Search

 7 of 16 « First Prev 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last »
Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity
 Posted: 30 July 2013 05:18 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It’s time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame.

Sorry Scott, this all does not make any sense. Negative dilation? Something being infinitely slower?

When e.g. two observers fly away from each other, they will agree on their relative velocity when they both measure in their own inertial frame. So none is slower than the other, it just does not make sense. When you have three observers, one observer can measure that one of the others moves faster from him than the other, in this context ‘slower’ or ‘faster’ makes sense. However the two observers will not agree on the velocity of the third one.

Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

Now you add the further assumption that time itself is limited to c, and that matter itself dilates. Then something in a slower frame of reference would have an effect on matter that causes it to dilate negatively (inflates in its direction of velocity). Since it couldn’t inflate faster than the speed of light either, a limit would have to be reached such that the smaller inertial frame of reference’s time requires it’s infinite period of time be reduced to zero (it’s calculated approach or limit). In other words, even with all assumptions regarding c, there has to be a real fixed point in space and time that you can point to (that limit), even if reality could not achieve it in practice.

Slower compared to what? How can you compare time with the a velocity? (‘time itself is limited to c’). Is one second faster than c? A year then?

Sorry, your thinking is as fuzzy as can be.

Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

The Laws of nature were assumed the same for all observers (except for time, itself).

Since when is time a law of nature? Again, you are totally confused.

Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

It’s not sufficient, for example, to illustrate the effectiveness of relativity by showing that clocks placed on an airplane differ once they return. Such airplane speeds are relatively much slower than the speed of light. It’s easier to claim, for instance, that the clocks on the planes were altered because the external background of space (fixed) slowed down the atoms that make up the clock due to its translation through it.

Why would that be easier? As a stick seems shorter when it is not exactly perpendicular to your point of view, so time seems to slow down when another inertial frame is not in rest in yours. (And btw, the stick never becomes longer when it rotates, its projection is at most as long as the stick itself. The Lorentz Transformations describe, mathematically seen, a rotation in space-time. So how could we have ‘negative dilation’?)

Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

To assume that time itself altered isolates the clock in the moving plane from being effected by the relative (external) inertial frame. This has an absurd resulting conclusion that you could technically prevent yourself from being effected from any other frame by changing your inertia. You would be able to do things like pass through the Earth if you were in a craft that was going close to the speed of light without being destroyed!

This is not even wrong, it makes no sense at all. How do you change your inertia? (I do it by eating…).

Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

This is an absurd conclusion on anything I said. Empirical evidence is the set of observations for reality, not the actual explanation for reality itself. The theories or explanations that rationalize reality are not immune to being false even if they fit in a conditions of a pragmatic reality. Nor does science fall by altering the explanations to ones with other validity. Einstein’s particular explanation leads to contradictions that what I proposed doesn’t.

RT is commonly accepted by the scientific community as internally consistent, and consistent with empirical evidence. Is also based on an absolute minimum of assumptions, namely (once again), that the laws of nature are the same in all inertial frames. You are adding extras (a ‘fixed background’). Poincaré had such an understanding of relativity, so you are saying nothing new. And the scientific community has found out more than 100 years ago that it is not needed: the ‘fixed background’ just drops out of all the equations and explanations. If you can’t measure it, if you do not need it to explain anything, then why stick to it? Because it is not according to your ‘common sense’?

You think you are better than 4 generations of physicists.

[ Edited: 30 July 2013 06:13 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 30 July 2013 05:31 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  6640
Joined  2007-10-05
Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 02:00 AM
DarronS - 29 July 2013 05:26 PM

What we are seeing here is a real-time example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Scott, your religion/science analogy is a false analogy. Religion is mythology; science is observation, hypothesis, and testing. In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, “It’s mathematics, son. You can argue with me but you can’t argue with figures.”

I know that you have sincere compassion of heart and justice from other correspondence with you (not necessarily towards me). So I will try not to take offense at your presumptions of my mental deficiencies. I ask you, however, is it possible that you could be in error?

Of course it is possible I am wrong, Scott. It is also possible the universe will someday wink out of existence and be replaced by something even more bizarre and incomprehensible, but that is only slightly less likely than someone with no formal training in physics and math will prove Einstein was wrong about time dilation and reference frames. You realize you’ll win a Nobel prize if you can prove your idea, don’t you? You’ll also be placed among Newton, Maxwell and Einstein as one of the greatest physicists of all time.

How likely does that sound?

Signature

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

 Profile

 Posted: 30 July 2013 09:25 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 29 July 2013 10:39 AM

All predicted effects of special relativity were confirmed. SR is so at the root of physics, that if it were not true as it is, the whole building would fall apart. But that would also mean that the technologies that are based on it would not work too.

Not necessarily so, that physics would fall apart and technologies would not work.

1. What are the consequences if the speed of light is not a constant, but it is a dynamic variable?

Relation to relativity and definition of c:

In relativity, space-time is 4 dimensions of the same physical property of either space or time, depending on which perspective is chosen. The conversion factor of length=i*c*time is described in Appendix 2 of Einstein’s Relativity. A changing c in relativity would mean the imaginary dimension of time is changing compared to the other three real-valued spacial dimensions of space-time.

Specifically regarding VSL, if the SI meter definition was reverted to its pre-1960 definition as a length on a prototype bar (making it possible for the measure of c to change), then a conceivable change in c (the reciprocal of the amount of time taken for light to travel this prototype length) could be more fundamentally interpreted as a change in the dimensionless ratio of the meter prototype to the Planck length or as the dimensionless ratio of the SI second to the Planck time or a change in both. If the number of atoms making up the meter prototype remains unchanged (as it should for a stable prototype), then a perceived change in the value of c would be the consequence of the more fundamental change in the dimensionless ratio of the Planck length to the sizes of atoms or to the Bohr radius or, alternatively, as the dimensionless ratio of the Planck time to the period of a particular caesium-133 radiation or both.

2. What are the consequences if time is a constant but all moving clocks are relative and there is no time dilation or length contraction?

Even if all clocks are relative to all moving frames of reference, it does not mean that technologies will not work. For instance, if a clock on the earth (which is a moving frame of reference) is compared to the clock in a GPS satellite (which is another moving frame of reference wrt the earth), it is feasible and doable to adjust for the difference in timing to make the GPS system work, notwithstanding that time is a constant.

Arguing against the validity of SR under daily circumstances is absolute pointless.

I am not arguing against the validity of SR or GR.

What I am saying is:

1. We cannot assume that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.

2.. We cannot assume time is relative as clocks could be relative in all moving frames of reference and they don’t directly measure time per se. If time is relative, then causality is problematic. OTOH, if time and it’s unidirectionality is primal in the universe for causality to hold, that implies it is a constant.

3. We cannot assume that there is time dilation or length contraction as there is no compelling evidence for them at all. OTOH, the anomaly of the quasars does not support time dilation.

4. We cannot assume that there is no aether in the universe as real space is never empty.

Not making any of the assumptions in 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not invalidate SR or GR and as such there is no necessity to make those assumptions in SR or GR. Occam’s Razor.

[ Edited: 30 July 2013 09:46 AM by kkwan ]
Signature

I am, therefore I think.

 Profile

 Posted: 30 July 2013 11:17 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 30 July 2013 09:25 AM

1. We cannot assume that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light

kkwan - 30 July 2013 09:25 AM

If time is relative, then causality is problematic.

Huh? The only condition for causality being unproblematic is that a cause lies in the past light cone of an event, there is no frame of reference in which a cause precedes its effect. This is consistently described by SR.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 09:25 AM

3. We cannot assume that there is time dilation or length contraction as there is no compelling evidence for them at all. OTOH, the anomaly of the quasars does not support time dilation.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 09:25 AM

4. We cannot assume that there is no aether in the universe as real space is never empty.

And why should events in a ‘nearly empty space’ be a system in absolute rest, what the ether is supposed to be? Does an observer that flies with 150,000 km/s see the virtual particles move in a different way?

kkwan - 30 July 2013 09:25 AM

Not making any of the assumptions in 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not invalidate SR or GR and as such there is no necessity to make those assumptions in SR or GR. Occam’s Razor.

There is only one assumption in SR: that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference. If you can explain the slowing down of clocks, length contraction and E=mc² with less assumptions, be my guest.

Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 30 July 2013 08:14 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 30 July 2013 11:17 AM

Apart from more precise laser or maser light sources and optical resonators, all these modern variants of the M-M experiment depend on clocks for timing. If all moving clocks are relative, they do not measure time directly and as the experiments are local, then we cannot conclusively determine that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.

Huh? The only condition for causality being unproblematic is that a cause lies in the past light cone of an event, there is no frame of reference in which a cause precedes its effect. This is consistently described by SR.

Quite so, but how do we determine universal causality wrt two or more moving frames of reference in the universe if time is relative? Causality is primal in the universe and must hold everywhere in the universe. This can only be so if and only if time is a constant in the universe. Newton and Lorentz were correct with their concepts of “universal time” or “true time” to preserve causality in the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

In 2010 time dilation was observed at speeds of less than 10 meters per second using optical atomic clocks connected by 75 meters of optical fiber.

We have the problem of the relativity of the moving clocks and that they do not measure time directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

In addition, even in such a non-co-moving frame, direct experimental confirmations of Lorentz contraction are hard to achieve, because at the current state of technology, objects of considerable extension cannot be accelerated to relativistic speeds. And the only objects traveling with the speed required are atomic particles, yet whose spatial extensions are too small to allow a direct measurement of contraction.

So, all these experiments for time dilation and/or length contraction are not compelling evidence of the universality of these weird concepts first proposed by Lorentz.

And why should events in a ‘nearly empty space’ be a system in absolute rest, what the ether is supposed to be? Does an observer that flies with 150,000 km/s see the virtual particles move in a different way?

Because space is universal in the universe, there is no reason to reject space and/or the aether as a system in absolute rest.

The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of “real particles”: it is not; rather, “real particles” are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are “temporary” in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. As such the accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but their “reality” or existence is a question of philosophy rather than science.

You wrote:

There is only one assumption in SR: that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames of reference. If you can explain the slowing down of clocks, length contraction and E=mc² with less assumptions, be my guest.

The invariance principle is not an issue as it is intuitive and reasonable to make that assumption with the proviso that time is absolute and is a constant to preserve causality and also there is a fixed frame of reference which is space and/or the aether (whatever it is) in the universe.

Time dilation and length contraction do not need an explanation because they are incoherent concepts.

Signature

I am, therefore I think.

 Profile

 Posted: 30 July 2013 11:51 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31
kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

Apart from more precise laser or maser light sources and optical resonators, all these modern variants of the M-M experiment depend on clocks for timing. If all moving clocks are relative, they do not measure time directly and as the experiments are local, then we cannot conclusively determine that the speed of light is a constant in the universe.

The original MMX is not dependent on a clock, just as many of its later variants. They are based on detecting a difference in light speed, not even measuring it.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

Causality is primal in the universe and must hold everywhere in the universe. This can only be so if and only if time is a constant in the universe.

Time must not be constant, only the timely order of events. The Lorentz transformations are exactly so that causality is always preserved for every observer.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

We have the problem of the relativity of the moving clocks and that they do not measure time directly.

So your absolute time cannot be observed or measured, it has no causal influence, and it is not needed to explain anything. Normally we say then that such a thing does not exist.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

So, all these experiments for time dilation and/or length contraction are not compelling evidence of the universality of these weird concepts first proposed by Lorentz.

Except that they give a consistent view on the physical universe, that they are confirmed many times in experiments and astronomical observations. The few anomalies you mentioned are open to interpretation, and can possibly be explained by error in the theories on which the observations are based, or that the objects under scrutiny are different than we thought. SR is the most unlikely candidate to be wrong.

kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

Because space is universal in the universe, there is no reason to reject space and/or the aether as a system in absolute rest.

Except that it cannot be measured independently, and that from its non-existence (i.e. the laws of nature are the same for observer in inertial frames) the LT can be derived which are confirmed in many experiments, yes, you are completely right: why should we reject the existence something we cannot detect at all? In the end, there is also no proof that God does not exist!

kkwan - 30 July 2013 08:14 PM

Time dilation and length contraction do not need an explanation because they are incoherent concepts.

You say you do not claim SR is invalid, you do not claim the LT are invalid, but you claim that time dilation and length contraction are incoherent, which follow from the LT??? SR is selfconsistent, consistent with other laws of nature, and with experiments that were devised to falsify or confirm SR.

[ Edited: 31 July 2013 02:09 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 01 August 2013 08:21 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 30 July 2013 05:18 AM
Scott Mayers - 30 July 2013 01:38 AM

Something in inertial velocity faster than your perspective has positive dilation while one going slower than you has negative dilation. Since the assumption is that no frame of reference is special, then it is inferred that from any given frame, there will always be another frame of inertia slower than you infinitely. It’s time dilation would have to be such that someone going slower than your frame will have any one given duration of time speed up (-dilation) with respect to yours. With no limiting factor, this should technically enable the existence of an infinite duration of time to be realized an infinitely slower inertial frame.

Sorry Scott, this all does not make any sense. Negative dilation? Something being infinitely slower?

When e.g. two observers fly away from each other, they will agree on their relative velocity when they both measure in their own inertial frame. So none is slower than the other, it just does not make sense. When you have three observers, one observer can measure that one of the others moves faster from him than the other, in this context ‘slower’ or ‘faster’ makes sense. However the two observers will not agree on the velocity of the third one.

“Dilation” would lose meaning if it didn’t imply a direction. To say, for instance, that your eyes dilate, your pupils get larger.
In the airplane-with-clock experiment, shouldn’t someone equally argue that the clocks on Earth should be discovered to “slow down” using the clock he caries with him on the plane? This isn’t the case. Both will agree that the clock with the plane slowed with respect to clocks on Earth. There is a favorable direction that can be determined whether one perspective was going faster or slower to a background, even if the exact background isn’t known. That is, you can determine that one object in some inertial frame is going faster or slower with respect to you. If only one of them accelerates away, you can be certain to know this as only one of them would feel it. Yet they are both accelerating away from each other at the same rate. This can only happen is there is a fixed frame of reference.
Now if you somehow couldn’t ‘feel’ this acceleration, you would still be able to determine which one was going faster than the other if their velocities relative to a background differed. There clock times will differ and one will certainly demonstrate a later time while the other one, an earlier time.

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: 01 August 2013 08:58 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2012
Joined  2007-10-28
GdB - 30 July 2013 11:51 PM

The original MMX is not dependent on a clock, just as many of its later variants. They are based on detecting a difference in light speed, not even measuring it.

Apart from the issue of locality, there is a fundamental flaw in the designs of all the experiments in detecting a difference without a clock instead of measuring the speed of light with a clock.

All these experiments involve the two-way speed of light (the average) and not the one-way speed of light. That type of experiment would depend on a clock.

In the first are experiments like the famous Michelson Morely interferometer which measure the round trip speed of light along some closed loop. This is essentially its average speed over some distance and back again.

No variation has ever been found but these experiments leave open the possibility that the speed of light is different over each leg of the journey. So there is another category of experiments which attempt to measure the one-way speed of light.

Important consequences:

The work may have important consequences. Ahmed and co point out that string theory predicts a violation of the constancy of the speed of light as does another idea which proposes that a variable speed of light would solve various problems in cosmology.

Time must not be constant, only the timely order of events. The Lorentz transformations are exactly so that causality is always preserved for every observer.

That is only in any particular frame of reference, but causality must be preserved throughout the universe and that can only be so if time is a constant.

So your absolute time cannot be observed or measured, it has no causal influence, and it is not needed to explain anything. Normally we say then that such a thing does not exist.

Time by itself has no causal influence, but the constancy of time preserves causality throughout the universe, irrespective of any frame of reference.

Except that they give a consistent view on the physical universe, that they are confirmed many times in experiments and astronomical observations. The few anomalies you mentioned are open to interpretation, and can possibly be explained by error in the theories on which the observations are based, or that the objects under scrutiny are different than we thought. SR is the most unlikely candidate to be wrong.

We cannot extend results from local experiments to the universe.

The anomaly of no time dilation of the quasars is disturbing with no explanation from SR.

Except that it cannot be measured independently, and that from its non-existence (i.e. the laws of nature are the same for observer in inertial frames) the LT can be derived which are confirmed in many experiments, yes, you are completely right: why should we reject the existence something we cannot detect at all? In the end, there is also no proof that God does not exist!

What cannot be measured? Space?

Space is universal in the universe and the universe is at rest as a complete entity.

You say you do not claim SR is invalid, you do not claim the LT are invalid, but you claim that time dilation and length contraction are incoherent, which follow from the LT??? SR is selfconsistent, consistent with other laws of nature, and with experiments that were devised to falsify or confirm SR.

If the constancy of the speed of light is not assumed, there is no necessity for time dilation or length contraction in LT and SR to be valid.

Signature

I am, therefore I think.

 Profile

 Posted: 01 August 2013 09:05 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 01 August 2013 08:21 AM

In the airplane-with-clock experiment, shouldn’t someone equally argue that the clocks on Earth should be discovered to “slow down” using the clock he caries with him on the plane? This isn’t the case. Both will agree that the clock with the plane slowed with respect to clocks on Earth. There is a favorable direction that can be determined whether one perspective was going faster or slower to a background, even if the exact background isn’t known.

No. The simple fact is that the plane is not in an inertial frame, so the situation is not symmetrical. Read about the so called twin paradox, to get some insight. Do understand why it is no paradox at all.

Scott Mayers - 01 August 2013 08:21 AM

Yet they are both accelerating away from each other at the same rate.

No. The one who accelerates observes inertial forces, the one who does not accelerate doesn’t.

Scott Mayers - 01 August 2013 08:21 AM

This can only happen is there is a fixed frame of reference.

As both frames of reference differ, one being an inertial frame and the other not, we do not need a fixed frame at all.

Scott Mayers - 01 August 2013 08:21 AM

Now if you somehow couldn’t ‘feel’ this acceleration,...

And now you just leave out the essence of what acceleration is: the possibility to ‘feel’ it because of the unavoidable inertial forces.

Scott: you show in no way that you really have understood what relativity is about. Please read some good books about it, see that you really understand it. You could gain a lot of rewarding insight, and you will avoid the frustrating experience that nobody will accept your ideas.

My recommendation: read the few chapters about special relativity from the Feynman lectures (PM me if you are interested), or look at the ‘theoretical minimum’ lectures of Leonard Susskind about special relativity on Youtube.

[ Edited: 01 August 2013 09:34 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 01 August 2013 09:32 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31

kkwan, one posting before you said that using a clock instead of measuring time ‘directly’ is a flaw of MMX like experiments, and now you say that not using a clock is a flaw of these kind of experiments.

The LT just do not allow for causes to happen after their effects. If you think it does, then show me. Order of events must be preserved, not their timely distance. Show me time must be constant for the preservation of causality.

Latenight edit:

Just found this pearl here:

In a 1964 paper, Erik Christopher Zeeman showed that the causality preserving property, a condition that is weaker in a mathematical sense than the invariance of the speed of light, is enough to assure that the coordinate transformations are the Lorentz transformations.

End of edit.

Are you imagining effects overtaking their causes on the universal all pervading motorway of events?  %-P

Without time dilation and length contraction, classical mechanics and electromechanics are inconsistent. So now, what is your stance? Are SR and LT valid? Do you understand that time dilation and length contraction are mathematically derived from the LT (i.e. follow logically from the LT), and that in SR the LT are derived from the simple principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames?

Sorry kkwan, this is all such unsound reasoning. You are just googling counterarguments, without any understanding of what you are arguing against.

[ Edited: 02 August 2013 05:00 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 01 August 2013 04:55 PM [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Gdb,

I understand relativity very clearly and have read extensively on it! You are begging me to accept it. I clearly understand where you think you are coming from. You assert that there is no NEED for assuming a fixed frame of reference. This is causing all the problems in theoretical physics because the perception it ironically “fixed” in your mind to work. The problem is that with this assumption, it blinds you (and others) from ever being able to see nature appropriately and more rationally. What you are not aware of yet is how I am able to construct an argument with the assumption of nothing to what particles actually look like. Things like the double-slit experiment present today’s scientists with a strangeness that actually isn’t strange at all: that light is a particle and a wave and why; that light doesn’t travel in simply in a translation but in a real altering direction also; why it appears to be in multiple locations at once. I was shocked to discover that the Uncertainty Principle was more literal than simply a practical presumption of our mere capability to determine something! This irrationality, again, is due to the false assumption applied to the Non-Perfect Cosmological Principle, the fixity of space, and abandonment of foundational logic due to Godel’s Incompleteness theorem.

Other things that you aren’t ‘aware’ of is the impact of the cultural influences on the philosophical underpinning of science that developed in the early part of the last century that brought about these mindsets. Thomas Kuhn recognized these as “paradigms”. Prior to that, Popper proposed that science, for instance, should be about falsification. He recognized the problem with induction and thought that this alone should fix it. Scientists jumped on the bandwagon because it seemed simple to demarcate science from pseudo-science, added the other philosophical arguments they appreciated and closed the door to further philosophical and logical fault analysis.

In the sixties, when it was discovered that there existed a background radiation, they presumed falsely that it could only have one possible explanation. They base it on the assumption that what they are detecting is heat from the presumed inflation of the Universe rather than, say, the possibility that the radiation represents even further galaxies and stars.

The determination of the age of the Universe itself is flawed on the assumption that space expands linearly. Even plain math can demonstrate that if the Universe is expanding linearly from our perspective, it must have a space that expands exponentially. Yet, only recently (1999) did they even have evidence to assert acceleration.?.

I haven’t proven anything here yet as I eventually will. But my point is that there are way too many conclusions based on those very primal assumptions that are collectively causing a delusional set of explanations that cannot be reconciled. In order to fix these, it is essential to go back and find an approach that combines the disconnected explanations and resolves them to a common cause.

Whether you want to admit it or not, fixed space is empirically superior to claims that base themselves on NON-INTUITION (which contradicts our own capabilities of reasoning by our senses and logic). Instead of approaching reality with the assumption that it is okay to accept the weird explanations, isn’t it wiser to redress the issue with explanations that fit with normalcy? It pisses me off when I see the scientific community feign rationality over the religious and pseudoscientific but use the same faulty reasoning. You don’t say, yeah, those six-thousand-year-old-Earth people are crazy to assume such a young Earth, then turn around and say, well, the Universe is only three times older than the Earth itself! They’re making the same error in a secular way. Why not say, though things appear the way it does, is it more reasonable to NOT derive a story (like the Big Bang), assume that there is a more rational unknown explanation that provides justice yet to be found?

And to credit math with its power, it requires accepting that something intrinsic about it is real—something that the science philosophers of the last century deemed unreal! You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If observation via the empirical method is all that science should be about, then those who believe that should just stick to it without trying to justify it and leave it to those of us who believe in the necessity of logical analysis in the approach to truth to theorize.

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: 02 August 2013 12:18 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31

Scott,

Instead of reacting on my arguments, you start a rant against the blindness of the scientific community. You refer to an argument you have not given yet (and the small part you gave was simplistic and wrong). Now, additional to just a ‘small correction’ of the concepts of ‘Einstein’ (which you say does not touch the math, but you are preparing a mathematical proof that it is wrong), you refer to the double split experiment, the age of the universe, and the cause of the background radiation, and that the scientific community is completely wrong about it. And you refer to Gödel, as if Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has had any impact on on any empirical science (you can be sure, it hasn’t). Again you claim that your ideas (which we haven’t seen yet) are ‘empirically superior’ but you do not refer to any empirical data which show that would be the case. Instead, you just are saying that ‘fixed-space’ is in contradiction with ‘NON-INTUITION’, as if science would bother about that. Science must explain a maximum of empirical data as detailed as possible, based on as little assumptions as possible. When intuitions or common sense do not fit these, then these intuitions are wrong.

Also your remark about math is fully beside the point. Mathematics is applied logic: on mathematical concepts. If we find a phenomenon in nature that fits certain mathematical concepts, then we can immediate harvest the logical conclusions that mathematicians already made (but the results are then empirically tested whenever possible). That has nothing to do with mathematics being ‘real’. Physicists can be mathematical platonists or not, that does not matter. Math just works because it is based on logic.

To call scientific reasoning as ‘faulty as religious reasoning’ totally misses the point that established theories are empirically proven, the best proof being that you and me are using technology that is based on these theories. On the contrary, it is you that has no empirical support for your ideas, just faulty reasoning. It is you who present yourself as religious zealot.

DarronS is absolutely right in his posting here, and you made it even worse by mentioning all those other theories that are also wrongly interpreted.

[ Edited: 02 August 2013 12:44 AM by GdB ]
Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 02 August 2013 02:26 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
GdB - 02 August 2013 12:18 AM

Scott,

Instead of reacting on my arguments, you start a rant against the blindness of the scientific community. You refer to an argument you have not given yet (and the small part you gave was simplistic and wrong). Now, additional to just a ‘small correction’ of the concepts of ‘Einstein’ (which you say does not touch the math, but you are preparing a mathematical proof that it is wrong), you refer to the double split experiment, the age of the universe, and the cause of the background radiation, and that the scientific community is completely wrong about it. And you refer to Gödel, as if Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has had any impact on on any empirical science (you can be sure, it hasn’t). Again you claim that your ideas (which we haven’t seen yet) are ‘empirically superior’ but you do not refer to any empirical data which show that would be the case. Instead, you just are saying that ‘fixed-space’ is in contradiction with ‘NON-INTUITION’, as if science would bother about that. Science must explain a maximum of empirical data as detailed as possible, based on as little assumptions as possible. When intuitions or common sense do not fit these, then these intuitions are wrong.

First of all, I was reacting to your ‘argument’. The problem is, it seems that I’d have to go way back on particular issues of which you are apparently blind to. Yes Godel did have a significant impact. What the foundationalists and then the logical positivists were trying to do was to show that logical analysis was the significant way to approach the theoretical aspects of science until Godel’s argument, one of Turing’s argument on the inability for a machine to be able to compute a perfect logical base (since it’s discreet) and the Uncertainty Principle are some of the illogical concepts that enabled a push towards the acceptance of the non-intuitional concepts of science. [Don’t bother pointing out that Einstein published earlier. I’m aware.] This irrational mindset was produced in the mind to preserve concepts that were meant to achieve a savings of a Deistic God. It’s politics and you as well as anyone who adapts this without appropriate skepticism are suckers and feeding into this crap!

GdB - 02 August 2013 12:18 AM

Also your remark about math is fully beside the point. Mathematics is applied logic: on mathematical concepts. If we find a phenomenon in nature that fits certain mathematical concepts, then we can immediate harvest the logical conclusions that mathematicians already made. That has nothing to do with mathematics being ‘real’. Physicists can be mathematical platonists or not, that does not matter. Math just works because it is based on logic.

To call scientific reasoning as ‘faulty as religious reasoning’ totally misses the point that established theories are empirically proven, the best proof being that you and me are using technology that is based on these theories. On the contrary, it is you that has no empirical support for your ideas, just faulty reasoning. It is you who present yourself as religious zealot.

Obviously, you can’t follow straight logic. You keep blurting out that all the proof, since it was empirically established, certifies that the theoreticians that explain them MUST be correct. I’ve already given you and Darron pure logical justification for skepticism. I’ve also pointed out numerous times that the explanation (the theory) can fit as a story to the empirical evidence or presumptions as well as be verifiable and apparently supportive by its predictable powers. It doesn’t follow that those explanations are correct nor do they assure only one unique explanation other than the limits of one’s imagination.
The logic has been glazed over for preserving particular favored heroes without respect to proper criticisms.
If what I say is true, a lot of scientific research would be closed in certain physical areas because with the empirical evidence they do have, it points to what I know better than the superstitions and purposeful neglect of true and real empirical capacities. For example, Inflation Theory is totally ad hoc explanation to create a story for why the Universe appears to be so young. It’s traditional filling-in-the-gaps that those same supporters only point to religious people to use. The biggest joke is the finale of the claim that background radiation closed the issue with respect to the Static State hypotheses without warrant.

With respect to Relativity, the issue I brought up in this thread as my first argument of my greater theory, I showed how the ‘intuitional’ aspects of Einstein’s thoughts are (A) Historically developed with respect to previous misunderstood rationalizing with observations and experiments, such as those that supposedly PROVE that there is no aether. And each new discovery, rather than fix older mistakes, they build on to them in an evolutionary way that is meant to preserve the credibility of the previous theories rather than throw them away and restructure from the bottom up. It’s as if (and no doubt, real) that the institutions are safeguarding those individuals from being forgotten. Emphasis on research and other scholastic ventures place it on authorities. It’s like Disney trying to update their copyrights on what should be public domain for the sake of a continuous profit. (B) Though we in the skeptic community question other things with respect to Occam’s razor and the oddities of realities that don’t fit our present personal capability of everyday reasoning, it’s given a protected status for particular things at the extremes of science. “Worm holes” come to mind! And though intense gravitational objects that are so strong that they keep light from escaping is absolutely reasonable without a Hawking to have presented it, the strange assumptions keep adding on. It is claimed that nothing can ever escape a black hole, but I anticipated energy jets that should resolve this, and sure enough, this is determined and yet the explanation is brought up separately as if that energy had nothing to do with the matter.??
No fixed background to space? This rationally says that not even matter itself should have any fixed physical properties that we can identify. We should have electrons all varying sizes everywhere if this were true. We should have planets and stars infinitely varying in size and yet act as if its rules were relative to it. It would have to be chaotic. And if you want to be specific to a true empirical experiment that justifies Einstein? Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won’t survive. And if this is already agreed to, and yet it is argued that since it is impossible to do those experiments, then you’ve immunized your theory from falsification! It’s impossible to disprove theories when you are told which ones require impossible empirical justification and which people should just simply be ignored as “nuts” or “pseudoscience” unless they can do the impossible!

Einstein’s relativity faults:
A) The assumption, cleverly misrepresented as being complete, The Cosmological Principle. It’s interesting to note how the title itself requires the normal complete principle to be presented as The Perfect Cosmological Principle.

Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

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

This doesn’t point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.
But it opens the door to stories about how things were so different in an early Universe. Then why not allow other magical explanations? In the beginning, all was chaos, and light was everywhere and it was too hot for matter to exist the way we EMPIRICALLY observe it in this day!! And how can these explanations be ‘connected’ as evidence to the way we see things today? It’s logically impossible to assert. Where’s the predictably in such claims, if it is to be tested? Time travel? Space travel? It’s well placed beyond anyone from trying to disprove. If this first postulate is to be logically valid, it is stated without sufficient quantifiers to determine which of the possible meanings it is supposed to apply to. “The laws of physics…” ? All laws, some particular laws, or, merely the apparent laws? I understand it only works for assuming what is apparent, not necessarily what is in reality.
...and…

2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

“Light”, here, is again improperly quantified. “...the light”, for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is “the” light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one’s understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same. It is like Anslem’s Cosmological Argument. You know, define a concept meaning absolutely all, call it God, and then declare God in all it’s variant meanings are the same, and voila, He exists!

It is one certainty that with such obscurity, an infinite set of explanations both more bizarre and more down-to-Earth can all equally be envisioned.

It should be up to you to tell me exactly the terms being used in a theory specifically apply to. I got this above quote from Wikipedia yet I have still found nowhere that these have been explained better. And these do NOT require a mathematical formula to explain. They require logical/philosophical definitions of the terms which everybody can follow up front—not requiring you to have twenty irrelevant courses in other aspects of science to qualitatively decide if its worth the investment to study. By the time one has invested such time (and money), they are psychologically so invested that they feel they must justify that investment with the credentials they’ve earned.

My original posting demonstrated that any particular defined concept of light from one perspective is lost from another perspective. The program signal that I used as a defining concept of light from one particular inertial frame is not the same as that from another different inertial frame. What one defines as “the light” that they measure, is a different phenomena from different inertial frames. So, if I sent out a specific wavelength, like red, for instance towards a ship that then measures that very same wave from their vantage point will be shifted and no longer be red. Thus, they are different phenomena. This is empirically true as well. Otherwise, shifting couldn’t rationalize the universe expanding.

This is an absolute logical disproof of relativity because they are the underlying postulates that make the rest of the theory true. If you can’t follow it, then I say that there is something wrong with your capability to reason logically. And I don’t care if the whole world but myself recognizes this. I know they do. But change doesn’t come easy. The ‘paradigm’ has its own inertia and may require the old hats to die out before something new can be accepted. Too much real investment in projects based on these assumptions employ too many people to be just abandoned by the most logical assessment. And so, I may be your looney here and now, but time will prove me right.

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: 02 August 2013 03:47 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  5255
Joined  2007-08-31
Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

This irrational mindset was produced in the mind to preserve concepts that were meant to achieve a savings of a Deistic God. It’s politics and you as well as anyone who adapts this without appropriate skepticism are suckers and feeding into this crap!

Sigh… You are getting higher and higher on the crackpot scale…

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

It’s as if (and no doubt, real) that the institutions are safeguarding those individuals from being forgotten. Emphasis on research and other scholastic ventures place it on authorities.

Still higher…

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won’t survive. And if this is already agreed to, and yet it is argued that since it is impossible to do those experiments, then you’ve immunized your theory from falsification!

You forget that it is your theory that is immunised against falsification. The experiments that can be done all point to the fact that SR is correct.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.

Higher…

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is “the” light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one’s understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.

It says ‘speed of light’, not its frequency or amplitude. Do you have any empirical proof that the speed of light in vacuum differs dependent on its frequency?

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

So, if I sent out a specific wavelength, like red, for instance towards a ship that then measures that very same wave from their vantage point will be shifted and no longer be red. Thus, they are different phenomena. This is empirically true as well.

This is just relativistic doppler shift, which can perfectly be derived from the LT, accords with experimental evidence, and is based on the constancy of the speed of light for every observer.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

And I don’t care if the whole world but myself recognizes this. I know they do.

...highest category on the crackpot scale reached!

I suggest you try to refute the simple argument with the light clock here, and then come back. Really, it is a very simple proof, no higher, impressive math needed. Also, take note of the experimental evidence mentioned in the article.

Signature

GdB

The light is on, but there is nobody at home.

 Profile

 Posted: 02 August 2013 08:56 AM [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

I used a perfectly logical deductive style to show how relativity fails on its premises. It is a flawless argument. In this regards, it isn’t even required of me at this point to present the positive aspects I add on it. How, at this point in the argument, can a logical argument that presents a flaw absolutely be required to be falsifiable? This criterion couldn’t even be relevant here.

Again, no experiment in the empirical system can “point to the fact that [any theory] is correct.” The most it can do is to support it. It doesn’t rule out other equally valid ways of describing the theory using the same math.

It says ‘speed of light’, not its frequency or amplitude. Do you have any empirical proof that the speed of light in vacuum differs dependent on its frequency?

Your changing the argument from my emphasis on the non-quantified factor of the terms to the definition of “speed of light”. I took a step back in the last post to argue the first part, that Einstein’s theory is wrong on logical grounds. Ignore my positive addition for the time being because it is a different argument on its own.

As to the specific wavelength example I understand that the Doppler shift is the valid explanation and that the math accounts for this very well. But it is a Relativistic Doppler you point to and it implies that the actual information of the light goes at the same actual speed, not merely its perceived or measured speed. Pulses of red light X seconds long with Y second intervals cannot transmit its content equally in all directions (why I used the program example to demonstrate.) The light will appear shifted from those different directions, but if you measured the total length of the information divided by its time, those values will also be different. This means that those measured durations represent the speed of the very exact same light not to be ‘c’. Otherwise, you lead into an even stranger phenomena: that information can be determined before it can reach the destination for measurement. If I send out a stream of information that is 1hr long while you are speeding at close to the speed of light away from it, you cannot know the full program from beginning to end if the end hasn’t even reached you yet. The perceived program length divided by the actual length (1hr) is the same as its measured speed for the wave at a point. (...because the speeds we are all dealing with here are constant, so the average velocity equals its instantaneous velocity.)
Whether you look at time as slowing down from the observer on the ship moving away or, as I would put it, matter itself slowing down due to its translation through fixed space, these identical ways of looking at it doesn’t solve the problem. The limitations of the devices to detect and inform the observer of its measure points not to the actual fact of the information because they contradict each other when the same message is sent in exactly the same way from the other direction. That is, the hour-long program being sent from ahead of the ship will pass through the receiving antenna within a very short period of time, while the program from the opposite direction still has a relatively long time until its completely capable of being received from the antenna. Thus the information of the actual [wave] lengths cannot be measured the same. If you measured the speed of a wavelength at the point you received the program from the front of the craft, a measure of the program from behind cannot be measured until its information reaches you. This means that if in fact you measure a speed of a light segment from the ship and find that it is both “c” from either direction, the perception of the phenomena is certainly only a perception and must not represent what actually occurs.

So the perception of the reality of any measure isn’t the actual measure of the phenomena. It has to be inferred with the known facts. Also, when you use a source of light that is on the ship, you have to consider that it is itself being created by the matter in translation with the ship. It limits the created light to the time of the ship. This light is not created equally: the light created from a different inertial frame is not the same phenomena. A photon created at a ship going infinitely close to the speed of light, would take an infinite time to be created while one from the background frame is able to create an infinite photons in the same time. Compare: zero photons created vs. an infinite. Clearly, they are different phenomena within the same universe.

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

 7 of 16 « First Prev 5 6 7 8 9 Next Last »