Physics gone stupid
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Go down
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Dec 15, 2019 9:56 pm
The obvious Error of SR is Einstein stupid claim that PHYSICS CHANGES depending of an observers point of view! And he claims this, DESPITE having previously stated in his essential postulate that "the laws of Physics can NOT change because of point of view!". (his second Postulate in his 1905 Paper on SR. )

So, does Physics actually change or NOT change when we watch a physical process from different vantage positions? Pick a side please Einstein, and stick with it!

Galileo and Newton say they CANT, and Einstein's 2nd Postulate says they CANT, so how come by the time we reach the end of his paper, he is now claiming that physics CAN and DOES change by the simple act of WATCHING?

Here's a little rule of thumb, that every real Physicist and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows... " Perception is NOT NECESSARILY representing REALITY".
If this golden rule were NOT TRUE, then we would all really believe that David Copperfield REALLY did make that 747 Airplane disappear in front of a live audience, televised for the whole world.!

Einstein is an earlier version of David Copperfield, an illusionist, using words rather than solid objects. He convinced us of the impossible using "thought experiments" which are no experiments at all!


avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:27 am
Hello, I'm here to challenge my knowledge of SR.
At first I want to ask you what do you mean by physics changing? Time dilation and length contraction?
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Jan 04, 2020 1:22 am
Kycilak wrote:Hello, I'm here to challenge my knowledge of SR.
At first I want to ask you what do you mean by physics changing? Time dilation and length contraction?

Welcome to the forum, I don't check it every day, and i'm the only one here, so be patient.

Einstein claims that the measured time dilation, length contraction and mass increase are real physics changes.
That's what I mean when I said that "Physics changes". The object actually undergoes physical changes. Its not just a result of different perspectives.
I'm claiming that the classical laws of Physics preclude the possibility that a physical object CAN change in any way by the simple act of measuring it whilst its moving, as compared to when its not moving.
Its an irrational claim of Einstein, and therefore has more to do with fantasy and imagination than Physics.

avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:02 pm
I'd start with proclamation that all physics we know is only models that try to aproximate (and hopefully fully describe) how everything works.
SR is no different, it just tries to explain phenomena we see. It wasn't well recieved after it's formulation and had to withstand many attacks but it was good enough to eventually be accepted.
Now I won't dive into explaining SR yet as I want to know what exactly you don't agree with. Is it just the interpretation that physical quantites change with dependent system? Do all things predicted by SR seem to not be true? Or is it something else?
Sorry I'm so roundabout, I just want to find common ground.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:32 pm
Kycilak wrote:I'd start with proclamation that all physics we know is only models that try to approximate (and hopefully fully describe) how everything works.

Interesting, as an aside, i've just had a discussion with another guy, and I said that the electron is a metaphor, a label we use in our model that tries to explain the process of electricity, its NOT a real little piece of matter. As such it doesn't exist, we can get its dimensions, or weigh it.
And not you have just confirmed my statement with your sentence above. If Physics is just models, (imaginary structures developed to help visualize a process) then the components of the model are also imaginary, unless obviously referring to real physical objects.
The electron is such an imaginary component of the model of electricity. This relates to Einstein's claim that a photon has momentum and can "knock" electrons out of metal as he described in his photoelectric effect paper.

Anyway back to the topic.
Regarding my objections to SR.
1/ the postulates as stated in the opening paragraphs of his 1905 paper end up with a different meaning half way through the paper, which mean something totally different. The two postulates initially sound reasonable, but by the time we get half way through, Einstein has cleverly, (deceptively) twisted the word around so that now he is claiming something totally different, and no one notices, he just gets everyone nodding their head, as he walks you through his story, and your powers of critical thinking are relaxed when they should be on high alert. After all, he is about to propose that ALL of classical Physics is wrong and he is going to fix it! Beware!
2/ the concepts he uses in his thought experiment are inappropriate as a method to explore the subject. He mixes concepts that have no relationship to each other, in a way that must give a nonsense result, and that's exactly what we get. he mixes the Laws of Physical matter, with the properties of non physic light. This creates error.
3/ the geometry he uses in his thought experiment (the zig zag path of light) is incorrect, and therefore the whole basis for using the Lorentz transformation equation is negated.
4./ the conclusions are irrational, self contradictory and totally impossible.
5/ he makes the huge mistake of reifying the concept called Time. This is impossible.
6/ he uses maxwell's theories as a base, but makes wrong claims about what maxwell was saying. Specifically, maxwell says that light speed is relative to the medium, but einstein twists this into light is relative to the observer!
7. Einstein claims that there is no "preferred frame of reference", then immediately uses one throughout his whole paper! Without a preferred frame, he cant develop his theory at all.
8/ Einstein, later in life, admitted that his SR theory REQUIRES a absolute or preferred frame of reference. As such, this destroys the whole theory. But no one wanted to listen. They don't like the consequences, that they would have to admit they were all fooled as scientists for over 100 years.
9/ The claimed "errors" or contradictions, that become evident when Einstein explains his thought experiment, are solved when he uses the Lorentz transformation equation. he shows the errors and explains that to solve the problem, time must be different, so he applies LT, and presto the apparent discrepancy is completely solved!
Whats the issue I have with that? Well, having ALREADY fixed the problem by changing TIME, what will happen with we ALSO apply the LT math to the LENGTH, and DISTANCE?
Answer: we will doubly apply the same fix! so the claim that we have error, we apply a fix, then its correct, BUT then we have to apply the fix AGAIN, to the "fixed" result, which gives us a error condition again! Apply the same fix twice creates an error. (no one, no professor, shows how to apply both time dilation and length contraction simultaneously to a scenario. Where is the single, complete math equation for the combined solution? ) GPS is supposed to use SR time dilation, cause its really important for accuracy, but they don't bother )for accuracy) to apply the same theory for the distance shrinkage! WHY? (because its a lie that GPS used SR.)
10/ Einstein, the genius, said emphatically that not only Time and distance would change, but also MASS increases with velocity. Now while time( which is a concept anyway, so is hard to demonstrate, or easy to fraud) and distance (which has never been demonstrated, are claimed to be real results of SR, there is a massive problem with Einsteins claim that mass increases. Why? Because while the object is getting less volume, its supposed to be gaining mass? Where is that mass coming from? This is impossible to resolve. So rather than doing the scientific thing, and state that Einsteins theories are wrong, they instead pretended that Einstein, the genius, actually meant to say "momentum" not Mass, a silly typo.
IF Einstein was the genius Physicist, in his main scientific paper said MASS, then he MEANT MASS! Stop twisting his material when it begins to fall apart!
And claiming that it is momentum does not solve the problem anyway, because p=m*v. and as the v is light speed, the only thing that can change is the MASS. so back at square one. An unsolvable error in SR theory. Mass cannot be created by speed differential!
11. Its really a moronic claim to say that mass, length and time will change just because someone observes an object moving. To this day, no-one has been able or ever has tried to propose HOW this could work. How can an observer measure light speed at 300 million meters per sec when he is moving int he same direction as the light, but at the same time, a person moving against the lights direction is supposed to also measure it at 300? this is the claim, yet no one, not the genius Einstein, nor any human has even suggested how this could possible be correct or could work. Because its impossible, that why.

There may be more objections, these are the main ones off the top of my head.
You should respond to each one separately for clarity.









avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:19 am
Also, its worth noting that although Einstein's theory claims to prove that classical physics math is wrong, giving wrong results (inaccurate is wrong) he never the less uses classical physics math throughout his hypothesis including in the proposed solution, despite it being wrong. This is a bit crazy. If you are going to come up with a new concept as to how reality works, then you need to also provide new math to go along with it, not new math that also uses the the old erroneous math.  He is basically claiming that the model of the physics world we base all our math on, is wrong, therefore the math is wrong. So rationally he cant then use it in the math of his new system.

Classical physics and its math DEPENDS totally on three things (and others) but these three things are core to the whole understanding and study of all science, not just physics.
The three things are Mass, Dimension, and Time.  Specifically, in Classical sciences, these three things are CONSTANTS.  Any scientist, regardless of their location or when they are alive, can DEPEND and RELY totally on the idea that a meter, a second and a Kilogram are going to be always measurable with the exact same values as any other scientist measures them under any conditions. That is the core principal of Classical physics, and all classical Sciences.  Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Astronomy, even History and Geography all depend on the constancy of  distance measure, time measure, and Weight or Mass measures.

Einstein came along and said that that entire model of reality is incorrect. He claimed that rather than these core properties being constants, they are infinitely variable, and entirely a subjective experience.

This is a diametrically opposed point of view here, there can be NO crossover between the physics of Newton and the Physics and MATH of Einstein.

Yet, here within Einsteins own paper on SR, he uses are RELIES on Time, Distance and Mass AS NEWTONIAN CONSTANTS, within his math that is supposed to be about the Variable nature of reality.

Basically its self destructive of any of his theories if they use ANY part of Classical Physics in the solution,   as his model and the classical model are diametrically opposites and totally incompatible. A constant does not exist for Einstein, but it essential for classical Science. ALL classical "constants" become variables under Einsteins system, and the variability depends on the subjective viewpoint of every and any observer. There is never a variable value set up as a numeral that can be agreed on between subjective experiential scientists. One will say that the Variable for distance is NOW set to the value of 12, but he other scientist MUST disagree, (as he is in a different location and has an unknown relative velocity) so the other scientist will say that its NOT 12, but some other value, partly because they both cant ever agree when NOW is, apparenty there is no such thing as NOW for Einstein.

Because Constants are not Variable, Einstein needs to develop new terms for  Variable Time, for  Variable Mass and for  Variable Dimension, (length or distance) with new definitions. (maybe Vtime, Vdimension and VMass.

Also he cant ever use laws such as p=mv,   or even light speed is "c".  Or Pythagoras theorem, which all require the classical CONSTANTS of TIME, MASS, and Length.
Einstein's units are not CONSTANTS, therefore when he says "Time" is nothing like the "time" that Newton was talking about.  Einstein has done away with constants that were essential parts of all science, but replaces it with NO NEW UNITS. Where are the standards, where is the National Institute of Standards and Time, ( NIST) standard "variable meter" and "standard variable kilo" and "variable second  atomic clock".

Why cant Einsteins use "c" as the standard of the speed of light in a vacuum? Because that value is a measure in CONSTANT UNITS OF DISTANCE AND CONSTANT UNITS OF TIME.
Which Einstein claims DO NOT EXIST!

IF Einstein is right, that Time, Distance and Mass are subjective experiential variables, then light speed CANNOT ever be measurable as a standard CONSTANT.  Why? because ALL our measurements devices must use VARIABLE TIME, VARIABLE DISTANCES, under Einsteins model,  that's why!
So 300*108  per second is 100%  Newtonian classical system constant units, which DO NOT EXIST according to Einstein.

You cannot ignore the import of Einsteins claim.
Time, Distance (dimension) and Mass are NOT CONSTANTS.  But EVERY single concept in Science DEPENDS on the assumption that they were constants!
If Einstein is correct, then HE CANT USE NEWTONIAN CONCEPTS in his Math!  Not ONCE, not in the solution to the claimed errors he identifies.

He is stating that the discrepancy revealed in his thought experiment is CAUSED by the incorrect belief that TIME IS A CONSTANT. His solution is that TIME is a subjective, experiential VARIABLE.  

So the Newtonian equation v=dt  can never be used by Einstein, once he discovered that its hopelessly wrong at a fundamental level. 
May as well write the formula for velocity as v=?*?.   where v is also an unknowable number.  If I say its 10 miles in 3 minutes, its a useless statement, as for everyone else separated by distance or who is moving, its NOT 10 units of any knowable distance, or 3 units of any knowable time period.
Because on his clock it says something else, and his ruler is not the same length as my ruler even though it may have the same number of markings. 
Maybe it should be in my suggested units,  Vv=vt*vd, good luck trying to use a v-ruler and v-clock to measure v-meters and v-seconds! These things are never the same from one minute to the next!

So the issue outlined here is specifically that Newtonian laws and their equations that rely on the constancy of time, mass and dimension, are incompatible with Einsteins universe, so he needs new standards for the measurement of time, distance and mass that can not refer back to Newtons universe.
Its NOT just a mater tweaking Newtons equations to come up with different results, as claimed. (using Lorentz transformations) because no-one can ever know who is moving and by how much, its all variable and subjective.  There is no objectivity or constancy that can be used as a base from which to do real science. Einstein even claims that two identical clocks can't be synchronized ever, if they are separated by some significant distance, (not defined how far that might be) OR if one or both of the clocks is moving.  This means that not only is Time an unknowable unit for two scientists that are under such circumstances, but also that length and distance is also unknowable, undefinable and therefore unsuitable to use for science.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:35 am
Electron indeed is just a label but that does not mean that electron does not exist. We know that electron exists. We may not know exactly what it is but we know it exists.
We know there is "something" that can move, has charge, mass and other properties and we name this "something" electron.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:30 pm
And sorry my input in this discusion is this minimalistic while you write such extensive posts. I'm afraid that if I wrote anything comprehensive you'd disagree with some of the first points and all the rest would be wasted effort.

Anyways, let us look whether we can find something we both agree with or not.

All scientists, even if they move relative to each other, will measure the same second, metre and kilogram in their respective frames of reference. That is not in contradiction with SR. SR only says that when you measure something that moves, you will meassure it differently than when it's at rest. But all scientists are at rest to themselves and their frame of reference.
Let there be 2 scientists (which I'll refer to as s1 and s2 ) moving with respect to each other. S1 can measure metre in his frame of reference and s2 can meassure it too in his frame. Now let's imagine that the both of the scientists make metre (for example they'd make a rod that has one metre). When s1 looks at s2 (who is moving relative to s1) s1 would measure s2's metre as shorter than his own. And s2 would measure s1's metre to be shorter too (s1 is moving relative to s2 with the same speed as s2 is moving to s1).
Yet if the scientists were to stop their movement and compare their metre long rods, the rods would have the same length.

Let's see if this example can sort something out.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:21 pm
Kycilak wrote:Electron indeed is just a label but that does not mean that electron does not exist. We know that electron exists. We may not know exactly what it is but we know it exists.
We know there is "something" that can move, has charge, mass and other properties and we name this "something" electron.
Well, sorry to disagree on this. But the electron is not necessarily a real thing, as you claim. what you claim is that if I get a wire, and balance it exactly on a razor edge, then induce a electrical potential by subjecting the wire to a electrical filed, you think that all the electrons will run off to one end of the wire, making it heavier one end, and the wire will over balance and fall off the razor edge?  Its a simple experiment, why don't you try it? What does an electron look like when it carries NO charge at all?  What is the "charge" exactly anyway?  How does an electron "carry" it around?  
All these terms are nothing but place holders for forces we cant see, but we know something going on, we measure and feel the effects, but we don't really know what or how its working. The whole "electron did it" is just a metaphor in a story that helps us visualize electricity, that fits the effects of electricity that we observe.   What do "charges" do when electrons cant be bothered carrying them about? Where are the charges located when they are doing anything? 
Do charges have weight? Do electrons ever run about in a wire but not bother to carry a charge?  Why not?
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:10 pm
Kycilak wrote:And sorry my input in this discusion is this minimalistic while you write such extensive posts. I'm afraid that if I wrote anything comprehensive you'd disagree with some of the first points and all the rest would be wasted effort.

Anyways, let us look whether we can find something we both agree with or not.

All scientists, even if they move relative to each other, will measure the same second, metre and kilogram in their respective frames of reference. That is not in contradiction with SR. SR only says that when you measure something that moves, you will meassure it differently than when it's at rest. But all scientists are at rest to themselves and their frame of reference.
Let there be 2 scientists (which I'll refer to as s1 and s2 ) moving with respect to each other. S1 can measure metre in his frame of reference and s2 can meassure it too in his frame. Now let's imagine that the both of the scientists make metre (for example they'd make a rod that has one metre). When s1 looks at s2 (who is moving relative to s1) s1 would measure s2's metre as shorter than his own. And s2 would measure s1's metre to be shorter too (s1 is moving relative to s2 with the same speed as s2 is moving to s1).
Yet if the scientists were to stop their movement and compare their metre long rods, the rods would have the same length.

Let's see if this example can sort something out.
Here’s the problem.  Lets look at the whole scenario from a position where we can know what’s happening for s1 and for s2, we are like god, able to have the big picture, knowing both conditions, which is actually what Einstein’s thought experiment is based on anyway.
 
SR is NOT just a measurement issue, which would indicate its not a real physical change in length, only an observed or apparent length change. But SR is claiming that an actual, real physical  length shrinkage occurs in a moving object. 
So, s1 KNOWS that s2’s meter is now only 900mm whether he measures it or not, its really physically now shrunk to 900mm, because s2 is moving at a certain speed.

So this much is solid actual Einstein physics, s2 stick is now a new actual length, 900mm.

And s2 is aging slower, and has put on weight.
These are real physical changes.

Meanwhile s2 with his stick that we KNOW already is 900mm long, - he (s2) cant see any difference in the stick, because he and his hand has also shrunk by the same ratio. (Although surely he can see that the height and width of his moving craft are now proportionally very different than before? No one bothers to address this glaring problem))

Anyway, s2 has now got a 900mm stick that he ASSUMES is really 1000mm long, but we know its not, because he is moving, and we already proved that the stick has actually shrunk.  Really shrunk is really shrinking, its a fact.

Now S1 knows that s2 is moving, and has confirmed that stick is now 900mm long, all is according to Einstein’s claims.

BUT, silly s2 (let’s call him Einstein) has no idea that he is actually moving, (despite that fact that he is supposed to be a physicist)  so using his real 900mm ruler that is still marked 1000mm, he tries to measure s1, who he thinks is moving, while he himself is stationary. (we know this assumption is wrong, because we see the overview of both s1 and s2, and s1 is in a ship with no engine, whereas s2 is in a rocket with a running engine.)

So s2, with his 900 real mm stick tries to measure the length of s1 and although he believes that s1 is moving, and SHOULD be shorter, he will approximately still measure s1 as NOT having shrunk at all, despite the fact that s1 HAS REALLY SHRUNK (that’s the claim you make) because his measure stick has actually really shrunk too by the same ratio.!

Alternatively, if you claim they both are moving, then the s1 original measure will be made also with a 900mm stick that is marked as being 1000mm long, when its not.

So s1 will measure in this case, that s2 has not shrunk at all, neither will s2 measure that s1 has shrunk. They both, (because they both are moving) will still measure no shrinkage of the other, because their rulers have already also shrunk identically with their ships.

You see how silly this whole argument of Einstein’s is for a Physicist?  But its numbers fun for a nerdy Mathematician.

The key here is to make a statement of physics and stick with the consequences. Don't try to jump from one to the other when you have already made a claim of physics. This is resetting the conditions willy-nilly. 

IF s2’s meter is still marked as 1000 units but the stick is REALLY now shrunk to only 900 mm, then you must stick to that claim when you now try to examine what s2 will measure using that shrunk stick when he observes s1.  What s1 or s2 physicists IMAGINES is the real length of his stick, based on his illusion that he is “stationary” is NOT PHYSICS. Its subjective observation and has more to do with a trick of perspective or a trick of the light, all done with mirrors, it’s not Physics.   "Perception is NOT necessarily REALITY"  What s2 BELIEVES (that he is not moving) is IRRELEVANT to the study of physics.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:29 pm
You actually designed nice thought experiment. It cannot however be done practically because electron has such a small mass and there is no edge sharp enough.
As I have said earlier, physics tries to capture how real world works. We have never seen electron not carrying its charge thus we think about charge as being property of electron. And everything works out so far. And we don't know why electron carries it. It is not known why elementary particles have properties they have.
And charge may be a little more abstract than mass but they are the same concept. People just have experience with mass from birth so it is more intuitive. But try to substitute "electron" with some thing (a ball) and "charge" with "mass" at the end of your post and let me know if the questions feel the same. For example: "What does mass do when a ball can't be bothered carrying them about?"

You've just posted again. I'm sorry, I have to go to bed, I'm waking up quite soon in the morning. I'll try to respond tomorrow.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:56 pm
Kycilak wrote:You actually designed nice thought experiment. It cannot however be done practically because electron has such a small mass and there is no edge sharp enough.
As I have said earlier, physics tries to capture how real world works. We have never seen electron not carrying its charge thus we think about charge as being property of electron. And everything works out so far. And we don't know why electron carries it. It is not known why elementary particles have properties they have.
And charge may be a little more abstract than mass but they are the same concept. People just have experience with mass from birth so it is more intuitive. But try to substitute "electron" with some thing (a ball) and "charge" with "mass" at the end of your post and let me know if the questions feel the same. For example: "What does mass do when a ball can't be bothered carrying them about?"

You've just posted again. I'm sorry, I have to go to bed, I'm waking up quite soon in the morning. I'll try to respond tomorrow.
This is precisely why I said that the electron does not exist. Its just a metaphor to visualize a force we cant experience directly. (in a visible sense)
Every term, like electron, carries a charge, charge, field and Mass are metaphors for aspects of reality we cant otherwise verbalize or visualize.
Show me an explanation of how Magnetism works, it will rely heavily on such metaphors. We cant really explain Magnetism at all.
We cant offer an explanation of light, that fits the observations.
There is still no definition for the word "field" that explains what it is. (other than falling back on metaphors)
Ill tune in again in a day or two, let you reply to the length contraction problem.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:31 am
Looks like Kycilak has decided his knowledge of Special Relativity is insufficient to argue its merits.
Now we have to wait for the next defender.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Mon Jan 27, 2020 7:29 pm
Hi, I'm sorry but examination period is quite time consuming and resources taking. I'm not fond of teaching maths all day and then arguing here about SR. Hopefully I'll find some motivation to continue this disscusion soon.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:04 am
Kycilak wrote:Hi, I'm sorry but examination period is quite time consuming and resources taking. I'm not fond of teaching maths all day and then arguing here about SR. Hopefully I'll find some motivation to continue this disscusion soon.


Hey, No worries, I'm not as time pressured as you are with your studies.
I was hoping that you would return to discuss SR in detail, step by step, see what we can discover.

Ill go to my workshop and continue making my Archery Bow.

Catch up later.

Cheers
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Mar 28, 2020 9:27 am
Hi again. I am sorry it took me so long to finally get here, but better late than never I guess.

This one is for the metaphor bit with which I just do not agree. (Maybe it is more of a problem of understanding the word metaphor...)
I believe that physics is trying to understand the world we live in and that there must be things unknown for physics to be researched.
I think new phenomena are approached by trying to find patterns. From a pattern a simple model is built, usually expressed through an equation (or set of them). This equation does not grant understanding the cause or mechanism of given phenomenon but certainly has some informational value and can be built upon.
When we try to explain things it is convenient to name things that play a role in that explanations. They may be abstract and may not even exist in real world (eg. field lines) but they are not metaphors. One could say that bacteria do not actually exist, that bacterium is just a methaphor used for explaining diseases but I hope we agree that bacteria are real.

Now back to the topic, to the long post from 12. 1. 2020.
The whole premise of your example is wrong. It is called theory of relativity for a reason. One cannot say which one of the scientists is moving, there is no absolute frame of reference. You made the example so that it is seemingly clear which of the scientists is moving but that is a false premise in SR. We (God) see the big picture from the frame of reference that s2 is in because s2 is not moving. But it is not that mass, length and time change for s1. He is shorter and heavier and ages more slowly from the perspective of s2 and they are real physical changes. But from s1 perspective s2 is also heavier, shorter and ages more slowly and they are also real physical changes.
That is why it is called theory of relativity really. All is relative, all depends on one's frame of reference and there is no absolute or superior frame.

As an example say we have 2 scientist on different planets (which obviously move to each other). How would you determine which one is moving and which one is stationary.

I hope I have not strayed too far, my thoughts don't really like to stay on track.
Have a nice day.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:58 am
You said:  "One cannot say which one of the scientists is moving, there is no absolute frame of reference. You made the example so that it is seemingly clear which of the scientists is moving but that is a false premise in SR. We (God) see the big picture from the frame of reference that s2 is in because s2 is not moving. But it is not that mass, length and time change for s1. He is shorter and heavier and ages more slowly from the perspective of s2 and they are real physical changes. But from s1 perspective s2 is also heavier, shorter and ages more slowly and they are also real physical changes.
That is why it is called theory of relativity really. All is relative, all depends on one's frame of reference and there is no absolute or superior frame."

First, as you are trying to explain how special relativity can be correct, your claim, "One cannot say which one of the scientists is moving, there is no absolute frame of reference".
This is NOT a fact, its an ASSUMPTION related to the conclusions of the hypothesis of SR.
Right at the start of your argument, you are trying to use a conclusion of a hypothesis as if it was a physical fact that preexisted before the hypothesis was developed.

Einstein takes this irrational liberty with his SR paper of 1905 when he begins his hypothesis with his method of synchronizing two cloaks using light fro A to B and vice versa.

If there was no way to assume a absolute location for an experiment from which all further measurements can be based, then he can not claim that his method of synchronization the two clocks could be correct.  His method of synchronization REQUIRES and absolute stationary origin for the synchronization to be performed.

You are pretending that "imaginary frames of reference" are real physical objects.  This is the logical error called "reification".
An imaginary frame of reference is totally unable to affect anything in the physical world.  So nothing observer A measures of believes is true, can NEVER affect the real physical properties of some abject possessed by a second observer B.

Einsteins synchronization method is ONLY a correct in ONE SPECIAL CASE.  Which is IF THEY ARE BOTH NOT IN MOTION RELATIVE TO THE LIGHT!

If they are both moving relative to the light, (which has a finite velocity) the the light MUST take longer to go between A and B in one direction than the other direction, as the distances have changed during the time it takes for the light to go from A to B.

This is Galileo's relativity of course, and its been proven 100% correct for every object that moves relative to any other object, moving or not.

What Einsteins claims, that by some unexplained magic, (without even attempting how this could even work) he states that somehow light defies all other laws of Physics, its a special case, but without any explanation as to how this could work.
So insane is his claim it defies all rational thought.
Somehow, by magic, a person not moving measures light at c, then if he jumps into a super fast rocket, he will STILL get the same result as if he is not moving, and then most crazy of all, if he turns around, and heads directly into the light, he STILL gets the same reading for lights velocity.

As this is your claim you need to do a lot of explaining as to how this can even be theoretically possible, as it defies all rational thought, is illogical and there is no way any math can support this claim.

No, Lorentz time dilation equation is not able to be applied as a explanation as to how the above could be true.  Lorentz does not EXPLAIN how it works, its only a adjustment factor to fudge a result so that it matches the desired outcome.  (not the measured outcome, just the DESIRED outcome)

Now about IMAGINERY frames of reference.  
Where is the ABSOLUTE IMAGINERY frame?   Well consider this sensible Logic.
You claim that light ALWAYS goes at "c".  Nothing goes faster than light, its the ABSOLUTE maximum velocity, and lights velocity is ABSOLUTELY constant.

So we have 300 million Kilometers a second, and that its ABSOLUTE.

MEASURED from WHAT ABSOLUTE ZERO position exactly?  
Because if 300 million kms is ABSOLUTE MOTION, then   "NOT" 300 million kms, or "c"-"c' MUST be ZERO and must be as ABSOLUTE as the absolute claim for light velocity.
If you have a speed, and its absolute, then the exact lack of that absolute speed, MUST be necessarily ABSOLUTELY ZERO.

So as the frames are all IMAGINARY, and are assigned as required, arbitrarily and also dispensed with as casually, we can simply pick any location, (such as where we are conducting our experiment) and declare that we are going to label this spot as our "imaginary zero absolute position", then happily go ahead and take all measurements from that location, and all remote measurements must be related back to that same location. (taking their Galilean relative positions and rates of motion into consideration)

So in reply to this comment, you must address the issue that in Einsteins 1905 paper, his core explanation on which his whole hypothesis rests, being his method of clock synchronization, (which is the first thing he talks about) the issue that this method only ASSUMES that the clocks are both stationary in an ABSOLUTE sense, relative the the light.
Because at this opening stage in his hypothesis, SR does not exist. He is trying to prove it by means of the known and verified laws of Physics. And under those Laws, the ONLY  case where his clock synchronization could be true, is when both clocks are ABSOLUTELY stationary.

We know this is correct, because if Einstein specifically said  that both the clocks were moving relative to the light, ( but not to each other) then NOT A SINGLE PHYSICIST or rational critically thinking person would have bothered to read any more of his 1905 paper, discarding it as nonsense. (as almost all physicists of the day actually thought, but could not put their finger on the errors)

You cant call upon the final claims of a hypothesis and use it as part of your proof of the same hypothesis. That is the serious logical error of circular reasoning.

Finally, any reply you may care to provide, should not try to use yet another error of Logic, namely, the appeal to supporting evidence, as we both know that ALL experimental evidence is always INTERPRETED by people and is never empirical.  That is why they say that "you can NEVER PROVE a theory is correct, you can at best only PROVE that a theory is WRONG."

Also, in your last comment,  the effects of SR on both observers is REAL, so that when both observers reunite, neither will see any unexpected changes in the other, as they both have aged by the exact same amount, gotten heavier and shrunk at the same amount.

Also I recall that there is a principal of invalidity if one postures a theory that cannot be refuted by any means.  This pretty well sums up Relativity. Its all subjective, not objective, its all about what one observer IMAGINES he is seeing in the other. But it cant be "proven" to the other, observer, that he really gained mass while he shrank.  It cant be proven because both parties are working off SUBJECTIVE experience, totally lacking in sound logic and devoid of any rationality.  There is nothing objective about SR.


Last edited by truth_hurts on Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:01 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : clarification)
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:06 am
Hi again, in this post I am going to address the speed of light along with the frames of reference confusion and a limitation of SR.

You said: "you cant call upon the final claims of a hypothesis and use it as part of your proof of the same hypothesis. That is the serious logical error of circular reasoning." I do not think I used conclusion of SR to prove it. You made an example of how you think it works in SR and I corrected it so that it really follows SR. I have not yet tried to prove SR here, I just tried to explain the conclusions of SR and I will continue doing that for now.

Now, Einstein did not make up that speed has the same speed to all observers without basis. He was led to this conclusion by the Michelson-Morley experiment. I think it is pretty reasonable conclusion but as you said experimental evidence is interpreted by people so tell me how the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment can be explained in classical physics.
Also I think I said earlier that physicists first try to describe phenomena and after that explain the underlying phenomena. SR is the description, it does not have to explain why light moves how it moves.

To the frames of reference. I have to ask you what is the absolute frame of reference in your mind and why is it exactly that, why not a different one?
The speed of light has absolute speed and there is no need for absolute space to measure it from because it is the same for all inertial frames of reference. It is absolute because it is the same from all measurements.
Also to this point: "You are pretending that "imaginary frames of reference" are real physical objects. This is the logical error called "reification".
An imaginary frame of reference is totally unable to affect anything in the physical world. So nothing observer A measures of believes is true, can NEVER affect the real physical properties of some abject possessed by a second observer B."
You are right that frame of reference in itself is an abstract thing. But all physical phenomena I related to inertial frame of reference is be related to any real object that is in rest relative to this frame of reference. Also it is not the measurement that changes the attributes of things one measures. It is that all that can be measured is changed by the relative velocity and changes in measurement mean there is change in attribute. And this change is caused by speed.
Measurement in this case is to be understood any measurable quantity. It doesn't have to strictly be a man with something-o-meter. It can be an asteroid "feeling" higher gravity from nearby fast-travelling object or muon travelling to the surface of Earth.

My last point regards the reunion of observers. Each pair of objects moving to one to the other can "meet" only once as they cannot change their velocities (under SR).

Have a nice day.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:40 pm
" I do not think I used conclusion of SR to prove it. " You, personally may not have used the circular reasoning in this discussion yet. but I was referring to the fact that Einstein actually has to use that process in his paper. The SR hypothesis ASSUMES that a conclusion of the hypothesis is true, at the outset of the development of the hypothesis where Einstein is attempting to evolve his theory. This a logical fallacy. His "essential to his theory" core component of the development of the hypothesis, is the Einsteins clock synchronization method. This is presented in the opening part of the 1905 paper. But the method of synchronization is a special case, that can ONLY work as described IF THE two clocks A and B are perfectly stationary!. ABSOLUTE stationary. There does not yet exist the claimed property of Time that allows a measurement of Lights speed to always be "c" regardless of the motion of the observer. That idea is only a conclusion that results AFTER Einstein has a solid hypothesis!. So Einstein wants to use the result of his hypothesis as an essential part of the development of the hypothesis!.
As I've stated, this is a logical fallacy and cant be included in a scientific paper. In short, Einsteins clock synchronization can only work under conditions that Einsteins claims are IMPOSSIBLE. Absolute stationary objects that both measure light at "c".

"Now, Einstein did not make up that speed has the same speed to all observers without basis. He was led to this conclusion by the Michelson-Morley experiment".


There is nothing about the M&M experiment that demonstrates that light speed will always be measured at "C" irrespective of the motion of the observer. Nothing.
We learned about as much in the M&M experiment as if I spin a torch around on the table in my basement, and note that the beam strikes all 4 walls.
You are making assumptions about the M&M experiment that have no basis in Physics. Please explain how you think it demonstrates that light always goes at c when measured in any inertial frame?


To the frames of reference. I have to ask you what is the absolute frame of reference in your mind and why is it exactly that, why not a different one?
The speed of light has absolute speed and there is no need for absolute space to measure it from because it is the same for all inertial frames of reference. It is absolute because it is the same from all measurements.

Imaginary origins and directions are just that, IMAGINARY. They can and always are assigned as and when needed. And deleted just as easily. I've already said that absolute stationary is just absolute speed of light MINUS the speed of light. If light has a speed, then the absence of that same speed must be absolute stationary. So I can place my imaginary origin anywhere I want, its NOT ATTACHED to anything, not to an object or to space. Take a beam of light, I can pick a instant, and say that where the light was at that instant, is going to serve as my origin for my reference frame. then measure what the light is doing since I picked that point, and relate it to that imaginary point.


" But all physical phenomena I related to inertial frame of reference is be related to any real object that is in rest relative to this frame of reference. Also it is not the measurement that changes the attributes of things one measures. It is that all that can be measured is changed by the relative velocity and changes in measurement mean there is change in attribute. And this change is caused by speed."
Oh yeah? Really? As you like Physics, please explain by what process a physical object shrinks in only one direction, whilst gaining Mass despite having less volume, we don't even need to consider the concept of time changing here, just the claimed actual physical changes. What is the process of shrinkage and mass increase?

Your problem becomes that from one imaginary frame I say that an object in some other frame has shrunk, and claim that this change is real, caused by nothing less than magic, somehow linked to an imaginary frame of reference. Because that thing you are saying has shrunk because of its speed, as seen by you in your frame, also exists in an infinite number of other frames at the same time, and each of these frames has a different relative motion to the single one you are claiming is the ultimate truth.
The only way this can work is if you realize that any changes in that objects mass or length can ONLY be a matter of some form of trick of the light, a distortion caused by your perspective, and therefore its not an objective measurement of that object, but a perceived value of the properties of that object. Hence, its no Physics we are discussing here, its just a subjective view that has been distorted somehow by speed. It has become a mental deficiency, not Physics.

But a more rational approach is to simple look for an error in Einsteins paper, as its more likely that a mistake or several mistakes are present, rather than all Time, lengths, and Mass magically and inexplicably change when some idiot goes for a fast ride in a rocket.

Also consider that the very same rocket is able to take on an infinitely variable length and mass to accommodate the motion of ANY other observers who can be also moving at an infinite number of velocities. So the rocket is able to grow in mass and shrink in length to suit every scenario, at the same time, to match the SUBJECTIVE experiences of the infinite number of observers!.

What is more likely? The example above, or that Einsteins paper contains errors that make it invalid? Occam's razor would go with the later.


"Each pair of objects moving to one to the other can "meet" only once as they cannot change their velocities (under SR)."

Of course they can change their velocities, its still a free world isn't it? Einsteins theory has so many loopholes and a full stack of "get out of jail" cards that its like trying to talk sense to a Mormon.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:37 pm
"Of course they can change their velocities, its still a free world isn't it?"

One of presumtions of SR is that no acceleration is present. Hence nothing accelerating can be described in terms of SR. Doing that would be like applying quadratic formula to solve spreading butter on bread. It is not that we can't spread butter nor does it imply that quadratic formula is wrong.

I'll try to describe the idea behind M&M experiment. There is a source of light, this light is split into two beams which are perpendicular to one another. Each of these beams runs along an arm (the arms are the same length), reflects at the end and runs back where the two beams are recombined and sent to an eyepiece to be observed. Should the velocity of light be affected by the velocity of the Earth, one of the beams would take longer to get to the recombination place and change the interference pattern. As the aparatus is turned around the change in travel times of the beams would change the interference patterns and that would confirm that speed of light is different in different directions. But no such changes were observed (the observed maximum was less than 20 times less than the predicted value and the average was much lower than that). The interpretation is that light must travel through the arms for the same time regardless of orientation of the device and speed of Earth.
I will try to be more thorough if this does not suffice.

If you do not mind I will start writing somewhat shorter posts because I would rather focus on one thing at a time.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:06 pm
SR is only valid under inertial conditions.  Yes, but once we have gained mass and shrunk, and lost time, somehow it all magically "pops" back to normal if we touch the brake or accelerator, or swerve a little bit? (except for Time, which has by magic, has a permanent effect)  Why don't length contraction and mass increase also remain a permanent change, like Time does?
And you think this is a rational bit of Physics of matter?

And to make matters worse, you are claiming that the M&M experiment supports SR, which as you rightly pointed out, is ONLY for Inertial frames.  Since when is the ORBIT of Earth Inertial? its not, not by anyone's standard, yet you ignore this little obvious fact, and push ahead with SR regardless.

The M&M experiment was only ever in one reference frame, that of the basement,  The light source, the mirrors, splitter, arms, viewing screen, and the atmosphere are all mounted on one chunk of metal, fixed in relation to each other, and only turning in the basement.

Did you think that because the basement is on the Earth and the Earth is in the Miky Way, that they would see a really serious effect in the interference pattern, due to the little fact that the milky way is doing 2.1 MILLION  Kms per hour?
No? so why think that the Earths motion around the sun would make any difference?

It COULD ONLY make a difference as you describe IF THERE REALLY WERE AN AETHER.
(and that the Aether was determining the speed of the light, any light, even basement light in Earths atmosphere.)
So you see, you cant claim that the M&M experiment supports Einsteins relativity in any way, UNLESS you agree that there is an Aether, which was the original reason to build the device.
Only if there is an Aether, AND it works in space AND in basements on Earth equally, could you say that light speed was shown to be the same in all tested directions, relative to that Aether.  
An experiment that give no discernible difference between test conditions and calibration conditions, is either demonstrating that no change is taking place, or that the equipment is incapable of measuring any change.

Come to think of it, how did they calibrate the equipment in the absence of any velocity of the Earth through the Aether?  ( to get a reference point of known zero motion) Did they temporarily stop the Earths orbit while they set their equipment to zero?  I doubt it, I would have heard something.  Did they test the ability of their equipment to detect velocity changes of light?  No, they did not, because Light in the atmosphere is as constant as light in a vacuum, or in space or plastic or glass or water, just slightly different speeds in each, but in each , its constant.
Before they tried to detect the velocity of Earth through the Aether, they should, as proper Scientific practice, have demonstrated that their equipment was able to measure changes in motion relative to Light, but they did no such thing, no one ever has.  Why do you suppose that is?

In fact, I have an laser interferometer in my home, and Ive found that the equipment is basically a fraud.  Because I get the famed "interference pattern" with the setup described by M&M, no worries, but I can also totally remove one arm and one mirror TOTALLY, and STILL get the exact same interference pattern of concentric rings! Just one splitter and one mirror, and presto, the fabled "interference pattern.  It appears to me that the pattern is NOT caused by light "recombining and interfering" with itself at all.

With the standard setup, it is claimed that the equipment can detect microscopic changes in the length of the arms, but I've found that the pattern is changed by slight angular changes of the return mirror,  and NOT by the distance it is from the splitter.   In fact, the pattern is identical to a Moire pattern, which is NOT caused by waves "interfering" and recombining at all, but by simple optical processes.  This can be done with clear plastic sheets, with closely places lines in different patterns, and we "see" what appears to be moving patterns that seem to be totally different than the original lines.  This is not "light interfering", its just the crossing lines and white spaces overlapping.   Light never "recombines" in nature, and stuff up our vision, light only diffracts as it passes through different densities of matter.   In fact, there is no real difference between "interference of light, and diffraction of light.
I have found that "light interference" does not exist, only normal diffraction exists.   There is no such effect as the "recombination of light".  I doubt that light is actually "wave like", as it does not exhibit a wave like property.   Light is also not "particle like", there is no such object as a "mass less photon" that actually does have "mass". The mass of a photon was invented to prop up Einsteins claims, and not from any real experimental evidence. Its a mathematical imaginary construct, as is the wave packet idea.  Just math scribble on blackboards.  Nature does not support these wacky theories of Einstein, in fact, the observation of the universe and what we can see or work with, shows that light is neither a wave, nor a particle nor a wave packet. We currently have no hypothesis of what light really is, that accurately fits the observations. None.

You can test the problems with the M&M setup yourself easily.  The claim is that the distance is what is critical. those '"assumed interference rings" are supposed to reveal the slightest change in length.... BUT, IF that were true, then one only needs to angle the viewing screen away from the normal (90 deg to the beam) which makes an angled screen, so what we should see now is not rings, but some totally different pattern,  However, we still see exactly those same rings!  The rings remain but become elliptical rather than circular.
Try explaining that!


Yet, despite this fact, you suggest that Einstein's unexplained theories are sufficient to over turn all the classical understanding of Physics, based only on the assumed properties of Light, which we clearly don't understand at all?

The changes to the pattern with misalignment of the mirror, and the stability of the image even if the viewing screen is angled, support my theory that what we are seeing with this equipment is NOT light "interfering with itself on recombination", but a simple Moire effect, presumably caused by some properties of the splitter and the mirror.  The splitter, being basically a fine diffraction grating (50/50) is projecting one "image" on the wall, and the mirror, which is also a collection of distinct particles, provides the second pattern, thus producing the concentric ring moire pattern. No interference or recombination is occurring.  Angling the viewing screen but still getting the exact concentric ring pattern  is proving that we are not witnessing an interference pattern but a simple moire effect of two separate very fine patterns.

You can prove this yourself.
avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:39 am
I take it you do not really like Maxwell's equations too. Or just the interpretation that the possible electromagnetic waves are not really light?

I will not ask what light is then because you clearly stated you do not know. But what properties of light can we agree on? Also wouldn't diffraction mean light has a wave-like character?
Interference is just special case of superposition (not the quantum one).
How would one explain interference pattern of light in double-slit experiment without interference?

Earth's orbit can be aproximated to be inertial for small enough time frames.
I should have been clearer about the velocity of Earth. What I meant was Earth's velocity relative to Aether. The speed of Milky way and whatnot would only add to this effect. And what is this velocity of Milky way related to anyway?

You are really good at finding out mistakes. M&M experiment has a slit in the eyepiece so there is an interference pattern with even one beam. This may address the angling problem.
And indeed when the two beams get there they form Moire patterns. The thing is with the different travel times these patterns should be changing. Not seeing any changes is why we think there is no aether.
Off the top of my head, try putting a transparent piece on one of the arms. That should change the optical distance and kind of simulate what Michelson and Morley were trying to get.
avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:16 pm
You are digressing a bit here. You really should address my challenge to explain how Einstein's method of synchronizing the two clocks is not a special case, which relies totally on classical physics and classic, simple math, A to B = B to A. I'm not sure you appreciate the import of the problem Einstein skips lightly over, (actually ignores it totally) when he calls on this method of clock synchronization.
As he relies on his synchronization method from the first section of his 1905 paper, in order to work through to his explanation of a claimed problem and then his solution, he fails to recognize that this claimed equality of the time light takes to travel from A to B being equal the time light takes to go from B to A, is only a special case, being only valid providing one can guarantee that both A and B are stationary with respect to each other, AND with respect to the light speed which is acting as a clock.

It has not yet been proven in the hypothesis that light will be measured to be the same speed irrespective of the motion of any observer, and indeed this is never actually proven in the whole hypotheisis, its only ever a postulate.

So, as we can ONLY use the equation tB − tA = tA − tB in the special situation where we KNOW that both A and B are NOT moving with respect to the light. In any other case, the equation is invalid.

This invalidity does not come into any consideration in Einsteins paper, in cases where is should, therefore his paper is in error.

So you should solve this issue before we go on to anything else, as this is not the only error in his paper.

Maxwell's equations were only invariant if motion is ignored totally. so they are not much good as perfect equations then.
Many physicists and mathematicians were trying to figure out how to make Maxwell's equations invariant under all conditions and Lorentz solution, (I call it a math's fudge to hide an error)
Also Maxwell's assumption that light is composed of some weird combination of magnetism and electricity based on nothing other than they seem to share a similar rate of propagation, is making a very big jump in logic. Its akin to claiming that because my bike can go the same speed as a horse then my bike must be a horse.
With absolute certainly I am willing to claim that to this day, not one person can show me how a beam of light has anything to do with either magnetism or electricity, it remains totally unaffected by either.

So, not we don't know much about light, and diffraction is easily attributed to be a wave like action, IF you already have concluded that light is a wave already, and can only see things from that position!

Light seems to bend or distort when passing opaque objects etc, but this can be caused by other things, it does not automatically mean that light must be a wave. What exactly is waving here? We know that a wave is something done to water, but a wave is NOT water, its an effect of forces in water. Same with sound waves. They are not "sound," but something done to air, that causes air to act in a certain way.

Light has no discernible property of a Wave, as a Wave is not an "object" anyway, a Wave is an "effect" in some medium caused by some force. So how can light be comprised of an "effect" ? Is Light composed of an action? An action of WHAT?

So my feeling is that light bends from its normally straight path when it gets close enough to some solid matter. or bends due to changes in the density of matter through which it passes.
It bends not because its causing some Wave action in the air, but it could be being bent due to some interaction with the energy in the solid object that can affect the energy of the light. (when the light is close enough) And its never effected by magnetic or electric energies, so that's not it.

Why do you suggest that I place a piece of plastic in the beam on one arm of the interferometer? What will that achieve? I've already shown that the interferometer can work perfectly well with just one arm, (thereby negating the preposterous claims of LIGO) and I've also proven that the pattern is NOT interference caused by the recombination of two separate light "waves"
I made other observations as well, that do not jell with the modern explanations of the M&M equipment. I may write it all up and make a video showing this one day.

avatar
truth_hurts
Admin
Posts : 26
Join date : 2019-12-15
Location : Australia

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:05 pm
Also about this:

"Earth's orbit can be approximated to be inertial for small enough time frames.
I should have been clearer about the velocity of Earth. What I meant was Earth's velocity relative to Aether. The speed of Milky way and whatnot would only add to this effect. And what is this velocity of Milky way related to anyway?

M&M experiment has a slit in the eyepiece so there is an interference pattern with even one beam.
And indeed when the two beams get there they form Moire patterns. The thing is with the different travel times these patterns should be changing. Not seeing any changes is why we think there is no aether."

Ok, when it suits you, you feel free to abandon the hard and fast mathematical foundation rules of SR to excuse the obvious problems. (an orbit can be considered as inertial)

I bet if I gave just one example of some issue I had with SR, and there was a circular motion involved, you would not hesitate to dismiss my claim on the basis that its not inertial!

I thought his SR stuff was pure Physics, pure precise math, but when you want to, you toss it out flippantly claiming that an orbit can be relabeled as a straight path! Here is the use of Einstein Magic again! ( I hereby pronounce that a curved accelerating motion is now a straight inertial motion! but only when I can make it suit my weak arguments, not at any other time)
I call this BS. Its something that a used car salesman would try to pull.

No, an orbit is not inertial under any conditions.

The speed of anything must be somehow relative to the absolute universal speed, which you claim is the speed of light. So when we say the milky way is doing 1.4 million, that must be related to light speed, correct? Its claimed to be the only absolute thing in the universe....

Really? the M&M experiment has a slit in the eyepiece? Never seen that mentioned anywhere before, anyway, mine has no eyepiece, the wall is the viewing screen. So its not relevant.

My results show the expected concentric rings pattern, same as every M&M experiment, but IF the rings are caused by the interference of two differently synchronized light waves, then that pattern MUST change to something totally different if I move the screen closer or further away, and this is what is claimed to occur with this equipment.
But Ive found that there are two problems. First is that the pattern reverses, bright become dark, etc, NOT caused by the DISTANCE, but by slightest changes in the ANGLE of one mirror.
Second problem is that circular concentric ring pattern MUST change on the viewing screen if the screen is angled, as now the out of phase interference areas are striking the screen at different places along the light wave. BUT all I get is the exact same concentric rings, unchanged, with the same bright and dark rings, only as expected now its a elipiticaal pattern.

This totally destroys the M&M interferometer as a measurement of light wave length.

Finally about your remark, " Not seeing any changes is why we think there is no aether." all you should conclude when not getting any result is not that there is no aether, but that light is stable in a localized environment of the basement. You never tested it in the "aether," only in the musty atmosphere in the basement. You certainly never tested light bouncing between a mirror on Saturn and another mirror on some other suitable planet that functions as the second interferometer arm. Only THEN you may be able to say there is no aether, but not from that stupid basement experiment. (im not suggesting that there has to be an aether)

To this day, no one has ever been able to prove that light speed is the same from A to B and back from B to A.
Light is obviously completely indifferent to electric or magnetic forces, yet is supposed to be electromagnetic!
Light has no mass when its stationary, but its never stationary, so it now has mass!

Light is a Wave when it suits us, otherwise its a Particle, or if that seems wrong, then lets pretend its a Wave Packet! Or even a mathematical equation that collapses!



avatar
Guest
Guest

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:22 pm
Sorry, I may not understand what you mean.
Let me just rephrase what you are saying to confirm I understand.

We have two points in space, A and B. We send pulse of light from A to B which is mirrored at B back to A.
Are you saying that the time it takes the light to go from A to B is not (necessarily) the same as the time it takes to get back from B to A?
Sponsored content

Basic info of the error of SR Empty Re: Basic info of the error of SR

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum