Looking for educated help on relativity.

The problem is that you don't understand basic high school Physics. You can't even tell me if the Earth is moving or not.

The problem of how to measure motion is a question that any good high school Physics student encounters in their first year. You need to understand how to measure motion in order to under Newton's laws.

This is classical Physics and was understood hundreds of years before Einstein was born. You have to understand basic High School Physics before you can begin to understand "let alone criticize" Einstein.

So tell me... no relativity, just basic classical Physics. Is the Earth moving?

(This is for anyone who actually cares about real Physics... and if you like my explanations you could tell me so I know I am not talking into thin air).

What JustaFool is missing is the idea of Frame of Reference. Long before Einstein, Physicists understood that any motion had to be measured according to a "frame of reference". Galileo understood this perfectly well... in fact in his his book "Dialog concerning Two world systems" he explains motion aboard a moving ship.

One of the characters in this dialog is named "Simpleton"... and is arguing the Aristotelian point of view (which Galileo debunks). Come to think of it "Simpletons" arguments mirror JustAFool's argument.

But the basic idea is in order to measure motion, you need to decide what is stopped. This is called a "frame of reference". This is a little non-intuitive because we spend our lives on a planet that our brains tell us is "fixed" (our intuition is that the Earth doesn't move even though we now know otherwise).

So the real problem is that JustAFool doesn't understand frames of reference, and without that basic understanding he doesn't have a chance of understanding Einstein.

and you can never figure out if the shopping mall is ever going to come to your car....because you are incapable of figuring out who is "really moving".
V is how fast something that is moving is actually moving.
I'm pretty sure that Armstrong was by some magic, able to understand that it was the capsule that was moving toward the moon, and not the moon coming to his stationary capsule, even thought Einstein said that this was equally possible. Gee, they could have saved a lot of fuel, and let the moon do all the work...
This irrational obsession with not being able to find a place in the universe that you can say, "this is the spot that's absolutely not moving", is really making your mind turn to jello. You are missing out on nice, rational physics that is really enjoyable, and swapping this for a life of silly math exercises. Get outside, and get a real life for a change.

Simple question that any high school kid can answer.... I would like you to answer.

Is the Earth moving?

(Galileo lived at a time where most people believed the Earth didn't move. He abandoned this idea... and his writings showed that he figured out how frames of reference work. When he was in front of the inquisition, he is reported to have said "but it moves" under his breath).

"But the basic idea is in order to measure motion, you need to decide what is stopped."

No, no you don't. you can if you wish, assign "stopped" to whatever you want, because Galileo's frames are IMAGINARY, and as such CAN NEVER MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO PHYSICS.
You can assign "stopped" to object A, OR object B, or neither. You can assign "stopped" to an imaginary spot in the middle of space, because its IMAGINARY, so it can stay as a stationary spot in the middle of NOTHING at all.
This spot could be the spot where object was 2 seconds ago. and we can measure everything from that imaginary position..
Einsteins agreed with this when he said that an "ether" MUST exist and it is not moving, (its absolute) and its essential for Physics.

So you see that it is you who have lost the plot when it comes to understanding Frames of Reference. Not I.

Your problem has nothing to do with Einstein. Your problem is with basic high school classical Physics. Here is your problem, and you can answer this with basic high classical Physics as was understood hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

According to Classical Physics.... is the Earth moving?

everything is moving, the Earth is no different.
But when measuring speed, we are at liberty to assign any reference that our heart desires, so speed could be 50,000, 1,000 or zero, depending on our whim at the time.
However, nothing we measure can affect the results of motion of bodies in motion, as I can calculate my cars speed relative to the sun, but its not going to help me win a race against a guy who correctly chooses the Earth as his speed reference. Nor is it able to make a crash worse just because the calculated speed is extremely high.
On Earth, in my car, what the Earth may be doing relative to the rest of the Milky way, is irrelevant to the physics of my car. NOT relevant.
And this is the mistake Einstein makes, he insists that "NOT RELEVANT" must somehow be "essential and core" to Physics. Its not.
Galileo's statement about the "Earth moving", was important not to Physics as required on Earth, but was a negation of the religious belief that God created the Earth as his central crowning glory. Galileo realized that it cant be, and that the reason he got into so much trouble. Not over Physics.
Galileo or Newton never gave up Physics in despair just because they could not find that magic invisible spot in deep space that was the absolute center of the universe. They continued to do Physics, and develop valid equations such as those laws of Newton, which are still just as valid today as they were in his day.
This over emphasis on frame of reference and who's moving and who's not, is a delusion that has caused straightforward Physics to be diverted to a system of irrational, circular arguments over nothing at all.

Frames are IMAGINARY, for Galileo , Newton and Einstein.
Of course all motion is relative.
But not all objects are related, even though they are clearly in motion.
My car IS related to the Earth, and its certainly NOT related to Mars.
To discuss my cars motion in terms of its relationship to Mars is an illusion.
It has no relationship, other than an abstract, non Physical one.
Math can calculate the relative speeds and vectors of my car relative to Mars, but its an IMAGINARY relationship, and has NOTHING at all to do with PHYSICS.
I prefer real Physics which trumps Math in every regard.

Great we are at an understanding now. You should drop the charade. You can stop talking about Einstein now.

You are rejecting all of Physics (at least mechanics) since Galileo and Isaac Newton. This has nothing to do with Einstein.

No, I fully accept Newton and Galileo, its just that YOU don't understand them.
Because your thinking has been forever messed up by Einsteins insanity. Its some sort of communicable mental defect.

This is funniest thing you have said. Newton's laws are math.

This argument stems from Aristotle. It has to do with what Physics is.

- Aristotle thought the Universe should act the way that made sense to him. He didn't test any of his ideas, he just spoke them and assumed that any reasonable person would make the same "correct" conclusions.

Many people who have studied Physics see Aristotle is a villain. His ideas on what he called "Natural Philosophy" have been almost completely debunked. Many of them could have been tested by experiment during his time.

Worse, the philosophy of Aristotle was adopted by the church... and questioning Aristotle could literally get you killed. Aristotle held back scientific progress for centuries.

- Science has a simple principle. Any scientific idea can be tested by observation or experiment, and any idea that doesn't match what is observed is rejected. This is the reason that Galileo, then Newton, then Darwin and Einstein and Feynman are the giants. They had brilliant ideas were tested by experiment and that explained what we observed better than any ideas before them.

When someone starts talking about cars being married to planets... the first question should be how do I test this?, what experiment would I suggest that would determine which vehicle is "related" to which planet. If you can't experiment, then Science won't reject it... it is literally meaningless because it hasn't been defined in a scientific way.

I would like everyone to admire this... seriously.

Newtons Laws are based on UNDERSTANDING PHYSICS, then developing some equations, not the other way around.
Almost everything you write something, its inaccurate.

1./ OK, what scientific experiment was proposed to possibly demonstrate that Einsteins SR is WRONG?
2/ What scientist devised an experiment that would give a result opposite to what Einsteins claimed?
I cant think of any.
I see that several experiments CLAIM to support his theories.

3/ But I've never seen an experiment that can demonstrate that changes in clock rates PROVES that TIME is changing. The clock is changing, but that is not proving that TIME is changing. Its a giant assumption right there.

4/ I've never seen an experiment that PROVES that space is a Mathematical construct that is curved.

5/ I've never seen an experiment that PROVES that there is not such think as TIME or SPACE, rather its all SPACETIME.

Special Relativity relies on TIME dilation, and Spacial Distortion, (length Contraction) but according to General Relativity, they don't exist, only spacetime exists.

And you can't separate the "space" from the "time" in "spacetime". By rights, EVERY mathematically accurate claim in Physics today should always be providing the coordinates of any object or event in terms that include the dimensions and the time. But the never do. They give the time and location when the Apollo capsule docked with the command module, but those coordinates and time had nothing to do with the time and coordinates of us back on earth. In fact, because we cant know who is moving ever, then any talk of distance or time is meaningless. We have no standard for a meter, because distance is variable according to an "unknowable stationary origin".
We have no idea how far light travels in "one second", because time is variable and related to that same absolutely UNKNOWABLE standard for time keeping. Whose version of a meter or a second are we going to choose?
This is why Einstein abandoned his theory or Special Relativity later in his life, and stated that an absolutely not moving "ether" was essential for any rational understanding of Physics.


6/ I've never seen an experiment that PROVES that a mathematically curved geometric construct can cause physical objects to move.

7/ I've never seen light speed being measured as a one way trip

8/ I've never seen an experiment that PROVES that an ether does not exist. (or that it does)

9/ I've never seen an experiment that PROVES that Light is always measured at c irrespective of the speed of the observer.

10/ I've never met anyone who really thinks that the moon came to the Apollo capsule, and not the other way around.

For the anally retentive, please substitute the word PROVES for "supports the hypothesis" .
And also for the same guys, "Theory" is for all intents and purposes the same as "hypothesis". The only difference is that science club members like the ideas of one more than the other on some subjects.

11/ And Ive never seen an experiment that PROVES that Light or radiation, is an electromagnetic wave. Sure you can use electricity and or magnetism to generate the energy known as radiation, but that does not mean that the radiation is composed of some combination of the two.
I can make fire by rubbing two sticks together, but the "fire", (radiation , light) created are not composed of little wood shavings and friction.
Claiming that radiation, (light) IS an electromagnetic phenomena, is like saying that radiation Light from my fire is "wood and rubbing".

Actually I have created Infrared and visible Light by friction and wood, but Light is "electromagnetic", so where is the electricity and the magnet which must exist close by, before you can have an electric or magnetic field?

I know, the atom has an "electron", a "charged particle"... but if this were true, then I should be able to attract any atom from any substance to a magnet, or influence any substance with electricity. but I cant. Even though all atoms have negatively charged electrons. But all this is conjecture, based on INTERPRETED observational evidence.
The particle model of atoms is not really very well robust, but as the old saying goes, its the best we've got at the moment.

Criticism of the theory of relativity



At the bottom there is a section on "Fringe Science" Probably applies to your ideas.

Here you go-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Any one of these experiments could have demonstrated that Special Relativity is wrong.

You probably will reject these experiments (and you certainly don't understand them), and you could have googled them yourself, and you reject basic Physics anyway.


There is no point in arguing about special relativity when you reject basic Physics. Your problem starts with Galileo's "Imaginary" Frames.

So a bunch or garbage ideas is supposed to fix an earlier irrational theory?
I still have not had anyone explain how Einsteins SR hypothesis could ever be considered as a solid rational work suitable for submission as a scientific paper.
So unless some bright spark can address that problem, everything that hangs off it or is invented in an attempt to prop it up, I cannot take seriously.
There remains not one single valid piece of experimental evidence for any of the concussions of SR.
Every single experiment proposed in support of SR has been debunked as solid evidence, by virtue of the inherent errors or the fact that some form of classical Physics has a better, simpler explanation.

You do realize that every experiment here can and has other interpretative explanations?
Since you like math so much, go check out this paper on the invalidity of the Lorentz transformation equation.
https://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0305v2.pdf

How about the little problem where SR imposes changes on spacial distances and Time, because of velocity, BUT we can only determine Velocity in the first place by using those very same distances and time!

If distances and time are subjective variables tied to velocity, then we have no stable standards of time or distance with which to measure that velocity in order to determining the distance and time!
Its a vicious circle of irrationality.
And we now don't know how long a meter is, because its now defined as how far light will go on a fraction of a second, but curiously we don't have any way to know what a second is, because it is a subjective period dependent on velocity, which we can't now measure!

You math nuts are not fit to be playing with Physics, you've stuffed it all up.

Fool: what scientific experiment was proposed to possibly demonstrate that Einsteins SR is WRONG?

Max: Here is a list of scientific experiments each of which could have demonstrated that Special Relativity is incorrect. (By the way, you won't accept or understand any of them)

Fool: ou do realize that every experiment here can and has other interpretative explanations?

Max: Ha ha

It doesn't matter a fig what the interpretations of the experiments claim.

You still have not been able to explain where the Hypothesis is making any rational sense.
Its full of contradictions, half baked assumptions, (its entirely based on a massive assumption that is irrational) errors of interpretation of other theories, Math errors, Logic errors, and the conclusions (time dilation, Mass increase, and Length contraction) should make even the most liberal scientist run a mile.