10 of 16
10
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 07 August 2013 02:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 12:23 AM

But since these two postulates are essential to the foundation of the theory that follows, if any of the postulates are shown wrong, as I did, there is no need to go further! If you can’t follow this reasoning, tell me what you are holding back on the particular error of my ways.

Sorry Scott, there is nothing unclear about:

The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).

Classical mechanics and Maxwell’s laws just don’t fit this principle (e.g. an observer in rest against an electrical charge only sees an electrical field, but somebody moving in respect to the same electrical charge also observes a magnetic field, which means they would observe completely different phenomena, e.g. that two equally charged particles do not move from each other as fast as for the observer in rest, or eventually move to each other).
Further, as you undoubtedly know, with Maxwell’s theory of the electric-magnetic fields, one can derive that waves must exist, which velocity is 1/sqrt(με) (see here). So more specifically ‘The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another ’ means ‘when all observers measure the same values of μ and ε, they also find the same speed for light’. And, once again, frequency does not appear in this formula. To fit this, also empirically established, fact, the Galilean Transformation must be changed into the Lorentz Transformations.

This all has nothing to do with ‘the early universe’ If you think what you write there is flawless logic, then you live in another world…

Same with your critique on the second postulate, that of the constancy of light.

“Light”, here, is again improperly quantified.

This means you need replacements for the Maxwell equations too. Light is perfectly defined, as are its frequency, wavelength and speed.

Sorry Scott, this all is not even serious, it is not even fringe science: it is crackpotism.

Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 12:23 AM

It will eventually be published in its full version when I am prepared..

You will never get this published in any serious scientific publication. And if you get it finished (which I doubt, you will stumble on the math), you won’t get it published. I say because it is nonsense, you will say because the scientific community is too much attached to relativity.

Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 12:23 AM

You are just demanding that I SHUT UP here.

No! I demand that you bring your theory in a logically and mathematically correct form. Your criticism on the postulates of SR however, are simply a joke.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 04:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31

Just to add: on the ‘Maxwell pages’ you also find this:

Maxwell’s correction to Ampère’s law is particularly important: it shows that not only does a changing magnetic field induce an electric field, but also a changing electric field induces a magnetic field. Therefore, these equations allow self-sustaining “electromagnetic waves” to travel through empty space.

So no need for an ether.

It is interesting to read a little further:

The speed calculated for electromagnetic waves, which could be predicted from experiments on charges and currents, exactly matches the speed of light; indeed, light is one form of electromagnetic radiation (as are X-rays, radio waves, and others). Maxwell understood the connection between electromagnetic waves and light in 1861, thereby unifying the theories of electromagnetism and optics.

Special relativity unified mechanics with electromagnetics, General relativity then unifies special relativity with gravity and non-inertial systems. And I could go on a little longer. What you underestimate tremendously is how all these theories are completely ‘hardwired’ with each other, and how they are confirmed by experimental evidence. You cannot just remove one screw, or exchange it with a completely other one.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2013 03:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I’m trying to be patient with you because I’m not sure if you are being serious with me or not. First of all, I am not sure why you continue to insist on insulting me rather than keep your emotional feelings out of it. It suggests that you are possibly using it as a motivating mechanism for the argument because you are at a roadblock to find a better logical argument against me.

1) Do you not see that scientific theory evolves as natural selection just as any cultural phenomena, like religion? What I mean by this is that instead of restructuring anything from scratch, the way society takes on new ideas is with what works in the present environment, not necessarily what is better or superior. Instead of completely abandoning the previous ideas completely, we tend to limit change to what is tolerable to the present environment. Even with the “scientific revolution” being as revolutionary as it was, revolution was merely an acceptable phase within Newton’s age of the Enlightenment. After our social discovery of how the development of relatively extreme change through revolution, we have been turned down from it after WWII. Once we saw how revolution creates such extreme political problems, we went back to a accepting a gradual evolutionary pattern.

As functional as natural evolution operates in our biology, it isn’t necessary now since we recognize the superiority of observation and logic to enable big changes in more suddenly. What tends to happen is that we don’t abandon the old but build on them by re-interpretation, redefinition, and inductive reasoning as more relevant than pure deductive logic instead. In another post, I gave a secular interpretation to Genesis as a possible and sensible explanation for what may likely be true of the past. I represented it as our early form of science to show how in time, cultural evolution hides the original meaning because we lose the original vocabulary in contemporary settings. Just as what likely was secular history turned into religion with apparently strange conclusions of interpretation, modern science uses the same thing.

My point here is to suggest that what was originally meant to the minds of the scientific theories of even the recent past, they are subject to their cultural, political, and religious climate. Even if Einstein, for instance, doesn’t specify or even recognizes how other environmental theories of his time affected him, they did, and are hard to avoid. The aether is one perfect example. It was still relatively novel that a vacuum could be something real. So when all the scientists of that era developed their ideas, they based them on things that to them were odd while today we easily take them for granted. When they ‘determined’ that no aether existed, they had the belief that coordinates without apparent content themselves is just as equal as nothing itself. To their early understanding for instance, they learn that a vacuum has the potential to pull two items with only suction cups in contact. It suggested to them that a vacuum in its purest sense has zero volume. Because of this, trying to understand outer space as having this property, regardless of the logic, was easily misplaced because they ignored addresses as having any meaning whatsoever without any other physical properties to measure from.

From my learning of electronics and computer engineering, including various languages, I noticed that you could create the very same output (program) using many different logical constructs. Though the logic all have a common foundation, the way that the electronics are set up, you can create a new logic on top of that infinitely with an infinite set of languages. This shows that for every reality, there are many more than simply one way to get to the end result. Thus, in scientific theory, we can just as easily set almost any set of postulates that we want and get the same results that are all true but have different programming languages.

Intel architecture is another good example of evolution rather than a simpler logic itself. Instead of restructuring chips to a more reasonable and simpler instruction set, they evolve on the last chip design because they want programs created to have backward compatibility so that people with older computers can run most of the programs with the same logic AND the new computers to be able to use the older programs on the newer machines. It has real practical justifications because they don’t have to throw away the whole plant setup and start from scratch each time; It would increase cost significantly and delay the progress because it requires time to restructure everything.

I think that you should see from this that avoiding total restructuring in science from time to time to fit with the contemporary realities will assure that it gets overly and unnecessarily more complex in time. This is and has occurred. In contemporary quantum theories, most recognize that space void of anything isn’t actually empty of reality. Yet these understandings are forced to be contrary or contradictory to the original theoretical forms. For this reason, you should at least understand why we cannot discourage someone like myself proposing a total restructuring from the earlier premises.

2) The Principle of Relativity is not unclear to me. It certifies that to their contemporary ‘frame of reference’, that they could not actually make sense of the idea that an empty space (a geometric volume), represents anything if it doesn’t have resistance, or means to alter reality. So they presumed that since they couldn’t find such a ‘resistance’ in ordinary measures, they chose to create their theories with some alteration of postulates that ‘fit’ with a definition of space (a vacuum) if and only if nothing within such volumes contains anything the causes change in other forms of recognized reality (matter & energy). The theory was basically a story that came before the evidence could justify anything. They didn’t wait for the observations before they were allowed to theorize. Yet, to me, you’ve placed this burden on me. Why?

So, they rehashed the normal presumptions of our present capabilities by denying that time should have to be consistent, just all other physical phenomena. Think of how we compress computer data like pixels for in order to reduce memory space. A non-lossy process is one in which when you compress the information, you must be able to ‘undo’ it without losing any complete information from the original data. For instance, if you have data like this: 100001110, you can create a program that counts repeats in some type of algorithm to reduce the data. In this example, we might do something like have an algorithm that recognizes a change in digit, and then count its repeats so that you have something like 1x1,0x4,1x3,0x1 to represent the data. If it is maximized to four repeats, you would have a compressor program that allows for just two digits to represent all multiples (up to four) by re-recording the information as 001, 100, 011, 001. At this point in this example, four repeats isn’t enough to summarize the expression in something smaller. But you should be able to see how it becomes effective as you increase this limit.

What is my point here? Well, the way space was and is understood by some is like a compression factor. They use space as a numerical presentation of repeated zeros with a count to summarize (compress) their conception of nothing to be presented and think that this resolves the issue without recognizing that in order for us to actually understand its essence, we must decompress it to its original form. That is, they treat space have being consistent of merely a numerical operation between reality, as if only ones represent true reality. It is this same kind of error that prevented the digit zero from being recognized as a real number until the Enlightenment gave us the Arabic number system.

[I’m doing this in parts so that I can be as explicit as possible. So there is more to come.]

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 12:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 03:44 PM

I think that you should see from this that avoiding total restructuring in science from time to time to fit with the contemporary realities will assure that it gets overly and unnecessarily more complex in time. This is and has occurred. In contemporary quantum theories, most recognize that space void of anything isn’t actually empty of reality. Yet these understandings are forced to be contrary or contradictory to the original theoretical forms. For this reason, you should at least understand why we cannot discourage someone like myself proposing a total restructuring from the earlier premises.

While a lot of what you write here does make some sense (to be very explicit: your historical description about the ‘cultural reasons’ from abandoning the ether do not belong to this category), in the context of this thread, where you present yourself as a ‘scientific revolutionary’, your flood of words is greatly exaggerated. You forget that the scientific revolutions was the work of people who thoroughly knew what the then present, intrinsic problems in science were. Relativity was scientifically intrinsically motivated by incompatibility of Newton mechanics and Maxwell theory on one side (and Einstein knew both very well!), and inconsistency of some experiments with the then present theories (Fizeau experiment, light aberration).

Except conflict with ‘daily intuition’, you did not mention one intrinsically theoretical problem with relativity which would make a revolutionary change necessary. Your reference to ‘the cosmological principle’ does not make any sense: there is a huge explanatory gap between it and your ideas, especially when you say that the math of relativity is correct. I do not get how your ideas would solve any scientific problem, when nothing in the calculations changes.

Scott Mayers - 07 August 2013 03:44 PM

2) The Principle of Relativity is not unclear to me. It certifies that to their contemporary ‘frame of reference’, that they could not actually make sense of the idea that an empty space (a geometric volume), represents anything if it doesn’t have resistance, or means to alter reality. So they presumed that since they couldn’t find such a ‘resistance’ in ordinary measures, they chose to create their theories with some alteration of postulates that ‘fit’ with a definition of space (a vacuum) if and only if nothing within such volumes contains anything the causes change in other forms of recognized reality (matter & energy). The theory was basically a story that came before the evidence could justify anything. They didn’t wait for the observations before they were allowed to theorize. Yet, to me, you’ve placed this burden on me. Why?

I think your use of the word ‘they’ shows your pre-occupation with some conspiracy-like agreements of scientists to stick to the present ideas because they have no better, even if they know that the ideas are wrong at a deeper level. They are just afraid to confess that to the outside world. And of course they don’t like it when some layman, like a certain Scott Mayers, comes and exposes their errors. So here comes GdB as first outpost of the scientific community to defend science by ridiculing you!

No, no, Scott. I am very serious: your argumentation is deeply flawed, incomplete, and shows you are miles away from the knowledge and mathematical competence you need to even understand what relativity is about.

Instead of writing such long postings, in which you try to justify your position on cultural and philosophical grounds, you should concentrate on making your ideas rock solid. If you succeed, you can be sure to get the Nobel price. If you don’t, then please accept it, and use your energy for more useful activities.

Also remember what you are doing here: you try to convince some forum member, with a basic education in physics, of the correctness of your ideas. What for? I have no shorter communication line to the Nobel price committee, Stephen Hawking or Ed Witten than you. If you see it as a first test of the acceptance of your ideas, then OK, but don’t be insulted when your ideas are not accepted. If you are sure of your ideas, then there is only one conclusion: you cannot present them yet in a form that convinces a forum member with some background in physics. So you just should do better.

But a long aggrieved exposé about your own role in a scientific revolution does not contribute to your credibility.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 12:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I have only begun here as you will see. I think that you think that my use of the term to be revolutionary as in merely being an adjective of significant proportions. I used the term to describe “a sudden onset” or “change” in the paradigm with respect to human history. I equally meant it to describe sudden political changes due to an overthrow of a government whether for good or bad. I mentioned that since the causes of revolution in and up to the 20th century emphasized the philosophy of sudden forceful overthrow or “rehauling” of a system of ideas to start anew presented us with how derogatory the nature of revolution itself has become as a functional theme to progress. Communism and National Socialism are the major ones that ended this era due to the World Wars and that which culminated in the Cold War.

Like Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of occasional spurts of quick evolutionary periods in biology along with the gradual nature of evolution in many times in between, that is the comparison I was trying to draw. We are in an era where sudden overthrow of the nature of any system is frowned upon for social-psychological reasons rather than encouraging it. And because of the gradual phase we are in now, it is such that the evolution of scientific progress is fitting closer to the traditional Darwinian process such that change only adapts to each very last set of normal population genes. Instead of drawing the newest ideas on a straight logical path, it is based on the set definitions and ideas of each past paradigm making the logic, though sound, that takes it on a longer stretch of proofs to the latest theories. But what is lost is that by doing this way, we are ignoring how language itself evolves with the culture within parts of a generation so that when we try to use our present understanding of words to apply to the past, we err in complete understanding because we don’t have all the other environmental influences of the time those older theories were presented in.

I can’t help you with your belief on how you chose to motivate or demotivate my arguments with insults. But I can chose to ask you to consider respectfully the effect you can have on others by the way you behave. I’m not against insults. My personal values and integrity remains well with myself regardless. And I also respect that we are all humans with emotions that we don’t have to hide from each other and take them personally either. It is only my concern that as I’m presenting my argument, I hope that the effects of your insults to me do not affect how others perceive me prior to taking the time to read what I have to say. I recognize that you have a ‘formal’ education beyond mine but that in itself (with my honesty of my own lack of the formal qualifications) places you in an unfair light of apparent authority. That is, if they trust your integrity, they will distrust mine by emotional peer pressure (not of the professional kind). I just hope we are beyond that here and can move on.

The next part of my argument is going to get into the nature of light itself and I will show how I do indeed understand the initial traditional acceptance before I present what I know is wrong with it. And yes, to your favor, I’ll even try to put math and illustrations in it. Like I said, since you are demanding full exposure, your forcing my hand to present things from the start. So its going to take steps for which I will try to get agreement at each stage to assure we’re on the same page before I proceed to the next. I’m working on it separately until I have put it together sufficiently to present. Just give me patience. This presentation is as much a new challenge to me than anything I’ve had to do before.

Thank you for your respect.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 01:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

By the way, I’m guessing that you’re beyond all sense of hearing by now, but would it be too much to request that you play The Moonlight Sonata in all three parts while I work? smile

Thanks

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 02:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 08 August 2013 12:52 AM

It is only my concern that as I’m presenting my argument, I hope that the effects of your insults to me do not affect how others perceive me prior to taking the time to read what I have to say.

If you think about it, it is of no importance. Science is not made here on this forum. Laymen who agree with you are no use for you. The only way that such a forum can help you is that you can hope to find a sparring partner, to see if your ideas might work. So here I am! (However, the other forum would have been better. More educated physicists around, so more and better sparring partners. Feeling insulted does not bring science further!).

But: I think it is an awful long time ago that somebody without the proper academic education brought new insights in fundamental physical theories. And I assure you, that has nothing to do with physicists so much attached to their ideas that they do not want to get rid of them. It is because the theories are complicated: more complicated than you imagine.

Scott Mayers - 08 August 2013 12:52 AM

The next part of my argument ...

Sorry, I am not ready with the first part, or worse, I have not even recognised it. State your basic principles, and how they are supported by empirical evidence, or at least, not contradicted. Formulate them as positive statements about physical nature and/or laws of nature, not just as negation of existing assumptions (So NOT: ‘The laws of nature are not the same for all inertial observers’. You should say how they are different.) Only from such positive propositions you can build up your theory. You can leave out all your cultural and philosophical musings, as they do not contribute to better understanding of your theory.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I chose here because it is home to me. As this is a forum, this is no different than presenting issues with the feedback that Plato represented well with Socrates for his day. The difference here is that as unconventional as it may be, the forum is an ideal place to present your ideas precisely because it is interactive with real feedback. I inadvertently picked the scienceforums.net also because I believed that I would get fair address. The problem is, I just googled “science forums” and that one came up first. I wasn’t attentive enough to notice their fringe ghetto or I would not have posted in the first place there.

I sincerely believe that in order to connect the common human with the truths of science, it requires a proof that is adequate to both the understanding of anyone as well as to the scientifically inquisitive. Those prior posts are of a philosophic nature and is an orientation to what I’m presenting. It is absolutely necessary in my experience with any logical argument (whether simple philosophical dialectic or formal science) that the approach to presentation should involve all and every necessary means to present a good argument. None of what I said in (1) or (2) is unnecessary and it is carefully worded and argued logically. As the reader follows how I argue with clarity, it is all that matters. I’m establishing motive for the thesis which explains how what follows is significant for serious inquiry.

Point (1) above is the rational explanation for why we must be vigilante to attend to alternate explanations that reconstruct the case from a fresh perspective without a guarded irrational fear for my type of proposal. The problem is that many people within the science & skeptic communities (myself included) have perspectives that blind one from advancing certain things due to its unnecessary complexity and the segregation of an elite class to declare authority on such matters without equal warrant to the very same irrational logic that those so called, “crackpots” adhere to. Fear of allowing platform to ideas because they threaten particular standard views of some ideology. And sure, you would claim that science is somehow immune to this. But its not because they are demanding the same force of authority trust or recognition with the same type of reasoning that is faulty in things like religion. The reason why science and religion will continue its engaging arguments without closure is because they argue the same way and yet each thinks that it is the other that does it and not themselves. So far, I gave equally powerful arguments no less informative than Darwinian theory: Note he did not use or need a mathematical model to prove his thesis! And proper academic credentials were not the norm of the past behaviors of others. Socrates initiated logical dialect, while Aristotle refined it and added classifications, Euclid wrote his Elements,  and Archimedes followed, all without a 12th grade qualification. Education is merely the sum of a collection of knowledge that comes not from non-premeditation theoretical exposure but due to their intuitive conceptions based on the common knowledge in the mainstream of the day. I have way more content available to me by the internet alone that provides me with sufficient data to make an informed theory.

That’s not all I used though. I did read through the university texts. The only difference between me and a university graduate is of how their learning came about and what emphasis was placed on some things over others. While students must spend an extraordinary effort to use their memories in the first years to scientific concepts within a framework of time that they cannot control, their learning isn’t even absorbed because the evidence for belief in certain theories are not presented until certain methods are first ingrained into them. It steals away the rational approach to discovery because unlike me, they don’t have the luxury nor drive to make sense of things as they go along with their learning. Too much emphasis is placed on arbitrary procedure protocols like requiring students to write in the APA format for one teacher or the MLA format for another. And you can fail on merely not appealing to the format that a particular professor demands. This is how you qualify intelligence? If the educational system was appropriate, it would teach logic first and foremost from Kindergarten on. Instead, its designed to be practical to the requirements of the workforce and educational institutes that test them. People in school mostly pay attention to their grades as opposed to the knowledge they are there to absorb. The drive isn’t there. And by the time they get to graduate school they are just beginning to clue in that they must present something NEW to the system as a contributory proof of their worth. This is odd because it imposes upon them to put forward new and unique ideas regardless of whether those ideas are useful or even required for the added notice to history. For every graduate, there is one unique thesis (or more) added by force in order to qualify for graduation. This is motive for the creation of a lot of garbage per unit of real insight. Duh!?

So no, I don’t simply trust in the authority of a graduate of some university for necessary logical fortitude. Technological wise, there is more justice to reason that they have followed the curriculum sufficient enough to trust their labor of knowledge skills and assets, nothing more. Those people have to prove themselves to the community at large that they have intelligence worthy of notice, not the educational institutes with a restricted audience and foreign language. You can’t demand that someone must be formally qualified in order to be considered rational any more than you should have to be forced to read the complete bible in order appease to the present authorities acceptance of an argument against it.

Point (2) above clearly demonstrates how the Principle of Relativity is an unjust postulate based on the historical settings and how these determine the language they use for them. The explanation for this demonstration shows that a sincere alternate perspective can be created that match the identical evidences. It proves that the postulate is not uniquely qualified as the only possible explanation. And I also showed how the intuitive (not empirically based) assumptions have less force than another explanation because the examples I present have an intuition based closer to one’s natural capacities of any persons observations or perspective. It’s certainly not everyday experience for me to observe life at close to the speed of light. It is everyday experience that tells me that volumes of space are real, not just mere mathematical concepts that bridge two distant points in space via a formula as if the formula itself is the fictitious or virtual manifestation of reality itself. In order to make sense to a rational mind, you have to begin with postulates from their perspective, not one that they should assume at a distance and then find the evidence to show that it connects. Isn’t it the saying that extraordinary conclusions require an extraordinary amount of evidence? It should follow from this that I trust what is directly in front of me before I presume how other inertial frames will behave. I am forced to intuitively imagine, for instance that you could in fact move at the speed of light in order to demonstrate how light should behave even understanding at the same time that this is impossible. And then I’m to imagine that should I be on a light beam, (that is going at, not less than the speed of light), that I should still see my image in a mirror but that time slows down. Oh, yeah, it’ll slow down alright, your translation through space at that speed must guarantee by the same hypothesis that your time is eternally frozen. I can’t see an escape from eternity, do you? And then to presume that you could even theoretically slow down after going that speed and somehow the translation of that information that is going in one perfect direction could somehow remember that it was matter just prior to its full conversion to energy and reassemble itself as the same atoms or particles they were before-hand.

And don’t try to argue acceleration being relevant as I showed how the twin paradox can be just as intuitively designed to still be paradoxical when no one knew their prior acceleration: the observers were designed in the frame of those inertias that I presented. So there’s no excuse that anyone could claim to be biased by acceleration and yet the truth of their acceleration still exists from our knowledge of it. So we should perceive the two twins differ in ages from our perspective while they must contradictorily perceive themselves as the same age when they meet? The paradox goes away once you throw away the idea that there is NO fixed space. Then when the twins meet, they in fact do see their age differences as we do because one of them traveled through a real space much faster than the other. [note that I argued my version of the twin paradox earlier in the thread.]

I have therefore shown that theory already falls short by its initial premises. If you assume its true, you assume with an intuition beyond regular observations (the initial prerequisite of empirical evidence), and that its assumption leads to a sincere unresolvable paradox, a contradiction. Therefore Relativity is false under those premises.

I will still continue to argue with respect to the nature of light and show how it can only make matters worse by building through the traditional arguments and postulates. (Now, though, I’ve got to sleep. Goodnight.)

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31

It makes no sense to go on, Scott. You cannot give the positive formulations of your assumptions and derive mathematically and logically correct, how from this follow the LT, time dilation and length contraction, which are all empirically proven. In your sense, there is extraordinary prove of relativity, and much of it. Sure, logically seen there might be other assumptions on which you can build the LT, but you really have not shown any.

I see that you just blow much hot air, and not a single correct derivation from basic principles. Forget it. I am spoiling my time.

Sweet dreams.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4747
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 08 August 2013 05:25 AM

I have therefore shown that theory already falls short by its initial premises. If you assume its true, you assume with an intuition beyond regular observations (the initial prerequisite of empirical evidence), and that its assumption leads to a sincere unresolvable paradox, a contradiction. Therefore Relativity is false under those premises.

Does that also apply to Quantum Mechanics? Why or why not?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Gdb,

I am not sure why you’re not able to follow the reasoning I present. There are a few parts to my thesis. One was to show how relativity was to fall short, and the second, to argue a positive case for what I contribute. The first part I’ve shown completely proves Relativity theory has a flaw. It doesn’t mean that all its parts that follow are faulty (the logic) nor that the functional conclusions are false based on it. But since the premises are in error, we cannot logically accept Einstein’s theory as valid.

Darron,

The first part of the proof only invalidates Relativity as a complete closed theory. The positive argument which I need to expand on here will have an impact on quantum mechanics but I don’t believe that it makes the whole subsection faulty. At least, at this point in the argument, I haven’t brought in enough information directly relating to quantum theory; But I will.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 04:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4747
Joined  2007-10-05

You didn’t answer my question, Scott. You said Relativity is false because it requires assumptions beyond regular observations. Does this also apply to Quantum Mechanics? Why or why not?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
DarronS - 08 August 2013 04:37 PM

You didn’t answer my question, Scott. You said Relativity is false because it requires assumptions beyond regular observations. Does this also apply to Quantum Mechanics? Why or why not?

No, I understood your question. I am not certain I should respond to that issue, yet, because it requires more argument to present such a case and takes it away from the issue at hand. If you are asking if an argument within quantum mechanics requires the same necessity to have its postulates true for an argument based on them to follow, then the same rules of reasoning apply.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4747
Joined  2007-10-05

Thanks for muddying that up. A simple “yes” or “no” followed by an explanation of why or why not QM should follow the same prerequisite as Relativity would have been much more clear. And the issue at hand, as far as I am concerned, is your insistence that Relativity be intuitive and be based on assumptions from “regular observations,” whatever those are. Instead of using obfuscation, would you please provide a clear, concise answer?

To be true, does QM have to be based on assumptions from regular observations? If so, please define “regular observations.”

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 08 August 2013 04:26 PM

I am not sure why you’re not able to follow the reasoning I present. There are a few parts to my thesis. One was to show how relativity was to fall short, and the second, to argue a positive case for what I contribute. The first part I’ve shown completely proves Relativity theory has a flaw. It doesn’t mean that all its parts that follow are faulty (the logic) nor that the functional conclusions are false based on it. But since the premises are in error, we cannot logically accept Einstein’s theory as valid.

I haven’t seen any correct argument against relativity. Your interpretation of the ‘1 hour program from two sides’ is simply wrong, because you look at it from the frame ‘earth/moon’ only. And: stating that this shows relativity is wrong, but ‘the math is correct’ is simply logically impossible. Your calculation (which btw I did not see) of the program durations should differ if your critique would make sense. How can you otherwise say that your example shows relativity is wrong?

And your positive statement: you mean this?

every point in space has one fixed speed in a fixed space

A point in space having a speed in fixed space??? Do you mean every object?

And from that follows:

Since we measure the fastest speed in relation to a vector linear direction, then that constant is either “c” as measured by the speed of light, or approaches a limit slightly faster than that.

question How does that follow??? Or even worse: what is that you are saying that follows? Give a real example (not a some funny idea like that of a clock destructed into pure energy when it approaches the speed of light), of something that has empirically been shown to be true.

Am I approaching the speed of light?

Yes, you are saying:

nothing can go slower than “c” either

I stop here. This, and the rest of that posting is devoid of any meaning. Nothing could be farther from flawless logic than the illogical connection between empty concepts.

If I did not see any positive claim, then it is because you brought empty contents only. Your sentences have as much content as ‘colorless green ideas sleep furiously’.

What I demand from you is 1 or 2 clear and unambiguous assumptions, and then a clear logically and mathematically correct derivation of the LT, time dilation and length contraction.

What I expect that I will get from you, however, is some philosophical, cultural or psychological justification again, why you do not give these. Or maybe just the simple remark that I am a pompous ass who is stuck in his doctrinal education.

PS It also is very clear that you never answer on arguments brought against your ideas, or clear questions like that of Darron. You avoid all criticism, instead of countering them. (Often saying that your thesis is not ready yet. Wow, this thesis will overthrow not just relativity, but also Maxwell theory and quantum physics.)

[ Edited: 08 August 2013 11:24 PM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 16
10