@freemo
What experiment that supports Special Relativity have you personally done?
Which part of "the experiments are either fraud or done incorrectly" dont you understand?

What use is doing the same wrong thing many times and getting the same wrong answer?

Are you sure you even went to high school?
Degrees? in what? Fast food technology? Hairdressing?

@zeccano A very obvious one that many people have done, for example, is taking an atomic clock to different altitudes and seeing how the passage of time changes due to the effects of gravity. Something I have done for fun and to personally prove the theory. Nothing official though, just fun easy experiments anyone with access to some resources could do.

If you think such experiments have been done consistently incorrectly and all have the same results anyway youd have to show either how/why such a conspiracy would exist or how the experiment is flaws and show an experiment that would contradict it.

@freemo
Sorry to bother you with this. I can see its way, way over your head. Ill wait till someone with the power of discernment comes along, then engage in some meaningful discourse. Bye.

@zeccano
Dont be a condescending jerk, it wont serve you well on qoto, with me or the others.

Usually when people dont have a leg to stand on they resort to personal attacks. Shows a lot about your position really.

@freemo Says Dr freemo, who recently said I was talking out of my arse. And dont be so sensitive. You cant help not being capable of explaining what you believe.

@zeccano Fair I should have been more tactful. After just talking to a flat earther for most of the day to hear you say something is false that can be tested and proven and has been sounded absurd. I should have been more tactful in my wording of that.

@freemo
No worries, Im never tactful. I dont see any point in mincing words to be PC. There is too much of that. But when I make a statement, such as Einstein is wrong, I can explain exactly why he is wrong. Ive been doing this for several years, and never had anyone be able to shoot me down with rational, logical argument.

@freemo And I repeat, your "tested and proven"" method is not reliable and is never accepted by sicence as the way forward. Simply because you can never PROVE anything absolutely, you can only positively prove some idea wrong with a test.
And there are always more than one interpretation of any result of any experiment. That's why we MUST examine the hypothesis, this is the scientific method.
If this were no so, they we would never need the peer review process would we? ( which is full of problems anyway)

@zeccano The "interpretation" are little more than mental models, they arent the theory. The theory is that when something accelerates or changes its distance to some large mass time dialates by a very specific amount.

You are claiming it doesn't (correct)?

So the way to prove you have the superior answer isnt through any logical gymnastics, it would be through and experiment or a criticism of existing experiments that might explain how/why they are erroneous.

If you feel you can do that im all ears.

@freemo You are no scientist are you?
I CAN explain why all apparent confirmations of relativity are either fraudulent or errors of interpretation. But you wont believe me. Why? Because YOU will counter my explanation of the physical experiments USING the hypothesis itself!.

I may be wrong, but didn't einstein write a paper? you know with meaningless words, mental gymnastics, and people read it, and consider whether it was a valid scientific work?
Now you come along and say, "" I dont want to think" Words and ideas make my head hurt.
Just show me the shiny bouncing ball, that good enough.
I can show you David Copperfield making a Boeing 747 disappear on live TV!
There is evidence enough for you.

As I said before, you dont have the mind for this discussion.
Ill wait till someone else comes along.

@zeccano Yes I am a scientist.

I have no need to use einsteins words or gymnastics for anything. He defined a very specific equation that defines how we expect things to behave. So far all the experiments show it to be true. Which means you need to either disprove those experiments by showing why they are failed experiments, or device your own.

You can play on words all you want, try to insult people and act childish in a vain attempt to look like you have some position of strength.

ITs all just noise until you actually say what you propose and exactly how one can test it.. until then your just wasting air on insults with no content.

hell you didnt even get to the point where you share any actual ideas, nothing with which to counter, and your already lashing out with personal attacks.

If anything it appears you are the one who doesnt have the mind for holding civil or productive conversations.

@freemo Einstein came up with his math equation by adding up the number of stray cats in Berlin, then multiplying by a number that his gardner thought up ( a number between one and one hundred) and then taking the square root of the result, and dividing it by the speed of light. There, that''s actually the way einstein developed his equation.
Since you didnt know this before, I thought I should explain it to you.
Now that you know the truth, maybe you can understand why I am suspicious of any claim that some test has verified his equation.
So when I explain that you CAN get a correct or near to correct looking result, that resembles reality, it DOES NOT MEAN that you were right.

And there are ALWAYS other explanations for any experiment, you dont get to chose your favorite one and claim that its the correct one. (while being also ignorant about the other possibilities)

Do einsteins equations provide answers that are more accurate than the classical physics we had before? NO, no they dont.

Precession of Mercury's orbit, GPS, and curvature of spacetime causing light o curve around the sun, and atomic clocks on planes, are all tricks of science fraud.

Incidentally all these observations require those difficult things, "words" and rhetoric in order to explain.

@zeccano Tricks of science fraud? Then how do you explain the fact that when ive conducted the tests myself personally they matched einsteins predictions perfectly.. How would this be possible if it was fake?

@freemo What test exactly did you conduct?

@zeccano Several over the years. A good example of one we can easily discuss is taking an atomic clock to different altitudes then comparing against a reference clock later.

The difference matched those predicted by einstein very closely.

@freemo As you are not a Physicist, where did you obtain a master atomic clock and several mobile atomic clocks from?
You need the master obviously, and you need more than one to take to the mountain, and another as a control piece....
So how loaned you these clocks, personally? Which mountain?

You are aware of course that atomic clocks are NOT that accurate, right? Two IDENTICAL atomic clocks sitting side by side in a lab, WILL NOT stay in sync.
A mobile atomic clock is not considered very accurate at all compared to a fixed clock.
ALL the master and copies around the world need TUNING and adjusting all the time... so how the hell could you discover anything at all about General relativity's claim that time goes faster at altitude, when you had to move and transport that several clocks all about the countryside, with is going to fuck up their timing, considering we are trying to measure two tenths of sweet fuck all?
Is the ANY experiment ever done to support einstein that does not involve a practically near zero result, or is happening on the other side of the universe? Any?

@zeccano Well this was an experiment did several times over, it wasnt a single trip. But for the most impressive trip was when we took one up to the grand teton's Two-peak mountain.

I have access to a lot of hardware, and did the experiment many times with different hardware. At first it was loaned hardware, later hardware I owned and use for my EE work (unrelated to these experiments). So luckily I had ready access to several atomic clocks for a few years before selling them since I no longer need it for the work I do currently.

As for the accuracy, the accuracy and maximum deviation is known and easily confirmed. The variation is extremly small much.

Moreover if this were simply random deviation, a fine (though incorrect) assumption then it would be easy to distiguish. A random variance would be the same and inconsistent between trips at high altitutde and low. In both cases it would deviate in either direction.

Even if this wasnt true and there were some effect that made speeding up and slowing down as a mechanical problem specifically due to air pressure or something, then we would still expect that the results would not match exactly with the predictions of SR. Yet in every test, dozens of times, the results were always nearly exactly what you expect according to SR/GR

None of your dismissal or explanations seem to be able to explain away this.

@freemo What was the altitude of the master clock, and the altitude of the mountain location, and what discrepancy did you record? Considering relativity, what was your calculated discrepancy?

@zeccano My science labs and notebooks are in my USA home, I'm currently in my europe home. So I dont currently have my lab notes on me. However you'd be better served looking at actual peer reviewed papers done under scrutiny. My results were the same, but it was done more for fun and personal validation than anything, and of the thousands of actual journal papers will go into far more detail for you.

I can take pictures of my lab notebook if your curious though next time im at that home, but again the peer-reviewed data here is going to use even more expensive equipment and controls anyway.

You were the one who seems to think you can disprove his theory despite the fact that everything we do appears to agree with it...

Its been over a day now, if you think you have some way of disproving his equation as accurate im all ears...

@freemo Yes, I am very interested in seeing some data on your clock test. But as you cant provide just now, at least you can do me the favor of calculating quickly what einsteins equations say the time difference will be between say, sea level and the top of grand teton?
later, please do that some pics of your notes and findings, and post them here, or alternatively send to my email. zeccano@protonmail.com

@zeccano Ahh sure, yea I think we can go through that equation , thats not too hard to calculate that part, just need to check what the exact altitude was where I did it

It will be very small number, but much smaller than the rated accuracy of the atomic clocks, if that is what you wish to check.

@zeccano So basically it depends how much detail you want to go into what equation you use. Here is the simple equation for just the gravity and its effect on time dilation. That is good enough to understand the experiment I did but keep in mind if you want more accuracy then you would do a few things extra

1) calculate in the time dilation due to the slight velocity difference between the two clocks, this isnt hard but it also is a less significant part of the math and it works if its left off too, just not as accurately.

2) instead of modeling the mass of the earth as uniform (which is easier and usually good enough) you can actually measure the strength of gravity where you are. By doing so you can get really hyper accurate results, which are what most studies do.

In our case lets stick with the simpler and less accurate equation just so you can understand it.. it looks like this

\(t_0 = t_f \sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}} \)

If you want to see how to calculate an approximation for G at a particular altitude then you can use this:

https://www.vcalc.com/equation/?uuid=9eed23e3-ec77-11e5-9770-bc764e2038f2

Now just need to look up the height of the mountain I was on as well as my home's altitude where the control clock was set and we can get the numbers.

@freemo Aslo, being pedantic, I must ask the location of your master stationary clock, and which mountain you went to exactly? Dropped by Helicopter?
Have a guess as to the discrepancy you got, it must be in the back of your mind, all that effort and you forget what you discovered? And it was so interesting that you did similar experiments several times? So do tell what was the difference in time? One more thing I need to know, from the location of the stationary clock, how did you get to the mountain? by car? or did you also have free access to that helicopter as well as a bunch of clocks and plenty of free time from your electrical engineering studies... you should understand why i need to check a few things, i dont meet many people (none till you actually) that have personally tested einsteins theory.

@zeccano I already answered this, the lab notes are at my house with the labs, not with me.

Again much better and more accurate data is availible in actual peer reviewed studies, so if you want actual data with which to draw conclusions then those studies are a better source.

I certainly dont mind going into the details of the experiment with you as i remember it, but going off memory witout my notes on it probably isnt going to be as useful as using data from profressional experiments.

Please answer **my** question rather than piling on your own. IS there a reason you refuse to use actual peer reviewed experiments. They certainly agree with the numbers, do you think it is some world wide conspiracy, or is there some other explanation for the consistency across experiments?

@zeccano For all the talking you did the past few days you chould have just shared your paper on a theory, including whatever math and proposed way to test it, and then we can discuss it.

@freemo You are having way too much trouble over what Im saying here.
Im NOT trying to suggest any hypothesis, I dont want to propose any laws of physics.
ALL I am saying is that einsteins hypothesis is error from start to end, and contains math errors, so his equation is also crap.
Therefore it not possible that an experiment is really supporting these errors. Like 2+3 = 19 is not a good start in a physics paper, the paper is going to be worthless.