13 of 16
13
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
Posted: 18 August 2013 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 181 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 18 August 2013 04:34 PM
GdB - 18 August 2013 09:10 AM

Yes. And what do you want to say me with this? That your absurd ‘derivation’ of E=mc² is correct?

I was merely recalling how I originally derived it. It’s not absurd, just a different way of coming to it. I’ve already responded to how I made sense of it. What’s absurd about it?

It is wrong as wrong can be. What you are doing is giving a derivation of the kinetic energy, that is already wrong in itself, and then assume that there is a limit of acceleration of 299792458 m/s² (which is wrong too). That has nothing to do wit the fact that a material body in rest has a rest energy.

Your ‘derivation’ is worth nothing more than

einstein.gif.

Just because the letters fit does not mean that you have understood something.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2013 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 182 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:34 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: 24 August 2013 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 183 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 09:06 AM

Apparently, you just have a personal distaste for me and my style of arguments as do some of the others here. I can only guess that it has to do with how things like how I present certain issues regarding the non-essential nature of absolute moralities that some of you humanists cling on to. With Darron, I know it pissed him off arguing in the thread about the feminist convention dispute that it was a non-issue and that feminism is a separate and non-characteristic position of being atheist (nor humanist). Whatever the case, I know it’s personal, not logical. All your attempts here have been merely smearing and insulting, not arguing. You’ve played George Bush’s tactics of mere repetition for the sole aim of both trying to discredit me in the light of others and to encourage me to leave this site. You don’t like my cold realism in discussions and don’t like me pointing out your own errors, so you choose to attack. I just have to say that I have never held any grudge against anyone here in particular even if I disagreed with one’s position. I still don’t. But I hope that you can try in the same respect and not carry your emotional baggage from other threads to avenge your disgust.

No Scott, I have nothing against you. I gave quite a lot of arguments, and you never really countered them, except with some abstruse logic that shows you are missing even the most basic understanding of mechanics. Please note that you got the same reactions in the ‘scienceforums’. That should ring a bell, but you prefer to think that physicists just keep stuck in their theories.

It is very clear to me that you are overestimating your insights in physics. I don’t know why you do not see that it is totally unrealistic that an amateur in physics can show the scientific community that a 100 year old theory that belongs to the absolute basis of all their work, that was verified from all sides, on which technology is built that we use everyday, is wrong.

Learn physics, it is really interesting stuff. But only start arguing against theories at the moment that you know you have understood the present theories by the feedback of physicists (e.g .exams…). In your way you will never succeed to be taken seriously, and you will only be desperately disappointed and angry about the stupid morons that do not accept your theories.

[ Edited: 01 September 2013 07:59 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2013 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 184 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

a

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:35 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: 24 August 2013 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 185 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4616
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 12:38 PM

Instead of pointing to the errors in my presentation…

We’ve shown you plenty of errors in your presentation, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

 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: 24 August 2013 06:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 186 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Ia

[ Edited: 30 August 2013 09:35 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: 24 August 2013 10:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 187 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 06:31 PM

I’ve looked over the whole thread to make sure I haven’t missed something. You, nor your supporters have not addressed my arguments as addressed. You, in particular, made contrary suggestions that merely reinstated your supposition that I am ill educated without just cause and cannot succeed without an absolute formal authoritarian qualification. Other than insignificant addresses to extraneous arguments external to my theory and a demand by you to explain GPS, I am at a loss with you and your posse of supporters.

Try addressing, for instance, why you and others feel that the premises of Einstein’s theory still stand against my arguments. In Post 103, is where I explicitly address these.

Try addressing how in post #1 and the inserts that I’ve added in post #72-75 that demonstrate how a signal from two different sources show that the speed of the program which represents a wavelength of light altering as well as its speed contradicts that just any meaning of light must be measured at the same speed. How do you not distinguish a difference between light from a source within an inertial frame and one from outside of it?
 
I apologize to kkwan and a few of others for not following up on some of their inquiry as I notice going through the thread more carefully. I’ll try to address some of those one at a time later.

There is an easy way out of this morass, Scott, and it doesn’t require you to demonstrate your understanding of physics in any way.  Just present the name and identification of one physicist known and respected in the physics community who thinks your idea makes any sense and who will write something about it that we can refer to. Just one is all we need. But it must be physicist who is credentialed in the physics community that we can verify. Without that your ideas fall flat, don’t deserve any further discussion and would be a complete waste of time for everyone on this forum.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2013 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 188 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 12:38 PM

(Notice that it was you who thought I was foolish to call E=mc² the mass/energy equivalence equation!)

Where did I say that? Link with citation please.

Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 12:38 PM

I find that it is absolutely unacceptable behavior to open a forum that is apparently meant to provide open discussion and yet limit the conversation only to debunking the outsiders while simultaneously eliminating potentially good counterarguments for their own views.

I have brought many factual arguments against your ideas. Yes, that is debunking weird ideas. But I always have given grounds, based on methodologically established physics.

Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 12:38 PM

I’m an all-around skeptic which includes science, as well.

Being a skeptic does not mean criticising empirically proven established theories without having logical arguments or new empirical evidence. Repeating endlessly that your logic is impeccable does not make it so. Skepticism means in this case: if you have extraordinary claims, then you need extraordinary evidence.You have none, except abstruse chains of thought that you call ‘logical’.

Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 12:38 PM

Instead of pointing to the errors in my presentation, you’ve spent most of your time with simple declarations of my lack of credentials, or knowledge due to the accusation that if what I’m saying is true, all of scientific discovery is false and useless.

I pointed to your errors several times, but your only answer is that your logic is impeccable. But see below.

Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 06:31 PM

Try addressing, for instance, why you and others feel that the premises of Einstein’s theory still stand against my arguments. In Post 103, is where I explicitly address these.

Yes, that is true, I did not react on it. It is so void of meaning and understanding what relativity is about that it makes nearly no sense to react on it.

As I can see you have only one reaction on each postulate of special relativity:

On the relativity postulate:
Your flood of words boils down to the statement that the relativity principle is unclear. However if you would look how it is used, you would see that it has a very precise meaning, and is used technically in a totally unambiguous way. Your criticism should be aimed at the precise meaning as it is used in the theory, not in your wild speculations what the principle could mean for you or any other relativity-illiterates.

On the constancy of light postulate:
You state that the light for the two different observers is not the same: for one observer it is blue- or red-shifted compared to the other. That is true, and special relativity gives you the correct formula for it. However, as basis for special relativity the only fact used is that the speed of light is constant. As long as you are not able to show that this is not true your criticism beats just air.

Scott Mayers - 24 August 2013 06:31 PM

Try addressing how in post #1 and the inserts that I’ve added in post #72-75 that demonstrate how a signal from two different sources show that the speed of the program which represents a wavelength of light altering as well as its speed contradicts that just any meaning of light must be measured at the same speed. How do you not distinguish a difference between light from a source within an inertial frame and one from outside of it?

I did that extendedly here. Your error is that you look at the situation only from the frame of reference of the Earth-Moon system. From that frame it looks like that the rocket must see the program coming with a velocity of c - v from behind, and c + v from the front. But you do not take into account that for the rocket crew both programs come with velocity c. I showed you the correct calculations in the posting referenced above.

That you then sometimes refer to the ‘cosmological principle’ in this context is absolutely meaningless.

For the rest you did not react on the following points:
- my criticism that your derivation of E=mc² just makes some fuzzy, illogical derivation of something that looks like kinetic energy, not the rest mass/energy of objects
- that you did not give us a clue about why clocks would disintegrate when nearing the speed of light, and why heavy nuclei that are already accelerated to velocities close to the speed of light did not disintegrate.
- a consideration about the rocket accelerating with g (9.81 m/s²) for more than a year: what does the rocket crew observe, what do people on the earth observe (and why the rocket would disintegrate?)
- an explanation why GPS works that without the use of special and general relativity would not work in the precision we nowadays have.
- you did not give an account of why the scientific community choose for Einstein’s foundation of special relativity, and not for Lorentz’s or Poincaré‘s, who both still assumed an ether and/or some absolute frame of reference.

[ Edited: 25 August 2013 11:42 PM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2013 02:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 189 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

So I will never hear the reactions on my questions…

Link

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2013 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 190 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4616
Joined  2007-10-05
GdB - 31 August 2013 02:24 AM

So I will never hear the reactions on my questions…

Link

And now Scott has deleted his posts in this thread. I’m afraid he has gone off the deep end.

 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: 31 August 2013 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 191 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
DarronS - 31 August 2013 05:40 AM

And now Scott has deleted his posts in this thread. I’m afraid he has gone off the deep end.

Yep. And not just here, also in other threads.

At least we still have this pearl, just in case we need it for the records of the history of science:

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

I think Einstein was wrong. At least, he wasn’t completely correct.

When Einstein imagined if he could ride on a beam of light, he questioned what he would see if he looked into a mirror held up to his face. He reasoned correctly that he wouldn’t see anything because the light of his face could never reach the mirror to even have a chance to reflect back.

He postulated that in fact he would still see his face as light and that light would still be measured to be the same speed. To compensate for this, he assumed that time itself slowed down.

The problem? He assumed that the phenomena that he measured, namely light, would be the very same essence in any varying regular velocity.

Let me explain with an analogy.

Imagine that you are in a space craft going away from Earth toward the moon. Imagine further that there is a transmitter on both the moon and Earth that are capable of sending out a stream of data via electromagnetic waves of your favorite episode of Star Trek. Now we know that since nothing can go faster than the speed of light, we know that those signals can only travel at the fixed speed of light, c.

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

But wait…since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long.

This is contradictory to Einstein’s claim that you could even measure light (the electromagetic stream) to be the same in all directions.

Therefore, it is my proposal that when you measure “light” at different relative velocities, you are not measuring the same phenomena. This seems reasonable. As you move toward a light source, it shifts towards the blue part of the spectrum. As you move away, it appears red. This means that the wave phenomena that you measure have become different relative phenomena. If you measure the speed of light, you are only measuring the phenomena that appears as light at different speeds. So technically, if you travel towards a beam of emf at below the normal light spectrum, it becomes light at your new faster speed. Likewise, traveling away from a source of gamma rays, they will present themselves as light, if you go fast enough.

This also presents another problem. If something can appear as light that wasn’t normally light before, then is the speed of light properly certain to be fixed in its direction of motion? That is, blue light, higher on the spectrum should move faster (even though it’s hard to detect) than red light, lower on the spectrum. A maximum speed limit is still possible. But it is not in the direction of motion of the beam (not a fixed vector). Rather, light should actually move in sine curves; this speed would be fixed, NOT its velocity in the present direction!

As for time, I would say that time is fixed. You traveling through space at a faster speed should still slow you down by your perception, however. All the atoms in your body must be limited to the same maximum speed rule. So any electrons traveling in orbits around its nucleui cannot make their completed orbits in the same time as it did before. Therefore, the actions of your chemistry slow down and so you or any device moving at such high velocity through space would slow down. Note too that the paths of the cycling electrons would create sine wave patterns relative to an observer not moving!!

This does not invalidate all the math of relativity as a means to approximate motions. But it is not accurate.

Now here is something I add even more to this theory: Nothing may go faster than the speed of light; but nor does anything actually go slower than it either. What I mean by this is that the speed of any point in space is constant everywhere! The only difference is direction. Curved direction is allowed if you presume that each point in space can also represent a spin quantity. I think this is what differentiates matter, light and space. There is a conservation of every point in space equaling a maximum, which we can still label as, c. But it is determined by all dimensional factors. At least, we can see that it would include the three linear directions in space and potential spin factors (if it is matter). Energy, like light, would then just be a manifestation of a particular form of matter moving through space.

Nothing is weird or strange anymore in this view. This is my Theory of Relativity and this is my first formal pronouncement of it.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2013 01:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 192 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
DarronS - 31 August 2013 05:40 AM
GdB - 31 August 2013 02:24 AM

So I will never hear the reactions on my questions…

Link

And now Scott has deleted his posts in this thread. I’m afraid he has gone off the deep end.

I’m afraid if he has he was pushed. I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?


Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2013 01:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 193 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 01 September 2013 01:11 AM

I’m afraid if he has he was pushed. I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?

No. I wanted to argue with him, convince him that he was wrong. But then with his conspiracy-like comments he really exposed himself.

If there is a problem with me it is that I don’t know when to stop. I am guilty of a few of the longest threads in these fora.

 Signature 

GdB

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2013 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 194 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4616
Joined  2007-10-05
StephenLawrence - 01 September 2013 01:11 AM

I Think you and Gdb need to honestly think about the motivation behind your posts on this thread. Was it cyber bullying? Was the aim to humiliate Scott for your pleasure?


Stephen

Do you really consider refuting a crackpot theory cyber bullying? No, I was not aiming to humiliate Scott for my pleasure. I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get Scott to see the errors in his thinking and the arrogance of believing he could correct the so-called mistakes of some of science and mathematics’ greatest geniuses, especially considering Scott’s obvious ignorance of freshman physics and astronomy.

 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: 01 September 2013 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 195 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

Sorry Stephen, but just because the term and concept of “cyberbullying” is a current fad, if you had read all the posts carefully before they were deleted you’d recognize that your use of the term in relation to Darron and GdB was quite unjustified.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
   
13 of 16
13