maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 05:52 pm
@layman,
As I said, you can choose to believe whatever you want. Mainstream science has done pretty well for itself.

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 06:08 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I don't care for your tactics, sorry


Other than make unqualified and false claims which are easily refuted, you have said nothing of substance on this topic. Your ideas of debate, discussion, and evidence seem to come down to one simple premise, to wit: "If I say, then, by God, it's a proven fact and anyone who dares question me is a fool." Your resort to straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs, and ad hominem fallacies do not suggest that you have any knowledge to share, and, certainly no rational, articulate, coherent way to communicate it, even if you did.

If you were 1/10th as knowledgable as you pretend to be, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus. But, as it stands, your lack of knowledge and understanding becomes immediately apparent when you (among other things) cite as evidence a study from 2003 which was quickly debunked over a decade ago.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 06:21 pm
@layman,
Why are you quoting yourself?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2015 10:09 am
@martinies,
Marty, you asked:
Quote:
Could gravity be a matter effect on nonlocality. So that the beond c nature of gravity is similar to the effects of nonlocality we see in spooky action at a distance.


You raised that question in response to a couple of articles which I had posted and which seem to suggest this. The authors of those papers note that lorenztian relativity(LR) is a perfectly viable theory of relative motion that has been "confirmed" in every experiment which can be said to have confirmed special relativity, and that LR could help solve the problem.

But Maxdancona, in his zeal to "support" his wholly unwarranted claim that it is "sure" that gravity propagates at the speed of light made this ignorant claim:
Quote:
Maxdancona claimed: The internet is filled with discredited theories... including Lorentzian relativity..


In another thread I noted that decades ago John Stuart Bell (and many before, and after, him), of Bell's theorem fame, made the same observations that Van Flandern and Vigier made in the more current article I posted. That post is also quite relevant to this thread (given maxdancona's feeble attempt to erroneously suggest that lorentizin relativity has been "discredited"). The first post below show's Bell's attitude toward the problem (which some see as "insoluble"), and that is followed by a second quote from Bell giving his suggested solution (LR):

Quote:
It seems that many have misinterpreted the import of Bell's theorem, eh?:
Quote:
Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality....

In Bell’s recapitulation of the argument, for EPR this “showed that [Bohr, Heisenberg, and Jordan] had been hasty in dismissing the reality of the microscopic world....the usual quantum formalism cannot be the whole story.”...

According to Bell, we must therefore accept the real existence of faster-than-light causation and hence an apparent conflict with the requirements of special relativity: “For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. That is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory….”

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de%2F~pikovsky%2Fteaching%2Fstud_seminar%2FBell_local_causality.pdf&ei=R4gZVfrYDImwggSiiIGYBQ&usg=AFQjCNH30O5CguEd6ViBEI113Os8MQ9cIg&sig2=DIbnwNwz3AEjCs8v7wbTzg&bvm=bv.89381419,d.eXY

But, as the Russian physicist I just cited noted, there is no need to "reconcile" QM with a given theory of relative motion. The obvious solution is to "harmonize" (not reconcile) the two by eliminating the problematic theory (SR) which creates the unnecessary conflicts and adopt an AST which is internally consistent, capable of accurate predictive power, and which is consistent with all known experiments.


Elsewhere, Bell, like Van Flandern, et al, suggests that the adoption of lorenztian relativity (which maxdancona erroneously says has been discredited) is a viable solution. He said:

Quote:
I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincare´ thought that there was an aether—a preferred frame of reference—but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether....[This] pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincare´, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory.


The article by the "Russian physicist" mentioned here was published in the "Journal of Physics" and was entitled "Toward a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories: experimental evidence for absolute simultaneity," If you're interested in looking at it, Marty, it is summarized (with citation to the full article) here:

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-57#post-5921219

The source of the second quotation from Bell can also be found there.
martinies
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 05:29 pm
@layman,
Locality has c as a universal constant reference point. C has nonlocality as its universal constant ref point. Local Spooky action has nonlocality as its universal ref point. So is the photon ref frame the same as the spooky ref frame.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 05:39 pm
@martinies,
Quote:
Locality has c as a universal constant reference point. C has nonlocality as its universal constant ref point. Local Spooky action has nonlocality as its universal ref point. So is the photon ref frame the same as the spooky ref frame.
Not sure if you're asking a question here, or just making a statement. If it is a question then:

1. I'm not sure I understand it, and
2. If I did, I wouldn't have an answer anyway.

That said, it seems to me that if you don't posit the speed of light to be maximal, then you would not say that, at the speed of light, mass becomes infinite, distances shrink to nothing, "time stops," etc. The reference frame of a photon would not be quite so "spooky," in that case.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 07:04 pm
@martinies,
It is somewhat puzzling to me the prospect of superliminal speeds is so often dogmatically rejected as "impossible."

Quote:
Although the theory of special relativity forbids objects to have a relative velocity greater than light speed, ... general relativity does allow the space between distant objects to expand in such a way that they have a "recession velocity" which exceeds the speed of light, and it is thought that galaxies which are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light-years from us today have a recession velocity which is faster than light.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light

It is argued that neither of two given objects is moving in such cases, and that it is the SPACE between them that is expanding. But, really, what sense does that make? It just seems like a desperate attempt to "save" the dogma.

Like, if I go into my kitchen to get a beer out of the refrigerator, then I don't move, the refrigerator doesn't move, but the "space" between us just shrinks to nothing? The entire concept of "motion" is rendered meaningless.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2015 07:28 pm
@martinies,
From the same page just quoted:

Quote:
Another recent theory... has the simple device based on removing the effective retarded time terms in the Lorentz transform to yield a preferred absolute reference frame.[70][71] This frame...provides an objective, absolute frame all could agree upon, if superluminal communication is possible. If this sounds indulgent, it allows simultaneity, absolute space and time and a deterministic universe (along with decoherence theory) whilst the status-quo permits time travel/causality paradoxes, subjectivity in the measurement process and multiple universes.


Actually this "theory" is far from "recent." It has, in fact, been suggested, as shown in a prior post, by Bell, over 30 years ago. But even that was just a recent example. Since the advent of special relativity (1905), theories which posit absolute simultaneity have been advocated by respected scientists.

More recently, physicists such as nobel prize-winning physicists George Smoot maintain that the CMB does indeed establish a "preferred frame" for the cosmos.
martinies
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 12:02 am
@layman,
Spooky actions ref frame must be the stationary limitless aether refered to by lorenzt. And that must be the ref frame for c also. Its almost as if the universe is being projected from the stationary lorenzt aether.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 10:09 am
Lorentz invented a superfluous system, which is debunked with a simplistic scrutiny made by Lucy Haye, where with coordinate diagrams shows how absurd his system of coordinates is because they have no physical meaning.

Gravity belongs to Newton, solely to Newton.

Einstein's ideas are pure fantasies, specially in reference to gravity.

Today, the whole experiments of the past are shown to have failures after failures, even the Morley with the no "Aether" can't pass the test.

To enjoy a good reading which finally might open your eyes, here is a link, where one more web site is exposing the fraud of Relativity.


There are so many institutions declaring Relativity as false, a hoax, a plagiarism, that there is more smoke than the Twin Towers in 2001. The Relativity building has fell already, but lots of deluded dudes still think that the building is still erected. Lol.

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html

Read the comments below the article. Many of those posters are not layman but people working in the field of physics.

Between those commentators, there is a dude, Pentcho Valev, who declares the Pond-Rebka experiment as validating Relativity, but, here is the trouble with that experiment: the relativistic formula.

The original Pond-Rebka's formula lacks of the square root! Lol.

This is not only important but it is essential. As an example, it is not the same to calculate 5 x 8 = 40 as to calculate 5^2 x 8^2 = 1600.

The same as well, Pound-Rebka's formula

fr = fe[1 – (v/c)]
_________
[1 + (v/c)]

is not the relativistic formula

fr = fe√[1 – (v/c)]
__________
√[1 + (v/c)]

(Note: the fraction line and denominator in the equations starts after the equal symbol, but when posting this message, this line goes automatically to the left side.)

Conclusion: the Pond Rebka experiment doesn't support any theory of Relativity. Period.


And so for, simple scrutiny proves one by one that the whole fuss about Relativity is no more than FRAUD.


______________________________________________

When we talk about GRAVITY, then Newton is the man
When we talk about fantasies, then Einstein is the genius.


Carlos Le Baron




layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 10:16 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
And so for, simple scrutiny proves one by one that the whole fuss about Relativity is no more than FRAUD.


If you're talking about GR, then this is inaccurate. GR may well be wrong and/or incomplete, but some of it's predictions (which Newton didn't make) have borne out.

They have clocks so sensitive and accurate these days that if you raise one a couple of feet higher than the other, it can be seen to run faster, for example.
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 10:24 am
@layman,
The more "sensitive" you make the clocks, the greater a malfunction of them will be noticeable.

It is not time suffering variations, it is the clock itself reacting to any change around. Time is just a measure, like weight, longitude, volume, etc. The data given by clocks is different when the clock itself suffers exposure to different environments.

There is nothing "magical" here, but simple physics in action.
martinies
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 10:42 am
@carloslebaron,
If a rocket was travelling at say half c the speed of light and there was a mirror on board the rocket. The physics of the mirror on board the rocket as far as light is concerned is the same as if it therocket where doing 1 mph. So Einstein has to be correct time and space dilate in diffrent fef frames with reg to c.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 3 Apr, 2015 10:49 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
It is not time suffering variations, it is the clock itself reacting to any change around


Yeah, I agree with that completely, but that wasn't the issue.
Quote:

The more "sensitive" you make the clocks, the greater a malfunction of them will be noticeable.


I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that these predictably repeatable changes in clock rates are merely a product of clock "malfunction," though.
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 09:12 am
@martinies,
Quote:
If a rocket was travelling at say half c the speed of light and there was a mirror on board the rocket. The physics of the mirror on board the rocket as far as light is concerned is the same as if it therocket where doing 1 mph. So Einstein has to be correct time and space dilate in diffrent fef frames with reg to c.


In "thought experiments" anything can happen, anything is possible, anything is validated.

But, in the physical world, your proposed idea is peanuts.

This is why Einstein's ideas are pure crap. Here is one thought experiment of Einstein with a train in motion carrying a clock that "slows" when the train is in motion. But, if you stand still at the train station, and you watch a clock installed in a train wagon in motion, actually you won't see it going "slower", regardless of the speed of the train...

Why? Your capability to see the clock won't allow you to perceive the motion of the needle hands... you will need binoculars, something Einstein never suggested, to be capable to see the clock for a little while.

What Einstein ignored was that he was victim of illusions caused by distance and motion. There is a simple explanation of why you see things going "slower" when traveling fast far away from you.

This is optics, when a known phenomenon of a lack of correspondence between the velocity of the image moving across the retina and the perceived velocity, that occurs when distance is increased between observed and observer. Increasing distance decreases the visual angle of the perceived image and causes a decrease of the speed of its perceived motion.

See? this is a simple illusion of motion and distance tricking you, where no "magical time" slows.

Understood?

Think. OK?... THINK!

You will do a lot of good to yourself when you stop asking yourself with lots of "thought experiments" and start looking for real and factual answers to explain with solid accuracy the different phenomena around you.

About your "thought experiment", I will demand from you to show that experiment made with physical objects in order to study it and discuss it. I won't waste my life discussing imaginary scenarios like idiot Einstein and followers.

carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 09:42 am
@layman,
Quote:
I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that these predictably repeatable changes in clock rates are merely a product of clock "malfunction," though.


Old cars lack of sensors and a computer. You were driving with an almost flat tire, with very old and burnt motor oil, with a blown brake light, and you never noticed it... sometimes until it was too late.

With new technology, you can "perceive" the several troubles and failures in your car because the new technology helps you to detect it.

The same happens when the clocks became more accurate. The several "failures in the machine" are detected now. something that was not possible with other mechanical and digital clocks -which also malfunctioned- because they didn't show data at the nano level.

But, a sand clock and a water clock in outer space will also show you that it is not time but the clock itself suffering malfunction when going to outer space, when they are exposed to motion, and so forth.

About "predictable".

Look, when L Essen invented the atomic clock, the relativists never told him that they have already predicted the slowing of time and that his invention will prove it.

On the contrary, the relativists asked him his permission to make some experiments with the atomic clock.

In those years, nobody predicted the amount of difference between the data given by a clock in outer space and a similar clock standing on ground zero.

The difference of data was known after the clock was put in orbit.

This was a "trial and error" scenario.


After it was noticed that it was a difference with the received data from clocks in outer space, that difference was calculated, and another receiver was created to "update" the received data and make it to agree with the data given by the atomic clocks on ground zero.

L. Essen, mocked on relativists, he considered them like idiots making fool to themselves and to generations of scientists.

How the changes in the malfunction happen to be "the same"?

Simple, just buy cheap digital watches, same brand, new batteries, and put a few of them in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator. Keep one of the cheap watches hanging in the wall of the living room. After one day, the watches inside the freezer compartment will show "slow data" of 5-6 seconds delay. You can check the watches inside the refrigerator everyday and this delay of 5-6 seconds will be regular.

Amazingly, you take the watches out of the freezer compartment, and they might return back to give their data as they did before the experiment. In other words, they will return back to their normal functional work.

This is a proven experiment, made by an elementary school student.

You won't beat what this student found out. I can guarantee it.
martinies
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 09:52 am
@carloslebaron,
Relative motion of objects does not affect c lights speed. Light has a speed that is independent of the relative object event .So time space dialates between observers in different inertial ref frames. Aging rate differs in locations relative to c. C is nonlocality so the rate locality ages is relative to its closeness to nonlocality. The nearer to nonlocality the less it the locality ages relative to a locality that is more distant from nonlocality.
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 06:38 pm
@martinies,
Quote:
Relative motion of objects does not affect c lights speed. Light has a speed that is independent of the relative object event .So time space dialates between observers in different inertial ref frames. Aging rate differs in locations relative to c. C is nonlocality so the rate locality ages is relative to its closeness to nonlocality. The nearer to nonlocality the less it the locality ages relative to a locality that is more distant from nonlocality.


You seem to be very happy repeating those fantasies over and over.

There is nothing one can do for you.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2015 07:26 pm
@carloslebaron,
It's evident that you don't understand the meaning of the term "malfunction."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » gravity
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2021 at 08:10:41