4
   

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

 
 
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2020 04:53 pm
Why is an impossible assumption allowed in the theory of Special Relativity?
The very first statement made by Professors when teaching SR, is that we have to assume that light always goes the same measured speed regardless of who is measuring it, regardless of their own velocity, and even regardless of the direction they are moving in, (towards to the light or away from it)
My question is why would any sane person accept this postulate as a starting point for a new hypothesis that would upturn all of the well proven existing Physics rules? No one can explain HOW light could possible ever be measured at the same velocity regardless of the measurer's own state of motion, yet they just claim that this is true, and offer no explanation as to how it could work, or any verification that its true. Certainly the Michelson and Morley experiment does NOT show that light always goes the same speed in all inertial frames of reference despite the claim that this experiment is by magic demonstrating this claim. The M&M experiment shows absolutely the same information as if I spin a torch around in a room and observe that the light strikes all 4 walls. The experiment demonstrates nothing at all.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 9,220 • Replies: 705
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 09:11 am
@justafool44,
Quote:
Einsteins special relativity nonsense


Lol, your username fits.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 04:23 pm
@McGentrix,
Ok, you are so smart, let's see if you can prove me wrong, or conversely prove that SR is correct in any way at all.
Don't just mouth off and ridicule me unless you are able to back up your opinion.
Lets hear it then....
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 04:31 pm
@justafool44,
The problem is that you are ignorant.

To understand Special Relativity, you need to start by understanding Galilean Relativity. Generally when a person starts attacking science, they haven't even gotten to the point where they understand this.

Actually the Michelson Moreley experiment does show that the Earth is not moving through aether (i.e. fixed reference point in which light would propagate). There are plenty other experiments that show the constant speed of light.

Since you brought up sanity, there is a basic rule of sanity... which I call the Max law sanity: You can not debunk science before you understand it.

The Michelson Moreley experiment is one of the rare experiments that can be understood with high school algebra (you don't need calculus to understand how it works). Have you even done the math?
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:30 pm
@maxdancona,
The problem is that your head is so full of doctrine that it now cant discern the difference between rational claims and religious faith based beliefs.
What part of Galilean relativity don't I understand, in your opinion?
You are displaying your inability to think rationally when you said, "the M&M experiment does show that the Earth is not moving through aether", and assuming that this proves something about lights velocity in various imaginary frames of reference. It demonstrates nothing of the sort. It only demonstrates that either the equipment was not suitable to detect the aether, or that no aether was there to detect. That's the only conclusion you can make.
Again you seem to think that I am not understanding Physics, based on the fact that I don't accept your (Einsteins) wacky claims.
Ever thought that its you who is missing the point?
Understanding (read, "UNDERSTANDING") the M&M experiment requires not one line of algebra, and no math. Its able to be understood as a set of various Physics principals. If you don't get the EXPLANATION of the Physical Process well documented, then your Math is going to be garbage.
This is the case here, no correct understanding of simple Physics, then jumping into the development of some meaningless, baseless equations.


maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:38 pm
@justafool44,
The people who are "unable to think rationally", designed that computer or cell phone that you are using right now. They also design airplanes, and robots etc etc.

All of them start with the Physics that you would learn in school (if you were in school). I have learned Physics (real Physics at a University). I have also taught real Physics. Now I am using math (although not Physics directly) as an engineer.

Until you learn science yourself, you shouldn't be trying to refute it.

I could try to explain it to you. As I often say to other people, it takes a long time to study science. Real scientists take years to study it before getting to the point that you can understand special relativity.

I suspect that you are more interesting in yelling than in learning.




maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:41 pm
@justafool44,
Just a random poll question here (I am collecting data on people who attack science).

Do you believe that Jesus is real and that he is the Son of God?

(Your username may have religious significance.).

justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Possible was a real person, and no. Not in any Physical sense, maybe Philosophically speaking he was.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:51 pm
@justafool44,
Interesting.

Most people who are anti-science are religious (either Christian or sometimes Muslim). You are an outlier at least.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 05:56 pm
@maxdancona,
I never said that ALL Physics is wrong, only and specifically Einstein and off shoots from his wacky theories. So cell phones and computers have nothing to do with this discussion.
What makes you think that you might be able to explain Physics to me any better than Professors such as Leonard Susskind, Don Lincon, and a host of Yale and Harvard Professors, whose lengthy lectures are available on line, could manage? You speak as If Ive never thought about what I'm writing, based solely on the fact that I don't accept the conventional explanation, therefore I MUST be wrong.
That thinking is what imprisoned and nearly got Copernicus killed.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:04 pm
@maxdancona,
Most people who ask me questions like that, are like you, they ASSUME im anti science. Im not. I'm fully pro science, and am interested in Physics specifically.
But I reject theories or hypothesis that contain obvious error.
I see Einsteins theories as ANTI real Physics.
And I'm happy to explain where his errors lie.
And no one has ever shown me where I'm wrong, and finally, little of what I believe is the result of my own invention. All the evidence that Einstein is wrong has been around in one form or another, practically from the day Einstein presented his first papers. Yet religious doctrine trumps scientific truth is seems.
I have no other explanations as to why Einsteins Relativity survives other than its some form of cult like religion.
The errors are clear and obvious once you step back a pace and critically examine his hypothesis.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:07 pm
@justafool44,
You are ignorant. I don't know whether you "thought" about what you are writing. I do know that you have never learned about special relativity. The statements you make about the Michelson Morley experiment suggest you haven't even learned high school Physics.

There are right answers in science. You are emphatically wrong. But you are wrong.

How do I know you are wrong? Because I have actually taken the time to learn Physics instead of just making stuff up on my own.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:09 pm
@justafool44,
You people are ridiculous. Science is not a cult-like religion. It is a body of knowledge that you learn by going to University, learning math, spending time studying, doing experiments in a lab.

What you have is just stuff you made up without any serious study.

Science isn't just stuff people make up on their own.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:20 pm
There are two groups of people making statements about science.

1) Educated people (people who have taken the time to seriously study the subject).
2) Uneducated people (people who have made stuff up on their own).

My assertion is that educated people almost all have the same understanding of Physics (including special relativity). This is because educated people have learned the correct answer as understood by the people who are the experts.

I think you are arguing that education makes it harder to understand the right answer because all the knowledge clouds your thinking.

But think about this. Educated people design airplanes, send robots to Mars, and created the technology you are using to read this message. If educated people were so stupid... then explain all the progress they have made.

If you want to understand science... get an education. Until that point, you are going to have to trust those of us who have actually spent the time to get one, because without an education you simply don't understand what you are talking about.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:26 pm
@maxdancona,
You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
I stated emphatically that I support real Physics.
I'm only anti wrong Physics claims.
I don't know how you can get confused over this simple fact, yet claim on the other hand to understand even more complex matters.
So rather than figure things out rationally, you expect me to discard my intellect and accept what some other guy (einstein) is telling me, even though its self contradictory, and clearly contains errors of logic?
When you "studied" SR at Uni, how many objections to the theory did you raise? None I bet, your purpose was to learn by rote, and get your certificate.
Einstein SR hypothesis is not complex in the slightest. Its simple to explain and simple to grasp his concept. Anyone who struggles over it or takes years to study it in order to understand it must be particularly dense.
The math is a bit confusing because the hypothesis on which its based is irrational. But that's all based on Lorentz theory with is not hard really. ( but equally incorrect)

0 Replies
 
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:28 pm
@maxdancona,
Lets do an experiment, Lets see how far you get trying to explain SR to me in simple terms, as a hypothesis. Allow me to interject when I have an issue with your statements.
Lets see if its as solid as you believe it is.
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:34 pm
@maxdancona,
"How do I know you are wrong? Because I have actually taken the time to learn Physics"
This is an prime example showing that you cant think rationally.
I'm wrong, why? because YOU have been to school, and learned about the topic that I'm saying is incorrect. And my claim is not that same as what you were TOLD, therefore it MUST be wrong!
This is not the scientific approach, is it?
And its not rational to think that. Its entirely possible that you were taught a popular errors.
It does not matter how famous or how popular an idea is, it is no guarantee that its correct.
Actually, my experience is that if something is widely believed and heavily promoted by our leaders, its always BS. I go with George Carlin on that subject.

maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:35 pm
@justafool44,
I have done this experiment. I can tell you one place you are going to have a problem understanding... and that is with Galilean relativity,

Learning science means letting go of your intuition, often the correct answer is not intuitive. When someone who hasn't studied physics... but decides they know it anyway encounters these times where their intuition is challenged, they shut down.

If you are open minded, and interested, you should enroll in a class. Science is challenging, it isn't something you master in an internet forum.

I have the experience teaching students. Some of them were excellent students and grasped the challenging material. Others had trouble, you can be intelligent and still have difficult with mathematical abstraction that is needed to understand this.

If we are going to try the experiment of me teaching you something about Relativity, we have to start with Galilean Relativity. You need to be able to answer questions about Frames of Reference before you can even approach Einstein.

Do you sincerely want to me to teach you some Physics? It means that when you reach a point where the material challenges your intuition, you need to work through until you reach the correct understanding. I am game if you are.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:37 pm
@justafool44,
English is not your mother tongue, is it?
justafool44
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2020 06:38 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm 100% willing to let you explain SR to me in your preferred format.
But please be prepared to address my questions, and solve them fully before you jump ahead to the next point.
You cant build a valid case if you have an incorrect step, can you?
 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
An Embarassment to Science - Discussion by Leadfoot
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Einsteins special relativity nonsense
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2020 at 06:26:09