justafool @zeccano@qoto.org
Joined Nov 2019
You missed my point totally. I want to go through Einsteins theory, to examine the development of the concept that leads to Time and lengths getting shrunk.
I dont want to proceed to any experiment, I have no resources.
But I want to examine the SR hypothesis. Is it rational and logical with no contradiction or hidden miss-directions?
Do you agree?
@freemo
Bending light? rotating light? effecting light in any way? Its all the same. Light reacts to magnets is the claim, and if Faraday is right, his experiment proves it.
Rotation is a departure from the original trajectory, so its an acceleration required to get there.
Same as a bend is also an acceleration of the beam.
However, Einstein says that you cant get light to accelerate, so what, does it slow down THEN bend? ( all non inertial trajectories are accelerations)
OK. Fair enough.
I propose to show that the predictions that einsteins math seems to corroborate are not what they seem to be.
But before that, we need to fully understand what SR is actually claiming, and how and why the hypothesis develops those conclusions.
@freemo
Actually, the Faraday effect is supposed to prove that light is affected by an electromagnetic field.
But I dont agree with Faradays or anyone else's conclusions about what is occurring with that experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEVvsbvlkA
@freemo
So I fail to understand you position that a physics paper is just hyperbole, not to be taken literally,. And that all we need are Oracles and Mystics that can predict the future. If they are right more than wrong, thats good enough science for you?
@freemo
You are a Doctor of what?
@freemo
SR hypothesis has nothing to do with QM. Einstein never mentions it in his 1905 paper.
We are only discussing if that paper and his theory stands up to critical review, peer review if you like.
Math is only as good as the validity of the equations it uses.
Math is NOT the language of the gods, or of the universe, its a tool that is very capable of being abused, and hiding the truth or polluting it as well as it can support the truth.
Imbuing god like power to Math is starting to sound like someone who is nothing more than a Numerologist. It is the stuff that religions are made of.
First, before math we must understand the physics of what is occurring, the math can follow if its warranted.
That's why Einstein has a hypothesis, then AFTER he explained his ideas, the math followed.
ALL hypothesis is presented this way.
Is there any physics theories that only are Math? No.
Can you explain a physical process so that its well understood without math? Yes.
Even Einstein said, If you cant explain you ideas to a barmaid, then you don't understand it yourself. (Barmaids dont do math.) Or was it Feynman quote?
Math is like a rubber band, given enough data to crunch and almost anything can be created with suitable equations. thats why we MUST have sound, rational explanations beforehand.
OK, great.
I need to state one thing. I wont consider any subjective interpretations of any experiments as proof of any hypothesis. All observations are open to more than one possible explanation, and are all interpreted by people who have prior beliefs, and may have prior assumptions that influence their conclusions. This is why experimental evidence can never be said to be PROOF in support of a claim, only possibly proof that a claim is incorrect. Its at best, possible supporting evidence.
So, I want to critically review Einsteins actual hypothesis on Special Relativity, to see if it is rational, contains no contradictions, does not mislead the reader, and displays sound logic throughout.
There are a great many videos on youtube by highly regarded physicists and professors that go through SR step by step, explaining the theory in enough detail for us to consider. Pick one and we can get on the same page.
Ok, But Im new to this forum, not sure how to start a new thread, and direct it to you specifically. Can you start one on SR and we can discuss those proofs of SR?
@adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
@freemo
But I dont believe in the aether.
I also dont believe anyone has a sound, rational explanation for light.
Not one that fits the easily observed properties of light.
@freemo
I see. Im not a flat earther.
But I certainly am unable to believe in some mainstream claims of Physics today.
Most unacceptable is all of Einsteins work, and Quantum physics, as it is currently presented.
@freemo
Please explain HOW you KNOW that virtual particles really exist?
Apparently there are so many of the buggers that those that do pop, still constitute enough material to be an aether.
Myself I dont accept virtual anything as a principal in Physics, nor do I accept an aether.
@adidasJack
Sorry I came in late, what is this a picture of exactly? Link please?
What is the sphere?
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
@freemo
But the next instant they BECOME REAL PARTICLES, so yes they can and must react with other physical processes. Thats what "pop into existence" means, unless Krauss has great difficulity in presenting advanced Physics in the english language? Maybe like all the times Einstein in his papers kept saying MASS, (special Relativity) when he actually meant to say "momentum". (yeah, right, the most brilliant genius always used the wrong word?) No, its a dodge by modern Physicists to try to overcome the impossibility that Mass can be created by motion alone. The other impossibilities of Time Dilation and Length contraction are fudged with the wonder of Mathemagics.
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
They are nothing at all. they are pretend, fantasy particles, and as such have no place being on the periodic table of real physical particles of real matter.
There should be some sort of separation here. Oh wait there is! One is called rational Physics, the other is called magical mystical religious belief.
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Now you are missing the point that Krauss was making. He said the IMAGINARY, PRETEND or virtual Particles, magically pop into being REAL particles.
Then pop back into pretend particles again, really quickly.
So as the place is "teaming"" with them, during the time that they are "real particles" they then constitute an aether. Please dont play with semantics to avoid the obvious problems.
Kraauss sound less of a brilliant physicist and more like a religious nutter.
@adidasJack @freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Because the light is striking the glass perpendicular to the surface? try shining the light at a different angle, not directed to the center, it will bend.
@adidasJack @freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
Yes! where are they?
@freemo @adidasJack @CCoinTradingIdeas @Froghat @TheRealSmij
The aether was proposed to provide some sort of explanation as to how a light beam could be a wave when it propagated in space, which was considered devoid of substance, hence the quandary. No medium then what allows the wave action?
So they had to assume something was there, the aether. Thankfully much later, Dr Lawrence Krauss provided the answer, (which was not spacetime's magical "field")
Krauss said, " empty space is NOT empty, its teaming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence". So as this claim fits exactly the necessary properties of the aether, and later some Australian physicist "proved" it existed from his computer modelling, using {gasp and respect}, "Maths", then it is as good as gold, indisputable.
I dont buy krauss's claims myself, but all mainstream einstein fan boys MUST accept Krauss, as he is one of your own, and passed the hallowed peer review process.
Now you should also explain how a measurement of every point in space ( the definition of a field) is able to somehow keep a planet in orbit. By what means does a number at a location cause a physical result to occur?
Considering that a magnetic field is only local, and does not exist sans the physical magnet that is the source of the area of influence of that force, how then does a "field" exist without a physical object? Meaning that the claim is made that spacetime is a field, (when a field is but a property of something physical , NOT an entity itself) which simply means that you have reified the concept of force. Force is what a magnet DOES, the force in NOT an object itself.
You cant explain the mechanism by which a magnet causes something to be attracted or repelled, simply be claiming that the area of magnetic influence is now a thing in and of itself. So the idea that spacetime is a "field" is invalid unless you have a source for the Property called spacetime to be attached to.
Spacetime is claimed to be everywhere, but if its a field, then where is the source for the field? ( we can accept that the force called gravity whose source is the earth, creates a local field or area of influence, but the field does not extend and permeate through all of the universe. Einstein fan boys claim that it does.)
A measurement taken at every position in space is just that, a measurement, it is NOT a field.
Additionally, you have a very huge problem here with your idea of a field being a number attached to every point in space, being that you now have created by definition, an ABSOLUTE FRAME of Reference, that is STATIONARY.
How can you otherwise address every point in space, unless you know where those points are? And where they must remain to be useful to physics? Its an absolute frame of reference, complete with an origin and direction, unless you can explain to me some other way to identify every possible point in spacetime so that you can measure it? Or are all the measured points moving around like a cloud or water vapor? In which case I have to ask you, WHAT is moving? and in relation to WHAT?
No, Einstein and his spacetime creates more problems than it tries to solve.
Someone need to recognize and admit that Einstein is wrong with SR and GR, and move along with Physics.
@design_RG Ill go read a bit....thanks
Joined Nov 2019
