fotobits - 13 February 2008 12:28 PM

I got to 100 points just in Conquer’s last post and quit keeping score. Conquer is officially a crackpot.

You didn’t sleep all these days waiting for me to post. What that makes you? Lol

No what you have been showing in this thread is that you are a crackpot, a troll, and an idiot. Go ahead and have the last say. I’m out of here.

I really miss Douglas.  He really enriched my life.

HL Mencken - 22 February 2008 11:25 PM

I really miss Douglas.  He really enriched my life.

fotobits - 13 February 2008 12:51 PM

No what you have been showing in this thread is that you are a crackpot, a troll, and an idiot. Go ahead and have the last say. I’m out of here.

Sure, sure.

Now, when I asked you to show the definition of time used by Einstein to invent his Relativity, you just leave the place insulting me like crazy.

Lets see, as far as I can review the writings of Einstein, he never ever came clear with his understanding of time. This dude wasted his lectures writing about the “subjective perception of time” which somehow we must “translate it” into an objective measurement, and similar stupidities which are not supporter by science by any means.

Recently, a book released to “descipher” what time means for Einstein, says that this dude used light as a measurement to be compared with the motion of things.

By this last book -reviewed by Hawking- one can understand from where the idiotic idea that traveling faster than light means a possible travel through time.

In the writings of Einstein -specially in his lectures about moving clocks- this dude never explained with a clear mechanism how it comes that time dilates. Of course that the reason of the delay in the data given by the clocks, is the malfunction of the clocks.

If any reader disagree with this conclusion based in sure factual evidence, the only thing the reader must do is to show that time exists physically so Relativity can be vindicated as a theory of science.

Now well, fotobits knows that this humble request cannot be fulfilled even by the most advanced technology of today, because time is no more than a measure, a parameter.

Because he -and nobody in this world- can prove such an existence of a physical time, we have to be realistic and accept that Relativity is completely wrong.

We have a dualistic scenario in front of us: or the clocks malfunction, or a physically existent time really dilates.

The correct answer, based in factual evidence which shows no doubts, is that the atomic clocks do malfunction when are exposed to acceleration and to an environment different to the one where they were calibrated.

Regardless of how hard fotobits and others still getting mad, upset, angry, sad, or whatever, the crude reality that Relativity is not even a theory of science must be accepted. I invite the readers to review all the accesible documents of Relativity, and in none of them, the mention that the clocks malfunction is there.

It is clear that this is enough evidence to prove that for Einstein and his followers the idea of time as physically existent and suffering a “magical” dilatation was and still is their belief.

And, because fantasies like Relativity, the subject of Science suffers in its reputation as not been considered as a serious approach of knowledge.

Lets do a clean up and discard this good for nothing Relativity full of magic events and faith alone.

Lets start new and more accurate theories based in a factual phenomenon or experimental data...which is the right way to start a theory of science.

Carl Sagan on time dilation. (From Cosmos).

Is time dilation true? Yes.

In particular:

In the Large Electron-Positron collider in Europe’s nuclear research lab CERN, electrons (and positrons, or anti-electrons) were accelerated to energies of 100 GeV. For such particles, v = 0.999 999 999 95*c and γ is 200,000. Yes, time is slowed down by that factor.

This has nothing to do with “malfunctioning clocks”.

Experimental confirmation of time dilation.

Time dilation page from Professor Hamilton at U. Colorado, Boulder Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences.

Making absurd claims without evidence makes one appear to be a troll. Trolling is against the rules of this forum.

conquer - 24 February 2008 09:52 AM

Recently, a book released to “descipher” what time means for Einstein, says that this dude used light as a measurement to be compared with the motion of things.

I was on vacation recently and came across a discussion of Einstein’s view of the ‘ether’ which I wasn’t aware of.  I am trying to remember where I read the discussion, but here is the book:

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/einsteinether.htm
Book is “Einstein and the Ether” by Ludwik Kostro—it is primarily historical.
Here is a reference to a review:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2384

Anyway in his later years Einstein came back to thinking about the ether, which was news to me
.... this ties to discussions about special & general theories of relativity…

Jackson.

Relativity in GPS
According to the theory of relativity, due to their constant movement and height relative to the Earth-centered inertial reference frame, the clocks on the satellites are affected by their speed (special relativity) as well as their gravitational potential (general relativity). For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45.9 microseconds (μs) per day, because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth’s surface. Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 μs per day. When combined, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day; a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010.[24]. To account for this, the frequency standard onboard each satellite is given a rate offset prior to launch, making it run slightly slower than the desired frequency on Earth; specifically, at 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz.[25] Since the atomic clocks on board the GPS satellites are precisely tuned, it makes the system a practical engineering application of the scientific theory of relativity in a real-world environment.

conquer - 24 February 2008 09:52 AM

In the writings of Einstein -specially in his lectures about moving clocks- this dude never explained with a clear mechanism how it comes that time dilates.

No, he did not. Because there is not.

The whole of special relativity can be derived from these 2 famous postulates:

The Principle of Relativity - The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of inertial coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
The Principle of Invariant Light Speed - Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

Of course, if you think these postulates are wrong, then you are ready. But a scientific attitude would be to experiment and see if the predictions are correct. Which they turn out to be. Yelling that relativity is not verified is not very scientific.

BTW you still owe me the answer to one if my previous questions: if time does not exist physically, how then with speed? (Speed is distance divided by time).

conquer - 24 February 2008 09:52 AM

The correct answer, based in factual evidence which shows no doubts, is that the atomic clocks do malfunction when are exposed to acceleration and to an environment different to the one where they were calibrated.

Please, can you explain the mechanism why atomic clocks malfunction? Just yelling that they do because of the environment is not a scientific explanation. Which factor in the environment changes the speed of the clocks, via which mechanism, and in what magnitude? (Vacuum will not do, there are already so many atomic clocks running in vacuum on earth, and they do not have this phenomenon.) Why is this mechanism working for atomic clocks (which are based on vibration of particles) in the same factor as the half life of elemantary particles? And why is this factor so exactly what was predicted by relativity?

Please explain, even when it is obvious. Obviously nobody in this forum sees the obvious.

Please explain, do not yell. Show us your scientific attitude.

GdB

dougsmith - 24 February 2008 10:07 AM

Carl Sagan on time dilation. (From Cosmos).

Is time dilation true? Yes.

In particular:

In the Large Electron-Positron collider in Europe’s nuclear research lab CERN, electrons (and positrons, or anti-electrons) were accelerated to energies of 100 GeV. For such particles, v = 0.999 999 999 95*c and γ is 200,000. Yes, time is slowed down by that factor.

This has nothing to do with “malfunctioning clocks”.

Experimental confirmation of time dilation.

Time dilation page from Professor Hamilton at U. Colorado, Boulder Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences.

Making absurd claims without evidence makes one appear to be a troll. Trolling is against the rules of this forum.

Lunacies.

I will demonstrate you where the lunacies are: In the “mechanism to explain the apparent longer duration of the muon.”

For this purpose, I will bring to the arena to the former director of the Israel-Techno, who’s name is Brian L Silver.

He wrote a book about science. And, of course, he defended Relativity. In his years, when he wrote his book, he said that “the general theory of Relativity is one of the great monuments of the scientific imagination.” (The Ascent of Science, chapter 32, p417)

Well, in the part which corresponds to the behavior of the muons, he “tried” to explain the mechanism of why the nuon appears to last longer when is exposed to high speeds.

In order to give him the benefit of doubt, lets accept an analogy to explain the process. Be noticed that an analogy is a “similarity in some respects between things otherwise unlike, asnd at least these things must have a partial resemblance.”

Well, with this introduction, lest read his explanation:

“The elementary particles can be thought of as having an internal coin thrower, different types of particle having rates of throw. Heads, I disintegrate; tails, I live a little longer. The thrower knows when to throw because he has a clock. Pressure and temperature changes have no effect on the rate of this internal clock. In experiments at CERN, a beam of muons has been induced to rush round a circular tube at speeds of 99.94 percent of the speed of light. If you put this figure into equation (1)*, you will find that 1 second as observed on the coin thrower’s watch (inside the muon)...”

Enough!

His words are fantasies over fantasies!

This dude was another lunatic who tried to sell his delusions (he died before his book was published) and make profit from them as if they were science.

Anyone can catch inmediately that he is not doing an analogy to explain the mechanism why a muon appears to last longer.

Silver, as a good relativist, applied to the idea of unite the fantasies of Relativity with the probabilities given by Quantum. He presented the muon as playing dice”. Lol.

So, this muon also have an internal clock...ha, ha, ha… what an idiot!.

Instead of giving an analogy he is adding characteristics to the muon that the muon never had, like a coin thrower machine (?) with an internal clock (???)...

In other words, you have a phenomenon which apparently is mathematically predicted by some equations, but the explanation of the mechanism is no more than stupidities!

Do you call to this guy a representative of science? Are you nuts? That dude was a clown! The same than the rest who believe in such fantasies.

Even my 14 years old boy can explain better with solid evidence that motion does affect the elements and molecules of matter and living organisms.

Read again, motion will affect the body, not so the imaginary passage of time.

This event can be easily explained by applying methods which have the proper scientifc explanation, not so stories of magical coin throwing machines…

I thought you were a person with enough dignity to keep your intellect at the level of a considerable respect, but I can see that you just follow idiotic ideas by inertia of motion of fantasies.

Look, you better get some classes of real physics. In real physics the scientists won’t explain a phenomenon saying that kind of doo doo: coin throwing machines...internal clocks...playing dice… lol. Be real.

Time is not physically existent and only ignorants of what physics is can believe the contrary.

Your assumptions are terrorism against the intellect of the people.

And you were suggesting that “trolling” was my intentions here...lol...read again what the brute of Silver said, read again about his position in Israel as to be in charge of such institute of technology and science...and read again his fantasies as a defender of Relativity...all those guys are no more than a bunch of idiots. No exceptions.

Sad to day it, but such is what they are.

Jackson - 24 February 2008 05:53 PM

conquer - 24 February 2008 09:52 AM

Recently, a book released to “descipher” what time means for Einstein, says that this dude used light as a measurement to be compared with the motion of things.

I was on vacation recently and came across a discussion of Einstein’s view of the ‘ether’ which I wasn’t aware of.  I am trying to remember where I read the discussion, but here is the book:

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/einsteinether.htm
Book is “Einstein and the Ether” by Ludwik Kostro—it is primarily historical.
Here is a reference to a review:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2384

Anyway in his later years Einstein came back to thinking about the ether, which was news to me
.... this ties to discussions about special & general theories of relativity…

Jackson.

Very good Jackson. very good.

Now that you have a fresh attitude after vacations, take your time and the same way that you post web links like crazy about such assumed eveidence in favor of the lunacies of Einstein, look for what Einstein said about time itself.

This will clarify the whole argument, not so the silly conclusions made by many about Relativity. (Read about Silver in my massage right above)

For example, Newton was very specific in his idea about Gravity, and even when others didn’t agree with him -he practically fighted with punches here and there to be “heard” by others- he defined Gravity as a force.

This “force” was perceptible, here on ground as well as between the planets and stars.

Even when this theory is not completely validated, still have the basic requirements to be accepted as a theory of science: it has a factual -read observable-beginning, and this phenomenon is described properly without doubts.

Of course, for others, the definition itself falls in doubts, but for his theory of Gravity, he fulfilled the requirements.

Lets see with Relativity.

Einstein must had to provide the same requirements: the observable phenomena, and the proper description or definitioon of it. Even if this definition is proven false, Einstein must had to provide it in his theory.

So, this is essential in a theory, because otherwise the others won’t know what the heck he was talking about.

Read any journal of science, and everyone of them provides the explanation of every step with the proper definition or description. For example, if the theory or test is about superluminal propagation of light and the speed of light is mentioned in it, the word “c” carries a subscript or a superscript number which corresponds to the explanation or definition of what this speed is about.

In former years, the method was the same, the theorists were obligated to show this kind of regulated method of explanation, which went from definitions up to bibliography or references of experiments made by himself or others.

Einstein had to write his papers in this way in order to be accepted by a scienctific institution. He should know it because he was a clerck in a patent office.

So, instead of wasting your life beleving in such silly web links, why not to show here the links about what Einstein said about time?

1)- If he says that time was a physical thing moving around, your position will be 100% correct about Relativity.

3)- If he never said anything clear about what is time, then Relativity is not even a theory of science but a mere hypothesis.

Remember that we are not talking about a paper which describes a phenomena as a high school student does it. We are talking of scientific papers which are written in accord to the stipulated formats which cannot be foggy explanations and neither can have a lack of them.

So here, what it can help you in reality is to read those papers, or at least what others understand about the words of Einstein, and decide by yourself if this hypothesis of Relativity is really a theory of science.

As far as it is know today, he for example, never wrote the formula e=mc2 in his paper of Relativity. He used a different form as its final one according to an approved English translation made of it in 1912 called Manuscript on the Special Theory of Relativity.

I suggest you to post web links showing the words of Einstein, -I guess that the web must be full of quotations about it- where Einstein defined time as to fit with the doctrines of his so called theory.

Once you set more than fifty percent of your text in a bold typeface, conquer, it kind of loses the meaning of having any bold text at all. I just thought I would introduce you to the theory of typography.