears the original frequency http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler_transverse.gif http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys200/lectures/doppler/doppler.html AFAIK, every Doppler Effect is a relativistic event, even if it is also classical. Everything that is variable dependent on the point of observation is relativistic in its very nature, no? Yes, but I fear that you are getting two OPPOSITE theories that use the same word, mixed up together! There is classical Relative motion, theory ONE. Then the second theory, totally at odds with the first, is Einsteins Special Relative motion. Theory one, has been around since ancient times, but Einsteins is since 1905. Theory one, the classical relativity includes a full explanation of Doppler. Theory one is correct and demonstrable, theory two is irrational nonsense. Unable to even be explained by rationally and logically. So relativity is normal, and correct, but don't get it mixed up with Einsteins nonsense.
write4u Posted March 30, 2021 Report Posted March 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, marcospolo said: So relativity is normal, and correct, but don't get it mixed up with Einsteins nonsense. I'm glad my intuitive take was correct and I admit that in toto SR is outside my scope of knowledge, just like GR. Understand some of the narratives, but am not schooled in the scientific mathematics.
marcospolo Posted March 30, 2021 Author Report Posted March 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, write4u said: I'm glad my intuitive take was correct and I admit that in toto SR is outside my scope of knowledge, just like GR. Understand some of the narratives, but am not schooled in the scientific mathematics. Me too, but I found that anyone can read what Einsteins is claiming, its not at all complex to follow his concepts. He makes it seem complex by using irrationally applied maths based on bizarre equations that don't relate to actual reality in any way. If something seems really weird, and against your intuition, there is a strong possibility that you should lean toward your intuition. This is not always going to be correct, like when you observe a gyroscope, its hardly intuitive, or a magnet attracting a steel ball. Not intuitive, nor is gravity, we just take these things for granted. But with Einstein, not only is it not intuitive, but the explanation is completely irrational, containing inbuilt contradictions and math errors. But if you want to be a scientist, a Physicist, you are literally FORCED to subscribe to Einsteins theories as well as everything Quantum, or you will not get your degree. They do not tolerate dissent on these matters.
Recommended Posts