🇳🇱
@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.
@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?
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.
@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 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 Good, thanks, now for how long did you stay on that mountain top with the clock?
And am I right, you used a helicopter?
@zeccano No helicopter, it was a jeep equiped with snow tracks. was a 2 week trip.
@freemo OK getting more interesting, thanks for responding, i appreciate it. But now my wife will kill me if I dont go sort out the chickens and go the the shop. its 10am here.
@freemo
and with those atomic or now optical clocks, they say they only loose a second in a billion years.. the thing is, how would you know?
The physical processes may be changing in the atomic scale, slowing, speeding up and there would be no way to know..
When they make an atomic clock and say its the most accurate... but by the standard of what BETTER clock can they say this?
@zeccano
You are really graping at straws.
Two ways we know. First, the clocks remain in sync. Error is random so if they were less accurate than stated we would see sub nanosecond drift over short time periods.
Second if the issue you suggest was simply clock error then the error woukd be random and not be in near exact agreement with einsteins equation every single time and in every experiment.
@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?
@zeccano If your really serious about learning this stuff here is what I recommend: Follow through the einstein thought experiments, the same one he used to derive his experiments.
I know since you dont know math this may seem overwhelming, but youd be surprised. For special relativity the math to understand it is actually **really** simple math beleive it or not. The thought experiment is also pretty simple to understand.
I think I see why this all may seem unreliable to you, you think it all came from just math, it didnt, it came from real world observable things, the math came later from simple thought experiments.
How would you feel about taking a go at understanding this for real, from the ground up? I promise it isnt too hard.
@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.
@freemo If we are talking about GR, then it was the problem of the apparent abnormally in the orbit of Mercury.
@zeccano No, that was a problem that was solved by GR, but not the fundementally observable principle that gave rise to the need or idea.
Ill give you the answer, but pay attention closely to my words because a lot of people dont really get what is being said here and i think it may be where you went wrong.
The fundemental paradox that gave rise to relativity was this simple fact: the speed of light is a constant
That means a bit more than you probably realize it means..
If i shoot a laser down a road and me, as someone holding the laser and standing still measure it, the speed of the light will be about 300 million kilometers per second, or C.
However that isnt the weird part.
The weird part is if someone else is running along the road next to the laser beam at half the speed of light, C, if they measure that same light beam one would expect him to measure the speed of light as half of C (that would be the case if we were talking about a bullet at least right?)... but amazing that isnt what we see, instead the measured speed would also be C!.
It is this apparent paradox that needed to be solved, and solving that paradox is exactly what special relativity does.
If you dont think special relativity is real, then how would you solve this paradox otherwise?
@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.
@zeccano bullshit, again i have measured the speed of light in my own lab (and it isnt hard...
Or are you going to assume it is again just "coincidence" that the results prove that the speed of light is a constant?
Man you are really just pulling stuff out of your ass now.
@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.
@zeccano What?
It was measured from two different frames of reference (relative speed) thats all you have to do to prove the paradox.
Man you really dont even understand the basics of what I'm saying it looks like.
Why are you still acting like it is in doubt when you couldnt explain away the gravity clocks?
At this point you have enough information to know the theory is experimentally proven (unless you have can come up with an explanation for the experiment which you cant).. So if you still are going to act like it isnt proven then I'm pretty much doneith you because you arent trying to really learn or change your assumptions at all.
I dont want to be rude but you said your 61 and its too late to learn math, apparently its too late for you to change your mind on relativity too.. But I want to just leave you with this, do your eally want to be that 61 year old that is too old to learn? Because personally I beleive you arent too old, but for that to be true it will take a change in the way you think, so its up to you.
@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?
@zeccano you measure the sme beam of light from two perspectives one moving faster than the other, thats what is meant.
@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 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.
@zeccano Im not saying something is wrong with the teachers in the sense that their information was wrong.
What I am saying is those teachers didnt explain things in a way that was clear to you. They clearly werent teaching you in a way that was uiseful, but this may be because you yourself didnt have the ability to ask them questions to understand
@zeccano So watched your video, the fundemental problem in the video is you assume that if the laser is stationary when it is fired, and then accelates and start moving after that this would be the same as firing a laser while under constant motion.. it wouldnt. You cant just ignore the velocity when it is fires and then account for it once the photon is in motion, it doesnt work that way.
To understand why replace the mirror with two children sitting across an aisle on a bus and photon with a ball. If the bus is going really fast down a high way and one kid throws a ball to the other, how will the ball move? will it miss the other kid completely because of the velocity of the bus or will it hit its target? Obviously it would hit its target, as long as the bus isnt accelerating.
A photon is no different in this regard and thus why your video is debunked.
@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.
@zeccano The idea that a quanta of light has no mass is incorrect. There are two types of mass every object has one is called rest mass, the other is called inertial mass or relativistic mass. Usually if we talk about mass it is the relativistic mass.
The mass of light is therefore relative to its frequency, higher frequency light has more energy and since energy is equivelant to mass, has more mass.
moreover, again, experiments demonstrate all this. So while I can understand that you **think** it is wrong, and you **think** you can disprove it, becaiuse all experiments prove it to be true we know you are wrong. So instead of wasting time on an idea proven to be wrong its far better to try to understand how it must be true.
@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.
@zeccano it doesnt matter how recent the claim is, thats just nonsense and makes no sense. It is a claim that is experimentally proven thats all that matters.
In every place where it is predicted we would need special relativity equations, we do, and when we apply them it gives the correct answer. There are countless examples of that.
You can say its wrong all you want but you cant get around the fact that it works, and is needed to make a ton of technology work at all, something that is tested every day in practical ways around the world and proven.
You can say its all wrong all you want but considering it is experimentally proven in countless ways you cant really gripe.
Still waiting on your explanation for the gravity clocks, you havent had one you notice that is acceptable.
@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.
@zeccano That makes no sense, why would one an equation simple for being non-linear be expected to approcimate exactly the time difference expected.
The equations tell a specific number of seconds that is expected to be off by.
@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.
@zeccano So even if the shape of the equations resembled the blot of gravity (it actually doesnt and has a different shape) that wouldnt explain why you'd get exactly 420 ns as an answer out of the equation for a certain input rather than some other number...
Thats not how equations work. I think your own lack of math knowledge is really blinding you to what would be a simple problem to understand otherwise.
I can teach you if you want.
@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.
@zeccano Let me know if you need help reasoning it later, as long as your open to it being true
@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.
@zeccano No i can explain the rational behind the physics, once you accept that the experiments give specific results, then the rational behind the physics becomes clear, you just have a lot of foundational knowledge you arent clear on.
You hae to start at the basics. Start by understanding why C is a constant, just focus there for a while.
@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?
@zeccano No i said pretty much the exact opposite of that. We know how a light beam shoots out of a moving laser (and its not the nonsense you suggested in your video).. your arguing absurdities at this point.
I think you've just invested SO much time on this lie and your so old that you cant change your mind now, no matter how much proof there is your wrong.. I dunno, looked like you might be getting it for a bit there.
I guess i need to exit the conversation now.
If you want to try to learn some of the basic math let me know we should try the basic thought experiments, the math, and even some experiments yourself sometime, its really easy stuff you can understand if you try i think.
@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)
@zeccano You are the one claiming light has no momentum contrary to everything else in the universe, so the obligaligation is on you to show it doesnt.
@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.
@zeccano light doesnt have infinite mass, no, it has a very specific mass, determined by its frequency
It has no rest mass, it does have relatistic mass.
Why is it you dont have time to learn the math (which wouldnt be too hard to be honest) but you do have time to ask these questions, they take just as much time to answer as the math, and would be more useful.
@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.
@zeccano I think that way of working may have worked well for you on simpler ideas. But because this is a hard idea for many people to really understand I think the math will serve you well. Math is an amazingly powerful tool and I think it would really help you in life to understand it a bit better.
As I said this stuff is even simple math so I'm sure youc an learn it without much effort.
@freemo Yep, I agree that math is very cool, and is amazing, I once tried to do a University course in Computer Programming, as Im into computers, (never games, I do CAD 3D work for engineering.)
but I quickly learned that the programming was not too hard, however it required that my math was excellent, so as to be able to develop the algorithms.
SR has been my focus regarding Einstein, not GR.
And I cant get to start on the math unless I solve the problem that the little photon does not and can not gain any inertia from the frame of reference in which the light source resides.
This is the starting point for the development of the lorentz transformation on which SR depends.
@freemo Ok, I must go do some work now, so i will check later or tomorrow if you have supplied any evidence that light has mass of any flavor under any conditions, (frequency, velocity, or lack thereof.)
Also you need to explain why light has relativistic mass due to the vibration frequency but by the same theory does not have any according to its velocity?
@zeccano yes but i think if you want to get that deep and really have an efficient way to speak we will have to cover some math at least. but yea experiments showing relativistic mass of light is easy, there are a ton of them, like light sails
@freemo Give a practical example of light having mass,, the light sail in space is a bit abstract.
Like the Radiometer, it was supposed to be demonstrating that light has mass, but turned out it was not demonstrating this at all.
What other experiments?
@zeccano A good example is the damaging effects of UV radiation. This is due to the fact that UV light has a higher frequency and thus a higher relativistic mass. this means when it hits molecules it has more momentum and thus it can more easily nock an electron out of place. this is why it is harmful and can cause skin cancer.
@freemo Ah... all this is based on Assumptions about the nature of light and electricity.
You cant PROVE an electron exists, its really just a label to a place holder we invented in order to try to visualize how electricity MIGHT work, its a metaphor. (and its good enough to allow us to estimate mathematically what will happen if we put our finger in the wall socket)
We have electricity, and the electron is just the graphic that illustrates what electricity does, but that does not mean that we have physical electrons. Thompson ASSUMED that his observations indicated that an atom's volume was mostly just nothing, this is not the only possibility.
Strangely we have the Einstein guy again to blame for this, with his photoelectric effect, claiming that a photon can dislodge an electron from a chunk of metal.
Light does create electricity, we know this, but einsteins explanation is just a guess.
So UV light effects skin cells, but if its a matter of the momentum of the photons, then we still will get skin cancer from lower frequency light, not just UV, because that light still has momentum, just not as much.
Unless you think that cells have a evolved a shield that only fails to work for UV light frequency?
Very amiss of evolution i would say. Considering all those millions of years we were running about naked in the sun. Oh the good old days!
@freemo Also, I forgot.
Length contraction has never been demonstrated, Mass increase has been substituted for momentum increases with velocity, which is not the same, so effectively, mass increase has never been demonstrated so that's two strikes out of three for SR, so why would you still claim that the most abstract of the three, TIME, does really change, when its more likey that its just clocks that are change not time. (and this effect HAS been demonstrated, you did the experiment yourself)
@freemo Please Prove that light has ANY sort of mass, according to its frequency, which you seem to be also saying that does not change according to it velocity which is not always c. (contrary to special relativity)
So you are cherry picking here, in claiming that the velocity of the frequency is affecting the mass of the photon, according to SR, BUT you wont apply the same theory of SR to light's linear velocity, which would mean necessarily that light has infinite mass at c.
Incidentally, the accepted modern view of mass is that the terms "rest mass"and "relativistic mass" are incorrect and misleading. The correct term is simply now known as "mass".
@zeccano Maybe you had bad teachers, maybe you misunderstood those lectures. But the thing is, they are **not** theory first.
They take real observable things we didnt understand, explain them using simple thought experiments, apply the math based on those thought experiments, and find it to be correct.
Since we have tested it and know it to be correct, then if you dont understand it, then it is a failure somewhere in that process of understanding. At least until you can think of a way to do an exoeriment to contradict it.
I will watch the video, but I think your just missing some understanding.
Let me start with a simple question: What is the physical observation about the universe we saw, that was unexplained at the time, that einstein was able to explain with his theory? (if you dont know I will explain, but i think this may be the part you are missing).
Keep in mind this can be tricky even for people who are math students.