🇳🇱
Apecial Relativity discussions here
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.
@zeccano Interpritation doesnt really matter too much in the QM world, there are many different ones that can work.
What matters is the math, and only the math. If the math can be proven to be true consistently, then it is true, if it isnt, then it isnt. Math tells us what to expect from things and how they behave. It is what matters.
@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.
@zeccano In the end all of that is just hyperbole to me.. If someone predicts that something will behave in a certain way, and state an equation that dictates how it will behave, that is all that is important. From a functional standpoint you can now use the effect to your advantage and "wield" it.
@freemo
You are a Doctor of what?
@zeccanoI have a few degrees actually. None are in physics or QM though. I studied them in school and do the math more as a hobby, it is not a topic I have published on directly.
@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?
@zeccano No i didnt say a physics paper is hyperbole not to be taken literally. I was refering to the things you said about math not being the language of god, and all that... its mostly just noise that misses the point.
What we care about is can we describe a system in a way that helps us make accurate descriptions about how that system behaves. If you can, and if you do, then your theory is validated and becomes a model.
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.
@zeccano
If you have an experiment that cant be explained by einsteins models but can be more accurately predicted by your own model then im all ears.
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?
@zeccano
Im not sure what your saying. Do you think einsteins equations oredict what will happen in useful ways or not. If we observe something will we or will we not measure its length to have changed?
I am not too concerned with what mental framework you need to use to visualiE the why. If the oredictions work and are valid then we have success.
@zeccano
The hypothesis is "i propose that if x happens then y will be the result.", The expwriment texts x and see if y happens.
Thats all that matters to me when proving a model true. What abstract ideas you or einstein used to trt to visualize in your own mi d what is happen may have value but is not what defines if a theory is valid or not
Again do you agree that if something ia moving near the soeed of light that a stationary observer will measure the obiect to be shorter? Is this assertion true or false?
Its false.
Nothing is going to shrink or get heavier just because its moving.
At any speed, for any observer.
Any claimed experimental evidence is either incorrectly done, or fraud.
@zeccano
Then you are incorrect and oulking that out of your butt. Its been done cou tkess times and oroven to be the case. Hell ive personally dont relativity experiments and co firmed them to be true.
If you think that is the case prove it with an experiment or propose an experiment that someone else coukd do to prove you correct.
The experimental evidence overwhelmingly disagrees with you. In fact a lot of thinga in the world would not be able to work if we dont account for relativity.q
@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?
@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 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.
@freemo
I claim that millions of tiny invisible fairies with Casio watches, carry the light we call the Moon, across the night sky every evening. (with occasional changes)
I therefore PREDICT that they will do it again tonight!
There. this is adequate example of sound science according to you definition.
I need to chuck in a bit of math, maybe divide the weight of the moon by the carrying capacity of the fairies, deducted from the fact that they ARE carrying the moon, so we KNOW it has to be correct.. so, about 64 million fairies, prove me wrong!
@zeccano No you seem to be missing what I just said.
No one claimed it is made of casio watches. We create names for what we know and what can be proven by math, but thats it.
We define waves as things with certain mathematical properties, if something is shown to have those properties then it is a wave, at least until someone can prove otherwise. Any interpretation beyond that, if not shown directly by math proven to be true, is not part of the theory but rather just ones personal mental framework used to understand the theory.
More importantly you claim things dont get heavier or change size relative to the observer when they have velocity.
We can show and prove this isnt true by experimentation, by mathematical equations proven to be true. Whether you think it is made of fairy dust ior perriwinkles is external to any such theory.
@freemo
You need to step back one step.
With an hypothesis, one presents a collection of ideas and combines them so as to encapsulate a new understanding of some observation or proposal.
AFTER that, the author needs to propose a way to test the conclusions to see if they agree with experiment.
BUT, even if they agree with experiment, that DOES NOT mean the concepts are necessarily correct.
Now listen carefully. in this thread, I only want to discuss the hypothesis, to see if its sensible.
I propose its not rational, has many errors.
Therefore the conclusions must on necessity be wrong.
After we see that einsteins theories are wrong, we can then re examine any claimed experimental evidence to see why it apparently supports his wrong theories.
This is the correct way to do science.