justafool @zeccano@qoto.org

@freemo Because my mind is practical, I like to understand HOW stuff works, im not so interested in the measurement of the effects. the measurements require math, the understanding of whats making it happen require only practical understanding. Rational think and sound logic is what inspire me explore. I would like too go to see and experience the penguins in Antarctica, not go count them or weigh them.

@freemo We actually have a paradox here, you cant successfully explain the rationale behind the physics, but I cant explain the accuracy of the equations.
Its a bit like one does not have to understand the inner working of a computer to be able to get useful work done.
But if someone tells me that the computer is working because inside there are little green men that do the calculations, then I will challenge him.
This is where we are at.
The computer works, but the explanations suck. My thinking is that there are better explanations.

@freemo p=mv
where p is momentum, m is mass and v is the velocity.
If velocity is the sped of light, and the claim is that mass increases with speed, and further that ANYTHING OF ANY MASS will possess INFINITE mass if it were able to go at light speed, the a photon MUST necessarily be of INFINITE MASS wen it hits us in the eye. Strange, I dont feel that, but my eyes are receiving countless photons every second.
If light has relativistic mass, that just means that at relativistic speeds its noticeable, the same idea with time dilation, its NOTICEABLE at relativistic speeds, BUT its also true at ANY speed, just not measurable.
So light is NEVER MASS-LESS, according to einsteins theory, but the mass does play a part in the physics when the light is doing c.
( according to einstein)
We have light going less than c in different mediums so lights mass must be less when slower.
But no one can prove these claims for light.
The observations all show that light is unlike any OBJECT, and that difference is that is apparently has no mass, and without mass it can not have momentum.
because p=mv, a well proven relationship.
Even if you modify this equation with the relativistic version, light still has no momentum, no mass at any speed.

Why did the physicists remove the third claim of einstein, that mass increases with velocity?
The replaced it with the claim that einstein actually really meant to say Momentum, every time he said mass. A stupid mistake to repeatedly make in a scientific paper, by one with so much brilliance.
They changed it from mass to momentum because there is not way you can create mass from speed, where does the extra matter come from? So they swapped it with momentum on the pretext that mass is actually energy, ,which is a teaching of the Kabbalah and other aancient mystical religions.
Its certainly not demonstrable in Physics.
The atom bomb is not a demonstration of "mass is energy" any more than TNT demonstrates it.
Or my log fire.

@freemo I would like to know more about math, but I really dont have the time, i can now almost see the light at the end of the big tunnel, and I still have other stuff to do. I have a garden, chooks, and do woodwork which are more important to me than this, or advanced math.
I am considering the fact that the equations give results that match measurements, and the two curves are not a close enough match too provide those results, and will ponder and research this for a while.
But other that this one point of yours, that the results match reality, I dont think you have given a solid enough explanation for the reasons. None of the theory behind any of the experiments is without problems, and you have not been able to explain HOW they could get the equations so right when their hypothesis is problematic. You always just skip past the hypothesis and past the experiments and focus on the equations.
Light does not follow the source is one instance.
If I wave my laser about the sky it seems to be keeping up with the motion of my laser pointer, but the first laser photon is long gone in the direction that the laser was pointing at that instant, and has been replaced by countless billions more, each moving in a straight line coinciding with the direction of the pointer at the moment the photon was generated.

@freemo Please provide a link to an experiment that demonstrates that light follows the motion of the source, which is exactly opposite to Einstein's statement, that light is NOT affected by the motion of the source. (all other physicists support einstein's claim about light not being affected my the motion of the source)

@freemo no one has done this experiment. To test it conclusively, one guy would have to be moving very fast, a decent percentage of the speed of light relative the the other guy, to be sure that other factors were not affecting the readings.

As Maxwell's equations indicate, light is RELATIVE to the Medium, not to some observer.
Be that medium air, water, a diamond or vacuum. Its relative to the medium, and always goes at c in the vacuum, less that c in other mediums.

@freemo The non linear equations give a plotted curve that resemble the curve of the force of gravity measured at different altitudes. That all.
its not difficult to come up with such a non linear equation.
From the curve, or from the equation of course we get the same result as physical measurements.
Does not mean that space is curved, or that time can change with height.

@freemo It would be easier to address the issues that I brought up, which you have not. All you resort to is the claim that "ït works". But you have no valid or sensible explanation as to how it works.

How was it measured from two different frames of reference?
What experiment did this?

@freemo So what you are saying here is that einstein's hypothesis is just rubbish, with no possible method that allows the rational development of the math, but just by luck, he got the math correct?
Because you cant develop a theory that uses itself to develop itself.
We dont need any hypothesis, just dream up equations based on nothing at all, and sooner or later we may have one that fits the observations?

@freemo Simple, the lorentz equation is not linear, same as the force of gravity, so its a close enough representation of the effects that gravity is having on the physical processes in that atomic clock at different altitudes. The clock is NOT time, its just a oscillating physical process, affected by gravity. Clocks are affected, time is not, because time is a concept, not a thing.

@freemo You measured the speed of light?, great, I did not challenge the speed of light.
I only said that there is no experimental proof that light is relative to any and all inertial frames of reference regardless of their diverse motions and even directions.
So there is no validity to the claim that light will always be measured at c by anyone regardless of their own conditions.
Light speed is a declared and agreed by committee value, not a precisely measured always constant one.

@freemo no, no no, You dont get to call in another more recent claim of einstein to prove his first paper was correct.
The 1905 paper never mentions of or proves anything about light having mass, because we have not developed that theory yet!
That's what the paper is trying to explain. You dont have relativistic anything until Einstein proves it first!
You cant use the hypothesis to prove the same hypothesis,, that circular reasoning.
You are calling on a theory of e=mc2 as support for the hypothesis that e=mc2 rests on.
Not science. Not rational not logical.

@freemo You are misled here.
That was NEVER an observation. It was an assumption made after M&M's experiment gave an unexpected null result when trying to detect a medium through which could "wave".
And the assumption that "light travels the same speed in every inertial frame of reference was not the conclusion of M&M.
It was suggested by others. (einstein fans)
The experiment never was able to test more than the one frame that the machine was in, regardless of the direction in the room the device pointed. It never tested ""all inertial frames"", just the one.
And its not actually in a real inertial frame anyway. The earth spins, orbits and the solar system spirals so where is the inertial frame you speak of?
The Earth Centered Inertial Frame is a bunch of words, saying the earth can be considered inertial does not make it so.
Why was the machine not testing different frames as it rotated? Simply because there is no aether which would have given the different tested directions the necessary "stationary"" or preferred frame of reference for the directions to be relative to the light. Einstein forbid such a thing, so you cant use it when it suits you.
Remember, the directions of the rotated experiment are NOT relative to the light, as the source is being rotated as well as the mirrors! So to be testing different frames, you need the aether or some absolute stationary frame as the relative object.
You dont have one, so the M&M experiment is not demonstrating that light goes the same speed in all frames.

@freemo The laws of Physics dissagre with your assesment of my video.
A ball has mass and is influenced by inertia. A quanta of light, a photon has no mass therefore can never possess inertia.
Even Einstein stated clearly that light is unaffected by the motion of the source. No physicist will support the notion that a photon can be compared kinetically to a physical balls motion.
It is irrivalent that the light source may be under constant motion or under no otion or accelerating motion, once the photon leaves the source, the further motions of the source dont play any part.
and the inertia of the source can not be passed on to the massless photon for the reason already stated. The photon is going to go in the direction that the laser source is pointing, and not possess any of the lasers sideways motion.
You have not debunked my video.

@freemo You mention we could confirm SR using Length Contraction, but strangely this has never been demonstrated in the hundred years that its been a hypothesis and now a theory.
A theory that has no experimental confirmation?
"No direct experimental test has confirmed the phenomenon of length contraction and its direction dependent nature after almost a century"

@freemo The lectures wer by Leonard Susskind of Stanford, Professor Shankar or Yale, and A level Physics revision series by ""Dr Physics" who has a BSc (physics) and PhD (nuclear physics) from King's College, London. and others such as Lecturers from MIT.
Not much wrong with the teachers I would suggest.

@freemo If we are talking about GR, then it was the problem of the apparent abnormally in the orbit of Mercury.

@freemo Funny, but its because I one day decided that I had the interest to understand more about things I read when I was younger, namely a National Geographic article about he wonders of Einsteins theories, (from the 1960's) that I read the English translation of Einsteins theory on Special Relativity, his 1905 paper. Then I watched every video of every lecture from the main USA universities, most involved a series of lecture videos, specifically on SR.
I also watched all the informational videos available that try to explain the theory using very nice graphics.

After ALSO reading some critical reviews of the theory, from dissident scientists, I had to decide what was correct and was must be mistake, as the two were not in agreement.
That made me go back to the 1905 paper, again, to pull it apart in detail, so that I was sure I understood it clearly.
Not being a math guy, ant it being too late for me to start, (im 64) I figured that this being a subject of Physics, it must first be explainable as physical principals, then after a satisfactory physical model is presented, the math was later developed.
The math must conform to the physical claims, we cant do physics from a math base, then look for observational evidence. The claim is that science works by first an observation then the search for an explanation followed by testing the proposed solution under varying conditions with math to support the claim, am I correct?

So with the theory of SR, exactly when EInstein proposed his thought experiment involving a light clock on a carriage, I had a problem with his model.

I made a short video explaining the problem I found. Take a look and get back to me if you want.

https://vimeo.com/295270284

@freemo Great, This is all good info for me.
And yes, I'm not skilled at math, however the stupid questions I asked you, being as how you are the only person I have come across that personally tested something, are the questions I would ask a professor during a lecture on this subject. I really dont trust people in general, and the weirder the claim, the more I am skeptical. Ill push as hard against authority whether it be from government or science, because there is no such thing as a incorruptible in any human endevour.
So we have confirmed differences in your clocks. And the differences are withing the reasonable error margin according to einsteins equation.
Which is just based on Lorentz work.
Now my question is:
Considering that a correct result from math calculation is not necessarily meaning that the hypothesis is correct, (it just means the equation is able to mimic fairly closely the results we get from direct measurements) .. then its not unreasonable to suggest that this affect of clock discrepancy is due simply because gravity effects the atomic process in the clock, and its not time that changing but just a local force preventing the clock from functioning normally.
After all, the equation does not involve any "spacetime", its the same basic equation that Lorentz developed for time and distance and mass changes due to relative velocity.

It has nothing to do with Einstein's GR field equations.
So how come a velocity equation is able to be used directly in a problem that has nothing to do with motion?

So is there something I missed here?

And Im talking with another guy on a forum, who says that spacetime is only a curved model of reality, its non euclidian , so things dont fall freely like they do in eculidian space.
But how come everything we see here ion earth s euclidean, but it somehow changes a few miles up? How high do you have to go above earth to find the place where euclidean stops and curved spacetime starts?
If everything is non Euclidean, then 99 % of all physics and astronomy, cosmology is wrong.
We calculate the distance to stars and the positions of stars according to Euclidean geometry and laws, so all these results are totally wrong. Even the example of starlight being curves as it passes the sun as in Eddington's experiment relies totally on euclidean geometry which is wrong.
So what the deal with spacetime?
It seems to me to be much more likely that everything is exactly how it appears, its all Euclidean.

What is the actual reason to consider that out there it could be totally different than here, whats the rationality behind the concept of non Euclidean space? Why would anyone decide its a good idea? We see no evidence for it, that made people realize that it just cant be Euclidean? Did we?

It all came from only math, right?

@freemo Ok, Here's why you cant use your experimennts results.
FIrst, You said yourself that the your clocks were not accurate enough to measure the very small expected discrepancy.
2. You have the clock going up and down from your home to a mountain, were you in a cabin the whole two weeks? What was the altitude where the clock was located?
Im guessing about 3 km meters. The highest mountain is only 4.3 km . I doubt there is a road to the top. but even so, the gravitational difference between your home and that mountain is very slight, and when you consider that the difference between the earth based master clock and the satellites is only 43 nanoseconds per 24 hour, and those satellites altitude is 20,000 km! And the gravitational difference is huge!
So what did you think you should see in time discrepancy after two weeks, given that with so many unknowns, you cant calculate an accurate results anyway...?
My point is that you dont have a perfect clock, you dont have a stable location for the clock, it was not at the same location for 2 weeks i am guessing.
The calculated difference is still small, and then there is the final problem of when you return, how exactly could you read the two clocks current times, in nanoseconds? You could compare maybe hundredths of a second maybe, but not nano seconds, How was that task undertaken? Even if you freeze the clocks, you need to do that with electricity, so any small difference in the electrical system, different length wire, or slightly different conducting would mean the clocks cant be guarantee to stop simultaneously, cant it? Im guessing of course, but would like to know how you did this part.
Anyway, Im still open to correction here. However its recognized that gravity changes do affect the physical processes so all you are measuring is the clock changes, not changes in TIME.
Please see this video re the abnormally of Mercury's orbit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5GJCkI-bk