2 of 16
2
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 20 July 2013 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:37 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 04:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20

Scott,

I think a few people are forgetting Einstein’s other theory, one that unfortunately hasn’t gained general acceptance yet.


http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html

When asked to write short essay on “the ethical significance of Spinoza’s philosophy,” Einstein replied:

I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza. But what I think about this man I can express in a few words. Spinoza was the first to apply with strict consistency the idea of an all-pervasive determinism to human thought, feeling, and action. In my opinion, his point of view has not gained general acceptance by all those striving for clarity and logical rigor only because it requires not only consistency of thought, but also unusual integrity, magnamity, and — modesty.

Not saying I manage to live up to this b.t.w.

Back to the topic

I’m wondering if the solution is simple, or perhaps I’ll just show my ignorance, let’s see.

I think the film does take much longer than it’s original length to reach the space craft when the signal is transmitted from Earth. The speed of light remains constant for the observer but the signal from the end of the film simply travels much further at the same speed than the signal from the beginning of the film and so takes longer to reach the space craft .

Stephen

[ Edited: 21 July 2013 04:33 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2013 06:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 20 July 2013 08:24 PM

What has bothered me most is that as a skeptic, the very reasons I have learned to questioned things as I do in all areas outside of science is due to the queerness or oddness of certain explanations for reality. I apply the same thing to science. But as I began to learn science, in particular, things like the Big Bang, Relativity, etcetera, I discover that the strangeness and non-intuitive ideas are just as popular there as in religion, cults, scams, politics, and everything else. The blanketed trust in the authorities of today’s scientists has no more significant justification without proof as any other subject

The universe is under no obligation to behave according to our intuitive understanding. And, as I said earlier and several people pointed out to you on scienceforums.net, Einstein’s theory has passed every test thrown at it for 100 years, yet you still talk about trust without proof.

For the same reason, I am irritated by the endless requests by professionals within science to demand that we must acquire a full fledged four year degree in order to be even qualified to make a logical argument. If today’s theories are to be trusted by just anyone, the scientist is obliged to present their views in a manner that is either intuitively fair in logical terms to any human ear without the needs to impose a special language prerequisite (math, in this case, for the most part). This is not being done. Any sources available anywhere either intimidates the audience with pompous implications of inadequacies on the part of the listener or they explain some of those theoretical concepts with relative mysticism.

There are many books available that explain myriad science topics without resorting to math, mysticism or condescending tones. Further, if you want to make logical arguments about science you should study philosophy. 

I understand relativity as Einstein originally proposed it without the need for the math. But the explanations of it, so far as I have been able to discover, present themselves with severe logical inconsistencies and a claim of an acceptable counterintuitiveness. I do NOT except (sic) that science requires an escape of intuition of normal experience any more than any claims by the paranormal. If it is counterintuitive, the explanation is either false or inadequate to simply accept.

Once again, the universe is under no obligation to meet our intuitive ideas.

For example, the Big Bang, as we are all popularly reminded, is a mere 15 Billion years old. Yet, we are to accept that even though the Solar system is a third of that age, we are just to trust that the evidence proves that rather than question the explanation for it.

Actually, it is 13.82 billion years, and no scientist is asking us to just trust that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. As I pointed out a few posts ago, this is freshman astronomy stuff. Your ignorance is not evidence scientists are asking us to believe anything on mere trust. This is an example of why scientists find it hard to take people seriously when they don’t have a formal education in a given field.

The problem is that the contemporary view is to allow the original composers of a view to take pecedence for their explanations and credit them if the science supports the view INDUCTIVELY, until something new can be experimented with that is unique to the theoretical proposal. It forces us to accept the cultural claims of an explanation and only change by an evolutionary process (ie, keeping the junk DNA, so to speak) rather than allow others to present a new or improved explanation of a theory without proposing anything new.

You say “inductively” as if it is a bad thing, yet inductive reasoning is the essence of science. The scientific method is agnostic to cultural claims and does allow people to present new and improved explanations, but how in the world can you do so without proposing anything new?  You are no longer making sense.

Einstein had most of it right. His explanations are in error!!

And yet his theories have passed every test possible for 100 years. Just because Einstein’s explanations disagree with your intuition does not mean his explanations are wrong.

If I propose something that doesn’t alter the math, I don’t need the math to argue it.

At which point you are practicing philosophy, not science. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, but if you don’t understand the distinction you’ll never get anywhere.

It isn’t necessary to require an experiment for every proposed theory. That’s irrational dogma.

You do not understand the meaning of the word “theory.” An idea which cannot be tested is not a theory. This is not irrational dogma, it is the scientific method.

I haven’t proposed anything far fetched in my explanation. It is clear and, according to Occam’s Razor, it’s simpler and even more ‘empirical’ because it is intuitively understandable from anyone’s perspective.

There you go with that intuition stuff again.

I already read why the post in the science forum was moved to “speculation”. I highly disagree with doing so even for the most moronic views because it decision is based on opinions of people who believe in a status quo and feel threatened unreasonably by allowing such views to be taken seriously. I was directly insulted by being placed there because it automatically disrespected my view by POISONING THE WELL!

Then post your idea on a philosophy forum where it belongs.

I like to at least thank some you, like Mike and Steven, for actually reading what I said rather than dismissing me as a nut from just the title. Even nuts have nutritional value.

I actually read what you said too, and I disagree with you. What you are saying is not science. If you want to pursue your idea further I suggest you read some philosophy of science and change course. If you want to study science and try to gain respect for your idea as science you’ll first need to understand the meaning of the word “theory” and why testing ideas is important.

[ Edited: 21 July 2013 06:37 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2013 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:38 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05

No, accepting that the universe is not obligated to meet our intuitive expectations does not invalidate empiricism. Intuitively, most people would expect a hammer and a feather dropped at the same time to fall at different speeds. They will in the air due to aerodynamic effects, but as one of the Apollo missions demonstrated in a vacuum they fall at the same speed. Calling the Inflation Theory an ad hoc add-on to the Big Bang Theory is like calling General Relativity an ad hoc add on to Newton’s Theory of Gravity. Of course it is ad hoc; the theory was meant to explains something the Big Bang Theory as it existed did not explain. The BBT needed this addition to account for observations.

And if you think the universe behaving strangely invalidates empiricism please explain how computers work. Hint, the answer involves quantum mechanics, which is definitely counter-intuitive.

You can prove that the end result of any experiment supports this original claim, but no reasonable human can possibly alter time or have personal certainty of this. And therefore the explanation is flawed.

That statement makes no sense. If GPS units did not take time dilation into account they would not work.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

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

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:38 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4848
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 21 July 2013 07:03 PM

And, likewise, successful predictions do not guarantee that the explanation is valid.

I give up on you. You are now exhibiting sign #2 of a crackpot, refusing to acknowledge science. The moderator at science forums.net is right. If you refuse to address the science the thread should be closed. Things work differently around here, but I will not waste more time arguing with you.

And no, I do not disdain philosophy. If I did I would not have taken 15 hours of philosophy in college. You are interpreting everything through a lens clouded by your ignorance.

Adios.

[ Edited: 21 July 2013 07:11 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2013 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:39 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:39 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

[a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:40 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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: 21 July 2013 10:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28
Scott Mayers - 21 July 2013 05:37 PM

Although I anticipated this and explained it, I’ll do it better: Claiming that the Universe doesn’t have to require an intuitive understanding is no different than saying that God works in mysterious ways AND you see God in nature in a secular way. You’re saying you don’t know the cause but the explanation for the observation you provide is certain.

Exactly, although most scientists would be aghast that the rationale of their calling can be liken to “The Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome.

You can prove that the end result of any experiment supports this original claim, but no reasonable human can possibly alter time or have personal certainty of this. And therefore the explanation is flawed.

What is the nature of time and why is it unidirectional, is unknown.

And therefore, a better explanation, as I suggest, is that since an object measuring the effect of light is also moving with respect to it, time change isn’t the cause of the measurement, the motion of the measuring device in the same frame its measuring is the cause.

All “time” measuring devices depend on the motion of something like pendulums or atoms etc. It is possible that in the above circumstance, the motion of that something slows down thereby giving the observer in the moving frame of reference the illusion of time dilation.

There is no known device that directly measures time.

And since even things like destructive radiation will affect one should they even get up to close the speed of light, it implies that space itself is fixed, not relative. This assures us of an ether, which denies the reason Einstein’s explanation which was originally based on that assumption (its cultural motivator), should be updated.

So, back to Newton?

Einstein replaced the aether with the gravitational field analogous to the electric/magnetic field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field

In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a “force”. In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime, and that there is either no gravitational force, or that gravity is a fictitious force.

However:

The detection of gravitational waves bears directly on the question of whether there is any such thing as a “gravitational field,” which can act as an independent entity. … this fundamental field hypothesis has been generally accepted without observational support. Such credulity among scientists occurs only in relation to the deepest and most fundamental hypotheses for which they lack the facility to think differently in a comparably detailed and consistent way. In the nineteenth century a similar attitude led to a general acceptance of the ether …

So, is the gravitational field real at all?

In particular, I am referring here to theoretical science, which IS philosophy.

It is, which is why Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg etc. had to struggle to reconcile their scientific insights with philosophy without contradictions.

As an example, the Big Bang theory is usually explained initially from the Hubble experiments and they do this in usually great detail. Then they may let us know of The Steady State Theory but then do not adequately show how the discovery of microwave background radiation is a definite destruction to the theory AND, since there is no other rational explanations presently available, we must admit the Big Bang is true. Then, if willing, the authors of the document(ary) may present us with the Inflation Theory without justifying it. As I see it on my own, this theory was merely an ad hoc add-on due to the strange fact that our apparent universe was relatively young AND that they had no evidence at the time for acceleration (an actual necessary condition if a Big Bang could even be true)!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ləmɛtʁ]; 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.

As a priest, he believed the theory could be reconciled with God as the unknowable creator of the universe.

Why must anyone accept the Big Bang Theory as explained even with 100% supports just because it exists that fits with prediction? The explanation is too weird to accept. But its acceptance in the presence is crippling the capability of others to put forward alternate explanations that may be better or more normal because it is being politically established that the truth requires disproving the observation and/or providing the scientific institutions to be employed in providing new experiments.

Not everyone accepts the Big Bang Theory.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

Infinite density?

Alternatives to the singularity:

One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants. Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.

Does that make more sense? It implies that the Universe and time in totality, is infinite.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 01:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6171
Joined  2006-12-20
Scott Mayers - 21 July 2013 07:03 PM

(Sorry, Stephen for the earlier misspelling of your name.)

No worries.

Back to the thought experiment. In my last post I missed out time dilation so that would have just seemed confused.

The point I’m trying to make is this. You are assuming that if we travel away from a transmission that takes 1 hour to leave Earth by earth clocks, the duration of the arrival at the space craft should be 1 hour measured by the space craft’s clock. And if we travel towards a transmission that takes 1 hour to leave measured by clocks where it leaves from, the duration of it’s arrival at the space craft should take 1 hour measured by the space craft’s clock. (According to special relativity)

The puzzlement is that in both case the clock on the space craft runs slower than the clock at the source of the transmission but since the effects of moving towards and away from light are opposite, the space crafts clock running slower can’t result in the speed of light being constant in both cases.

My attempt at a solution is to question whether the duration of the arrival of the signal at the space craft does need to be 1 hour. I’m wondering if that really is what special relativity says? Since all that is required is that the measurement of the speed of light is constant, the duration of the signal can vary depending upon the distance it travels whilst it’s speed is still constant.

[ Edited: 22 July 2013 02:28 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 05:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4544
Joined  2007-08-31

Fully second Darron: Scott, your theory is a crackpot theory.

If you see something in relativity that contradicts your intuitions, the correct way is asking specialists to explain it to you. Relativity is an established scientific theory with lots of empirical evidence, and necessary e.g. for the technology of GPS and particle accelerators: and you were treated really nicely by some of the people on the scienceforums, in the sense that they did explain to you what is wrong. That is more than you earned when you call a thread ‘Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity’.

Next time just ask: ‘can somebody explain what is wrong in my logic’, or ‘what would happen if…’. Relativity is science, it is not philosophy, and not speculation at all. Discussing relativity in the way you do here should be done in the meetings of the ‘flat earth society’ (good comparison, Obama!)

Your publishing your ideas here on this kind of forum also is definitely a symptom of ‘crackpotism’.

a few small comments:

Scott Mayers - 20 July 2013 08:24 PM

The blanketed trust in the authorities of today’s scientists has no more significant justification without proof as any other subject.

Except when there are tons of empirical evidence, and working technologies exist.

Scott Mayers - 20 July 2013 08:24 PM

If today’s theories are to be trusted by just anyone, the scientist is obliged to present their views in a manner that is either intuitively fair in logical terms to any human ear without the needs to impose a special language prerequisite (math, in this case, for the most part).

Science normally is not religion. And again: if you do not understand it, but there is the empirical evidence, what does ‘trusted’ mean here???

Scott Mayers - 20 July 2013 08:24 PM

I do NOT except that science requires an escape of intuition of normal experience any more than any claims by the paranormal.

That you do not accept it is then your personal problem. Again: if you do not understand it, but there is the empirical evidence, who is interested in you accepting it or not???

Scott Mayers - 20 July 2013 08:24 PM

it’s simpler and even more ‘empirical’ because it is intuitively understandable from anyone’s perspective.

This is utter nonsense, Scott. Something is more empirical if it predicts more facts in more details. That has nothing to do with the understanding of a layman.

Scott Mayers - 21 July 2013 08:07 PM

No, he actually based his theory on a prior experiment by Michelson-Morley to try to measure the ether and could not find anything.

This is historically just wrong. For Einstein the Michelson-Morley was just an experimental proof that Maxwell’s theory of electricity and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. Einstein surely knew about it, but he would have written his article anyway, which btw was called ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ and not ‘On an adhoc possible explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment’ (That is what Lorenz factually did).

See here for a complete overview.

[Einstein] denied any significant influence of the most important experiment: the Michelson-Morley experiment

[ Edited: 22 July 2013 07:28 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 07:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1909
Joined  2007-10-28

From http://phys.org/news190027752.html

The universality of time dilation:

In other words, as space expands, the interval between light pulses also lengthens. Since expansion occurs throughout the universe, it seems that time dilation should be a property of the universe that holds true everywhere, regardless of the specific object or event being observed.

However:

Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

The explanation and it’s implications:

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.

And from
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/faraway-quasar-group-new-largest-structure-universe

The largest structure in the universe:

Behold, the largest structure in the universe. An international team of astronomers has discovered a large quasar group (also known as an LQG) that is some 4 billion light years across

The Cosmological Principle:

The Cosmological Principle is the assumption that the universe, if viewed from a large enough scale, looks the same no matter where you are viewing it from.

So:

But the Cosmological Principle, when factored into the prevailing theories of cosmology, suggests that astrophysicists shouldn’t be able to find anything bigger than 370 megaparsecs

But:

This new LQC appears to average more like 500 megaparsecs across, with its longest dimension reaching up to 1,200 megaparsecs. That doesn’t necessarily mean the Cosmological Principle is toast, but we may have to take what we think we understand about it back to the drawing board.

Quite so. It seems that the universe is queerer than what we think it is.

 Signature 

I am, therefore I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:40 PM by Scott Mayers ]
 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
 
 
   
2 of 16
2