Apecial Relativity discussions here

@zeccano

@freemo

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.

@freemo

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.

@freemo

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.

@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.

@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?

@freemo

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
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 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.