@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
No you are totally wrong. Are you sere you studied this at school?
Clearly in einstins scenerio you MUST have two observers.
One observer is moving and you are considering yourself as stationary, that's Einsteins setup.
He is moving in my frame, thats why I can measure his velocity and position using classical rules.
The time whey things get relative is ONLY when there is a 3 rd object that both observr's are trying to measure, be it a ball or a light beam bouncing between mirrors.
Take away that 3rd object which can be considered to be in my frame, or also considered to be in his frame if he happens to wish to measure from the corner of his carriage,
The whole experiment is conducted as seen from the stationary observer, who has no problem with watching the passage of the vehicle containing the second observer, it ONLY when they both observe the third object, the ball or photon, that the claim of non Galilean relativity is supposed to come into play.
Anything I watch happening before me is automatically in my frame. Its not a special relativity frame, as the guy in the carriage can clearly see me as well, and we both measure the same Galilean distances and velocity between us.
It ONLY when that second, moving guy ignores me and tries to measure that photon, that''s where SR is supposed to be beginning.
So because light is never affected by anyone's frame, its always C, then light cant be relative to anyone's frame, its never able to change in velocity, its totally independent of frames, for light its as if no frames of reference exist.
Use rational thought and sound logic here, If two frames occupants agree that their frames are different, but they both get the same value for light speed, relative to their frames, then clearly they are wrong in assuming that the light is relative to frames. Its absolute, and apparently it s the only thing in the universe that is absolute.
Frames are relative never absolute, so how can you possible think that light can be absolute and not absolute at the same time?
So my statement, ""Relativity is only applicable to something that is MOVING inside a differently (moving) frame than the observer."" and the light is in my frame, and by measuring it as velocity c, it is proof that its in my frame.
And the carriage containing the other observer is also in my frame, as is the photon inside the carriage, all in my frame.
BUT its the observation of that photon in the carriage made by the second, moving observer, that einstein claims changes the universe. I just wish he would take a look outside, and stop measuring from the corner of his carriage, then the world of physics cane settle down again..
So for the moving guy, he observes something different, if he blots out the background outside his carriage, otherwise no, he sees nothing different at all.
And BECAUSE he still gets lights velocity as c, even though his carriage is moving, and its the same photon we are both measuring... then clearly the photon is not obeying the laws of anyone's relativity, not Galelio's or einstein's.
Light is acting with total indifference to all imaginary ""frames of reference"".
And that's all reference frames are, imaginary constructs that are supposed to help men make measurements when things are in motion.
Nature does not conform to mans imaginary constructs, its our constructs that must try to mimic reality, and SR is just failing to do that.
Light is never relative to my frame, to your frame or einsteins frame. Other wise you can never explain how we all get velocity of c irrespective of our motion relative to the light, or even if we turn 180 degrees and head into the light we STILL get c.
Therefore light is never relative to any frame. Its absolute. Frames are not, they are localized and relative to each other.
( actually light is relative to the medium in which it is propagating.) As Ive said before.
Anything i see that i can measure is in my frame. The frame is NOT an observer, We dont need any observers, we can imagine measuring from the platform, and also imagine the result when measuring from the corner of the moving carriage, and in fact thats exactly what einstein did with his thought experiment, he assumed the position of an absolute observer capable of seeing everything from an absolute preferred frame. If he did not do this, we would still be looking for a guy in a carriage to get his measurements, cause we cant figure out this stuff from only our frame,.....
Thats why i can measure the velocity of a ball inside a carriage that the carriage observer has just tossed toward the front of the carriage.
So you are wrong here. Arnt you?
If he chooses to measure relative to the carriage or relative to where im standing, thats his business, but the ball wont change its motion and time wont shrink if he chooses the former or the latter.
🇳🇱
You can go away now, you are either a troll or an idiot with a big ego. I have time for neither
@freemo, as I told you before, you do not understand the thought experiments and what frame means in this context.
I must say, you like mental gymnastics but because you do not understand what the frame of reference actually means, you cant understand the thought experiments... and the rest that follows.
You also seem to treat treat a photon as an ordinary particle (of matter).
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
Whatever, its a cop out to suggest that I cant understand the irrationality of SR's claims.
I dont agree with the whole hypothesis stage by stage, this is NOT the same as not understanding it.
And you speak as if Im the only one that rejects SR.'
There are actually famous scientists that don't accept it.
Anyway, each to his own,
Cheers.
No there are no famous reputable scienctist who reject relativity, not anymore, they used to. But the experiments thatprove it keep pouring in so there are very few left that reject it.
You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains reality proves it to be true. We **must** use relativistic equations to solve tons of seperate problems that cant be solved otherwise. We have proven beyond any doubt that the equations for relativity dictate the results they claim to.
So any issue you have with the hypothesis is on your lack of understanding, nothing more.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Of course there are. Trouble is that any scientist that rejects einstein is instantly labeled as a non reputable scientist.
Dr Louis Essen inventor of an atomic clock is one.
I can dig around and make a reasonable list, but it does no good.
The genius Tesla was another notable scientist.
Ron Hatch who hols many patents of the GPS system , rejects SR and the the claim that its used to adjust the satellite clocks on which he worked.
There are many more, but i need to go read up.. not worth the effort.
Nope there are **plenty** of scientists who have disregarded einstein, thought he was wrong, and to this day are not just considered reputable scientists but they are some of the greats we learn about in history.
What makes them disreputable is when they continue to disagree with an idea after there is experimental evidence to prove them wrong, if they dont adjust their theories as new evidence comes in.
All the great scientists who disagreed with einstein over the years ultimately did so by devising new experiments that would support their counter-claims and over time as those experiments failed and the ones proving einstein succeeded they all changed their views to accept einstein.
That is the difference.
Also tesla was not a scientist. He never published a single peer reviewed paper in any topic, not even his focus of electromagnetism. He mostly was a tinkerer, he would hack things together and through trial and error find things to work. He even developed a few important insights and inventions.
He was an inventor, and a reputable one, he wasnt a science, and he was a complete quak when he tried and as such failed to accomplish many of his goals.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Dont rubbish Tesla, a man who developed AC power, and the induction motor, which is still essential in industry today.
He did not need to publish and papers to be a sicientist. A scientist is someone who studies the natural world, and endeavors to understand it. Thats all. Im a scinetist. Im just not interested or able to try to develop any new theories of how stuff works, Im just interested in learning about what others have said, and why they thought that.
A professional scientists is not so trustworthy as they have pressures that can and do direct their research and results directly. Science is a business.
I didnt "rubbish" him. He was an inventor, and as an inventor he certainly did some good, I said this already.
He was not, and never was, however a scientist. He accomplished great things through trial and error, as well as a limited understand of what he observed. he deserves praise for that.
But he was no scientist and it is clear from the fact that he never published a single peer-reviewed study in any field of any kind that he never was a scientist.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
If Einsten is a scientist, and tesla is not, despite him running rings around Einstein, then scientists are delusional fools, and are not as wonderful as they keep insisting they are.
Einstein used his genius to invent a Refrigerator after they were already invented, and even then he need to get the help of a clever guy. Thats the only evidence of his genius.
Tesla spoke 9 languages, and you really think he just bumbled around in his shed and accidentally came up with AC power and the induction motor?
He had on plan or theories?
You mainstream guys are so brainwashed, unable to think outside the little boxes you have been put in.
1) he never ran "rings" around einstein. In terms of what each of them accomplished... einstein gave us nuclear power, atomic bombs, GPS, and unlocked many mysteries of astronomy. Things others werent even close to doing.
Tesla mostly played with and designed some neat trinkets, and a few useful devices for working with AC. Very useful and gave rise to many other inventions and insights. But in and of itself, not particularly impressive from a scientific aspect. He really didnt add anything to scientific theory. He just built some things that exploited existing scientific theory, valuable, but not really particularly impressive among the greats of science.
2) Go away, im done with you, im not even reading more than the first stances of your messages anymore because they are so toxic and moronic, again not worth my time.
So stop wasting your own time typing them, no one is reading them past maybe the first sentence.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Now you are lying. Einstein never gave us nuclear power at all.
or atomic bombs, he hardly had anything to to with it. and he stuffed up astronomy so that we have stupidity ruling that field now too... 90 % dark matter and dark energy, give me a break!
While there are certainly many other scientists involved, it was einsteins theory that was the foundation for all other theory that led to it. It is his mass energy equivalence equation, which he probed to be true and is a core component of relativity, that allows for nuclear reactions int he first place.
I've asked you to go away several times, I am at the point where I will mute you if you continue. I have very little patience for willful ignorance. I do not suffer fools lightly.
I'm done with you, you were leaving, go...
When you have a change in attitude and a genuine desire to learn reach out to me. Until then, work on an attitude readjustment.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Im not returning to plead with you to teach me anything. You suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect, thinking that you are smarter than you obviously are. It happens to educated people as easily as to non educated people. Common sense however is not that common.
What you have said so far is not rational. You have no understanding that the imaginary frames of reference cant possibly cause any physical changes in matter.
This is a irrational belief that is more akin to superstition than physics. Then you invent a mythical world of math mumbo jumbo to support your delusions about matter shrinking when there is no demonstration that this can happen.
You clock changed due to physical forces, it was not "Time" that changed.
You cant show that distance shrinks with speed, and you discarded the theories third claim that Mass increases because that was just too stupid for anyone to accept, that's why all the complicated twisting of logic to skip from Mass to energy.
If you had anything rational and sensible to say, I would be willing to listen to you, but so far you just repeat all the errors of thought that Einsteins came up with.
Physical matter does not morph simply because someone watched another person moving.
If he does not watch, then there is no shrinking..
This is stupid. You dont understand that frames do NOT mean that something shrinks with speed, but is only measurable by someone else.
Say something reasonable and Ill listen. I'm not into magic.
You have done away with two of the three claims of Einsrtein, (effects on Mass and Distance, no proof) so are only left with tine, which cant shrink because its a concept.
Physical Clocks can and do change under differing physical conditions and thats what you measured.
The difference was according to the lorentz translation which strangely enough requires an absolute frame of reference. Lorentz invented, dreamed up, imagined his equation to explain how M&M could get a null result but there could still be an aether, the absolute frame of reference for light.
I stopped reading after the first sentance... more nonsense.
If you arent here to learn then bother someone else, my time is better spent on others.
Understanding doesnt appear to be his goal. He is starting with the dogma and working from there. It is obvious in the weak arguments he makes and the need to ignore observational evidence.
@CCoinTradingIdeas @freemo
You, and 100 experts have done their best to explain frames to me and everyone else, they have failed to present a rational explanation how observation can cause a physical change.
Or ore you now denying that it can cause a physical change in matter?
You are so contrary in your statements, its hard to pin you down to one claim.
@zeccano Just because you have failed to be intelligent enough to understand 100 people doesnt mean the idea is flawed.
In fact when that many trained professionals try to explain something to you, and you admit you dont even know the basic math needed to understand it int he first place, it should be obvious to even the most inept of us, that it is the result of your own inability to understand, and not their inability to explain it.
Especially considering these are ideas we use to accomplish real world effects on a daily basis and have seen in countless experiments to be true.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
One of us does not understand reference frames, its you.
Do reference frames alter matter or not?
Yes or no.
Its NO, a different perspective on an event involving matter CAN NEVER play any part in the event. NOTHING can be changing, not mass, distance or time.
Why cant you get this obvious fact through that stubborn head of yours?
It alters matter in your own reference frame observing something move through it. Those effects (like length constriction) would not be observed in the reference frame of the moving object (to it you are the on constricted).
It is very real from the observed reference frame.
how many times do I need to tell you to go away with this ignorant nonsense.
Go talk to the flat earthers that you usually talk to and have them agree with you.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Your explanation is exactly as sensible as the theory of the Flat Earth.
You statement, rephrased is:
"" Physical matter actually changes size and Weight for someone who watches anything moving".
This is EXACTLY what you said, in plain English for anyone to follow. Its more stupid than Flat Earth theory.
Your task is now to explain HOW this could be remotely possible? What force is acting on the matter, shrinking it in one direction but not any other, whilst simultaneously causing it to get heavier at the same time? (we are on Earth, where mass is the same measurement as weight)
Please go ahead, explain, this will be interesting.
The difference is that what I describe is what is reality and observed to be true by myself and the whole of the physics community. Flat earthers, not so much.
I have no task other than to ignore you until I beleive investing time into talking to you might result in you learning something.
Once you are capable of learning feel free to reach out to me. Until then I will answer all your questions the same "You dont know what you are talking about, go away"
You just CANT rationally explain what I asked in my last question.
And please STOP saying that length contraction or Mass increase has ever been observed.
And Time is not a thing, its a concept, so your fiddling with clocks proves NOTHING about TIME.
SO, NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE!
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
So with no real evidence, einsteins theory rests on the sensibility of the hypothesis, and on examination, its irrational.
As a matter of interest,, you caalculated the actual mass of a single photon of average frequency sunlight for me, mathematically perfect. Thanks.
it was 1.2156205e-27 kg per photon.
But experimental evidence PROVES that this is WRONG.
Experiments show no such mass.
If this number were correct, then the Crookes' radiometer would be receiving an appreciable amount of grams per vane, when in sunlight which is directed to only one vane on one side of the vane using optics.
Because practically countless trillions of photons strike the surface the size of that vane, every nanosecond, and although the mass you stated is very small, the combined effect of countless trillions of them per nanosecond equates to probably several KILOGRAMS of mass moving at LIGHT SPEED, having a combined momentum that would EASILY move the vanes, so the vane should spin wildly.
It does not move at all due to photon strike, the slight rotation is attributed to other causes, already proven.
The reason why you got a value for the mass of average sunlight photon is due to the fantasy Constant called Planck Length.
Max was Einstein mate, and einstein was a fool , and fools like each others company.
I will leave with this..
Thlight is not "moving in my your frame" The proper way to word it is "I am observing the light from my own frame of reference".
Two people are moving at different speeds, both observing the same light moving at its own 3rd speed (this is the light clocks experment).
Using your deficient logic here, whose frame of reference is the light in, the first observer or the second?
The answer is, both, everything is in every frame of reference and any frame of reference can be defined by any point you wish.
In other words you dont even understand the basic idea of what a frame of reference is yet somehow you think you understand this....
Now go away until you are ready to learn something.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
""Two people are moving at different speeds, both observing the same light moving at its own 3rd speed"".
OK, how can the both get the same speed for the object moving in the 3rd frame then?
It not physically possible.
And if light is moving in its own frame, not in mine or yours, and its always constant in every direction, then that is the absolute preferred frame of reference that is not supposed to exist. Light speed is measured from its own frame origin and its absolute so this is the absolute frame you were saying does not exist! Light speed is c relative to what? to its own absolute frame and all of us are also relative to that absolute frame.
Of course its possible for them to both measure the same object. With most things your right, they would get different speeds. However light is special and therefore they get the same speed.
**That is the whole fucking point**
That observed truth, however odd, is exactly why we had to come up with relativity, to explain it.
Holy shit how do you not even get what is meant by "The speed of light is a constant" after a week of this being explained to you.
Explain what happens with light in order for this to be true:
"However light is special and therefore they get the same speed.". SR neglects to mention HOW this works.
You dont need to know how something is true in order to be able to prove it is true.
We have tested experimentally and proved it was true, the math all predicts what we observe. Therefore we know it is true.
I am happy to go into how speed of light is special (the answer deals with the permeability of free space combined with other complex ideas).
But I will not go on another tangent with you unless and until you admit that you've been a flaming fool and wrong about all the nonsense youve spouted up until this point,.
If you recognize the reality of relativity and a desire to learn I am happy to answer these questions and dig deeper, otherwise you are wasting my time.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Not quite. No one has ever proved that light velocity is always c in any frame. all observations were done in the same frame as the light, every time. Facing this way or that way is still in the same frame, just changing the orientation in the same frame. and the light is also facing this way or that in that same frame. When did they jump into a different inertial frame, and how much g forces did they experience?
Which experiment were you thinking about anyway?
In order to prove that light is special in the way we described we would need to measure it from two different reference frames and show it is C in both reference frames, presuming each has a different velocity of course.
Yes this has been done experimentally, I linked you the experiment earlier that does this but you never read it.
I did read it, I dont accept their conclusions or method is indisputable. I would want to have a look at critical reviews from people that are skeptical.
However, this does not explain how it can happen, it just claims that it does happen, without offering any way it can possibly occur.
If they could come up with a hypothesis that explains rationally what is happening, then Ill read that, THEN get more interested in experiments that claim to support the hypothesis.
You are too far gone to make any sense of it I fear. your counter arguments have been feeding dogma, delusion, and your ego seems to overwhelm a sense of your own uneducated ideas somehow being superior to the experimental evidence.
Until you are willing to accept that you dont know the answer to the vast majority of this because you never studied or leqarned the math you wont get anywhere.
I am not saying you have to accept what people tell you. but I am suggesting that you have to take the fundemental truths we know from experiment and explain them, something you dont do. You dont even bother looking at how reality works (experiment) prior to drawing your conclusions.
I really hope this will click and you over come your ego. At one point earlier in the conversation you seemed to show a hint of potential at doing so, then you just started a dumpster fire and made a fool of yourself.
Still hoping you can recover and make some actual sense out of reality.
If your willing to accept relativity is real and that the equations that govern it predict reality accurately, at that point I will be happy to discuss with you WHY light is special.
But until you do so i will not get sucked into another seperate conversation on how with someone who cant even see past his own ego.
While you cant see past einsteins ego.
Actually I started with my understanding of relativity much like you. I didnt think it was real and thought einstein was a fool.
Unlike you I devoted myself to learning the math so I could disprove it and doing the actual experiments so I could likewise disprove it.
When i did this I noticed he was in fact correct and all of his equations represent reality, and they all work out on paper as expected.
Since the truth was more important than my ego I admitted I was wrong, I choose to believe what reality was seen to do (rather than deny the truth right in front of my face) and accepted it as true.
Einsteins ego has nothing to do with it.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Ok, Ill leave you now with my closing remark, and wish you all the best despite our differences.
The concept we call Time, and real distances and real mass or even real momentum of that mass, can never actually change simply if some fool decides to observe it from a different position and is now in motion.
Perception is not necessarily reality.
Nothing you have provided has been able to affect this fundamental understating I accept regarding the nature of reality.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. There is no "incredible" evidence, there is only subjective interpretation of a precious few very dubious experiments.
You measured a difference in your atomic clocks, because you chose you frame, so if you just chose another convenient frame the clock would have stayed the same as the master back home...
If you stay with your statement ""The answer is, both, everything is in every frame of reference and any frame of reference can be defined by any point you wish."" you can choose a different frame where the atomic clock wont be gaining time, because we can choose any frame we wish...
Changing ones perspective cant possibly have any affect of any event.
Leave if you want, but you are just getting to the interesting part, where you realize that you cant justify what you are claiming with rational thought.
Of course the clock can run at any speed you want by adjusting your frame of reference, thats the whole point, thats why it is called relativity.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas So here is the crux of my argument.
Go back up on that mountain, with the clock, but this time CHOOSE as your current frame, the Andromeda galaxy. Then you will observe your clock having a totally different reading! You can just choose your frame as you wish.
Because choosing your frame CHANGES REALITY!
Wow that deep. Please do it.
Of course it would change the readings, thats the whole fucking point dumbass. Thus the term relative, the results are **relative** to your frame of reference.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
So go to that mountain with your clock, and choose the frame im calling the andromeda galaxy, and see how much difference you get with the clock now! After all, you just need to imagine that the clock is linked virtually to the Andromeda galaxy. and "seems like"" or ""appears to be"" according to the subjective experience of the relativist CAN make a real difference to physical objects!
Its like mind over matter.
How do you expect to get me to the andromeda galaxy to test that? Since we both agree it would change the results (just as relativity dictates it would) then what are you even arguing.
Again go away your wasting my time at this point. You know your wrong but your so riddled by psychosis you are still fucking blathering on... end it
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
You dont need to go to the andromeda galaxy to IMAGINE that your clock is part of that galaxy, anymore than the guy on the carriage can either imagine he is in the carriage frame or can imagine he is moving and in the stationary frame, without needing to hop out of the carriage and go there.
ALL frames of reference are arbitrarily chosen according to the whims of the observer.
Choose andromeda as yours. do the math. Your clock will obey your imagination.
Yes the clock will oey the laws of relativity in that galazy as well, of course it would, thats the whole fucking point. Luckily we have experimental evidence that also confirms this.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
And you never explained how two differently moving guys can both read light velocity as c even when heading in different direction and speeds. Its just ignored.
Because its irrational to suggest that its possible.
I wrote an entire reply when you asked that, it wasnt ignore. I just said the how is not needed to prove that something IS...
I dont need to know HOW you became an idiot to know you are an idiot for example.
@zeccano
Yes im sure...
The frame of reference is the observer not the thing he observers.
By your deformed logic everything is a single frame of reference so long as the observer can saee it, including the other observer.
Thats not how it works and its a reflection of just how grossly uneducated you are.
I will not continue to argue with someone willfully stupid.
@CCoinTradingIdeas