justafool @zeccano@qoto.org

Ive posed only a couple of simple questions about how einstein's special relativity is supposed to work, and even scientists here are unable to provide any answer as to how the theories could possibly work in reality.
I am simply ignored.

Physical evidence proves that the theory is wrong about the mass of light, and this destroys the base for the whole theory.

As this is clearly too hard a question for the scientist, I am now brushed aside and no one reading any of this is going to see any rational reply from the masters of all knowledge, the relativists.

Edward Bernayse was so right, people are stupid.

I accept fully ANY claim if it is rational, displays sound logic and can be clearly demonstrated. (if its a claim of Physics.) Einsteins Special Relativity has failed to meet any of these sensible requirements.
Not only that, but the actual physical experiment involving the Crookes radiometer proves that light certainly does not have any momentum, has no mass, as it is unable to cause any disturbance to the sensitive device when there is supposed to be a massive amount of kinetic energy available, according to the scientists own careful mathematical calculations!

It must be so reassuring for these guys to be long in a big secure club ,and they all get together regularly for a group mental wank.

Anyone else beside Dr freemo want to come up with any real answers to my questions?

Probably best to just run away from a challenge and pretend that I don't exist. That's what Mormons do at the door when challenged.

The following is NOT addressed to Dr Freemo.

Einstein's e =mc2 is not demonstrated by the nuclear bomb.
Anynmore than Dynamite is.
IF as EInstein claims, mass is just energy, then the equation e=mc2 must allow that the Mass could be Enriched Uranium of the nuclear bomb, OR ANY matter of the same MASS.
So 1 kg of uranium or 1kg of duck feathers, or 1 kg of dog shit would release the same destructive energy!
Yeah right einstein....
Enriched Uranium is an unstable explosive material like dynamite is. Just more powerful.
Dog shit is cheaper, why not bomb Israel with dog shit bombs?

Im not he only person who thinks that einstein's theories are rubbish.
and its NOT necessary to do the math in order to grasp the theory.
I wont do the math till I hear a solid hypothesis.
Also others ARE reading this discussion, so my time educating to public that something is very wrong with science, is not a waste time.
They can judge for themselves who is making more sense. The guy who claims that things shrink when you go fast, and get impossibly heavy, or the guy who says that this is nonsense, and cant be demonstrated.
"Binsic" has followed me, thats one.....
anyway,, im not listening to anything more you say, unless you start talking sensibly, and begin to use rational arguments.

The ONLY observation evidence you present is that you clock changed under varying physical conditions. that does not mean that "Time" changed does it?
There is not one single demonstration that Mass or length increases of decreases with velocity. After 100 years. nothing.
So there is little point claiming that i'm ignoring the evidence.

Science is supposed to answer the HOW. Just claiming that it happens DESPITE it being IRRATIONAL and against all logic, is unacceptable for me.

Armed with your best explanations and having the world phsyicists behind you, its stramge that you cant present a convincing case,
There are too many leaps of faith required to accept SR. ad too many contradictions in the hypothesis.
For this reason I reserve judgement on any claimed experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis.

You have hardly thrashed my concerns with anything rational.

The best you have is that it just works somehow, and the results of the equations seem to fit the observations.
As Feynman said, a correct answer is not proof.

Im done with this, you have been unable to supply any slam dunk defense for a highly suspect hypothesis.
Thanks for trying though.

@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
No you are totally wrong. Are you sere you studied this at school?

Clearly in einstins scenerio you MUST have two observers.
One observer is moving and you are considering yourself as stationary, that's Einsteins setup.
He is moving in my frame, thats why I can measure his velocity and position using classical rules.
The time whey things get relative is ONLY when there is a 3 rd object that both observr's are trying to measure, be it a ball or a light beam bouncing between mirrors.

Take away that 3rd object which can be considered to be in my frame, or also considered to be in his frame if he happens to wish to measure from the corner of his carriage,

The whole experiment is conducted as seen from the stationary observer, who has no problem with watching the passage of the vehicle containing the second observer, it ONLY when they both observe the third object, the ball or photon, that the claim of non Galilean relativity is supposed to come into play.

Anything I watch happening before me is automatically in my frame. Its not a special relativity frame, as the guy in the carriage can clearly see me as well, and we both measure the same Galilean distances and velocity between us.

It ONLY when that second, moving guy ignores me and tries to measure that photon, that''s where SR is supposed to be beginning.

So because light is never affected by anyone's frame, its always C, then light cant be relative to anyone's frame, its never able to change in velocity, its totally independent of frames, for light its as if no frames of reference exist.

Use rational thought and sound logic here, If two frames occupants agree that their frames are different, but they both get the same value for light speed, relative to their frames, then clearly they are wrong in assuming that the light is relative to frames. Its absolute, and apparently it s the only thing in the universe that is absolute.
Frames are relative never absolute, so how can you possible think that light can be absolute and not absolute at the same time?

So my statement, ""Relativity is only applicable to something that is MOVING inside a differently (moving) frame than the observer."" and the light is in my frame, and by measuring it as velocity c, it is proof that its in my frame.
And the carriage containing the other observer is also in my frame, as is the photon inside the carriage, all in my frame.
BUT its the observation of that photon in the carriage made by the second, moving observer, that einstein claims changes the universe. I just wish he would take a look outside, and stop measuring from the corner of his carriage, then the world of physics cane settle down again..
So for the moving guy, he observes something different, if he blots out the background outside his carriage, otherwise no, he sees nothing different at all.
And BECAUSE he still gets lights velocity as c, even though his carriage is moving, and its the same photon we are both measuring... then clearly the photon is not obeying the laws of anyone's relativity, not Galelio's or einstein's.
Light is acting with total indifference to all imaginary ""frames of reference"".
And that's all reference frames are, imaginary constructs that are supposed to help men make measurements when things are in motion.
Nature does not conform to mans imaginary constructs, its our constructs that must try to mimic reality, and SR is just failing to do that.

Light is never relative to my frame, to your frame or einsteins frame. Other wise you can never explain how we all get velocity of c irrespective of our motion relative to the light, or even if we turn 180 degrees and head into the light we STILL get c.
Therefore light is never relative to any frame. Its absolute. Frames are not, they are localized and relative to each other.
( actually light is relative to the medium in which it is propagating.) As Ive said before.

This is excellent, thanks for sticking about for a few more minutes.

Now, part two of the math, which Ill ask you to do please. I trust you.
Using the equation attached, convert this mass from relativistic mass into rest mass.

You need to rearrange the equation cause this is for relativistic mass.

and then I promise, I have only two more observations. then Ill give up or concede.

Dont give up yet, we still need to see the relativistic mass of a photon given the frequency.

This is THE equation for calculating the relativistic mass given the rest mass.
The only possible result for a photon is ZERO.

Help?
I can post, but how to reply to someones post? I get an error: ""Why is this step necessary? qoto.org might not be the server where you are registered, so we need to redirect you to your home server first."
How to solve this?