Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

Layman, in another forum, a long while back, I asked you what is the rationale behind your belief that time dilation according to Lorentz transform was real.

There was an era when the question "do clocks "really" slow down with increased speed" was very much open to debate. That era has past.

With the development ultra-precise atomic clocks, it is now possible to actually observe a change in the rate of ticking with a change in speed of as little as 15 mph.

Same with the gravitational effect on clocks. They can take two clocks and place them side by side on a table, and they run at identical rates. But if you raise one of them a foot, it can be seen to run slightly faster. The difference is minute, of course, but observable. And, of course, the more you raise one clock, the bigger the difference.

1 Reply

@layman,

Here's an excerpt from a popular article on the topic:

Quote:

. In a series of experiments described in the September 24 issue of Science, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colo., registered differences in the passage of time between two high-precision optical atomic clocks when one was elevated by just a third of a meter or when one was set in motion at speeds of less than 10 meters per second.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-dilation/

There are dozens, more like hundreds, of similar articles online.

1 Reply

@layman,

It is still crucial to remember that "time dilation" is a misnomer. Time does not change with alterations in elevation or speed. Clock rates (and other regularly recurring phenomena) change, that's all.

A watch that's running slow may only register the passage of 55 minutes after an hour. That doesn't mean that only 55 minutes have passed. It's still one hour. The watch just mismeasures the passage of time.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

A watch that's running slow may only register the passage of 55 minutes after an hour. That doesn't mean that only 55 minutes have passed. It's still one hour. The watch just mismeasures the passage of time.

Only a fool would say that only 55 minutes have passed for "it" because time is simply what a clock measures. Such thinking is the product of the long-discredited philosophy of science called "positivism."

Einstein's monstrous concoction, which he called the "relativity of simultaneity" is also the product of such careless thinking. It is the logical product of the absurd notion that the lorentz transformations are "reciprocal."

Simultaneity is, in fact, absolute, not relative. The GPS proves this every day.

If a star a million light years away explodes "now" we will not know it for a million years. But that doesn't mean that it "really" exploded only when we detect it, a million years later.

If lightning strikes a cloud directly over my head, I will see the lightning flash and hear the thuderclap virtually simultaneously. On the the other hand, a guy a mile may hear the sound 5 seconds after he sees the lightning. That certainly doesn't mean that the sound he hears was not created until he heard it later, and that the two events were not simultaneous.

All scientists would agree on this. Well, except for SR advocates, maybe. But, then again, the theory is not "scientific" to begin with.

0 Replies

So, here's the essential difference between a theory of relative motion which posits absolute simultaneity (as the GPS does), sometimes called "neo-lorentzian relativity" call it "LR," and SR, which posits that simultaneity is "relative."

1. LR says that light will always be MEASURED to be c on any inertially moving object. However, it rejects the notion that it "really is" constant.

3. SR says it "really is" constant. This leads to all kinds of "paradoxes" and contradictions which are non-existent in LR.

2 Replies

As far as I'm concerned, I have made 10-15 posts here in the last couple of pages that identify the basic flaws in SR, and the reason(s) why they are flaws.

That said, I know from past experience that few, if any, posters here will even comprehend what I'm saying.

But of course that doesn't prevent them from loudly asserting that I'm completely wrong. They don't even understand the topic, but they do remember what they've been told to say, I guess.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are being ridiculous. You don't understand Galileo or Newton.

By the way, Max, have you ever read Galileo's book? You know, the one where he creates a fictional dialogue of characters debating the copernican hypothesis and contrast it with the then-prevailing Aristotelian/Ptolemaic astronomical theories favored by the church?

I didn't think so.

You don't understand it. You just know what you have been selectively told about it. Read it sometime, eh? Then talk about it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Just for the record the SR revisionist account of Galileo's relativity goes something this:

"Galileo demonstrated that you cannot determine if you're moving, or not, by conducting physical experiments in an inertial setting. It is therefore impossible to to determine which of two objects is moving vis-a-vis the other."

But there are at least two serious problems with this account, eh?

1. The logic is clearly fallacious. The "therefore" doesn't follow from the premise, even if true.

2. More importantly, Galileo never said any such thing regarding the ability to detect motion. In fact, he said the opposite.

Unlike SR, Galileo did NOT claim that determining which of two objects is moving is impossible. Just one of many instances where SR goes wrong.

You should really try to improve your understanding of Galilean relativity.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

1. LR says that light will always be MEASURED to be c on any inertially moving object. However, it rejects the notion that it "really is" constant.

Please explain how that could be physically possible. Especially in the case of heading into the light, or traveling in the same direction, its still measured as "c". How can that concept be explained? Ive never heard anyone explain how this could possibly work. Talking aboyt a mess of imaginary "inertial frames of reference" where you refuse to allow some observers to know all the pertinent information, does not explain how light is always measured at c by anyone in motion, the exact opposite we get when we measure any moving thing, from another moving thing. Why is light immune from the rest of the laws of Physics, and totally opposite to every other observation about motion?

I get what you say about Time not changing, (because its a concept, unaffected by physical processes) it just the clocks that change, but how exactly do you explain the development of the LT equation?

Its like, "I took a guess about this equation, and as luck would have it, the guess was exactly correct".

2 Replies

@justafool44,

I'll take these questions one at a time, starting with this one:

Quote:

t how exactly do you explain the development of the LT equation?

Its like, "I took a guess about this equation, and as luck would have it, the guess was exactly correct".

No, it wasn't a guess, and btw, the accurate predictive ability of LT have been experimentally confirmed to an extremely high degree--to 1 part in a billion, or something like that.

It was basically reverse engineering. Lorentz worked backwards. Before the M-M experiment was conducted, they expected to find a difference in the measured speed of light depending on the direction it was sent in.

This expectation was due to the assumption that the earth was orbiting the sun in a certain direction at a certain speed. But they couldn't detect any difference in speed depending on direction.

So, one possibility was that there was a measuring error being made. Lorentz (and others) "knew" that in a non moving frame (associated with the ether at that time) the speed of light would be isotropic and measured to be the same in all directions.

From that, they could figure out how much distortion it would take in the measuring instruments (clocks and "rods") on the moving earth for them to be "erroneous" in just the right amount then (mis)measure the speed of light to be c in the earth's moving frame, when it really wasn't.

And this really answers your first question, too. The higher the speed, the higher the instrumental distortion, in just the right proportion to measure a speed of c in any inertially moving frame. But again, that would not be its "real" speed in that frame. It is simply be how it would be measured.

Make sense?

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

Time not changing, (because its a concept, unaffected by physical processes) it just the clocks that change...

Exactly. Time is just a strictly mental concept abstracted from our sense experiences. It is not a tangible "thing" which can be stretched or compacted. Nothing "out there" could affect the concept of time.

I generally try to use a phrase like "clock retardation" rather then "time dilation," but sometimes just use the latter phrase because almost everyone else does (imprecisely).

0 Replies

@layman,

By way of illustration, suppose you built a 100 yard long football field on a rocket, and then blasted it into space. Then, when the rocket reached a certain speed (about .86c, as I recall) to cut the time and length in half, the football field would only be 50 yards long by earth's standards.

But the people on the rocket wouldn't be measuring it with earth's yardsticks. Their "yardstick" would now be only 18" long. Using it, they would still measure the football field to be 100 "yards" long.

Same idea if measuring the speed of light with slowed clocks and foreshortened yardsticks.

1 Reply

@layman,

So, to elaborate a little more, if people on the rocket would acknowledge their movement relative to the earth, then they wouldn't be fooled as SR requires them to be.

The would know that their instruments had been distorted by speed, and they would know that that same football field would be twice as long back on earth.

What the WOULDN'T do (as SR requires them to do) is insist that their instruments were right and that the earth's had been distorted.

This is just another way of saying that the LT are NOT reciprocal, and that, as between the two, the earth is the preferred (correct) frame.

SR advocates like to say the the people on the rocket "see" the earth's dimensions as being reduced. But they never "see" any such thing. They assume it. They are forced to assume that they are motionless, and that it is the earth that is moving, not them. If the earth is the one moving then, per the LT, its clock would be slowed down, not theirs.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

SR advocates like to say the the people on the rocket "see" the earth's dimensions as being reduced. But they never "see" any such thing. They assume it.

You have probably seen the "light clock" examples where a person looking at a distant object which is moving with respect to them "appears" to have slowed clocks. But again, there is a hidden tacit assumption here.

Suppose that the object you are looking at was not moving at all but that, in reality, you were moving past it. How would the "light clock" appear to you then?

The answer: Exactly the same. The appearance wouldn't change at all. So you don't "see" their clock ticking slower at all, you just calculate that it is based on your assumption that it's moving, and you're not.

Likewise, if you assume that the earth is stationary, the sun will "appear" to rise in the east and set in the west. But the appearance would be exactly the same if the sun was stationary and the earth was simply rotating on an axis. It's not the "appearance" that differs, it's your assumptions about what you are "seeing."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Likewise, if you assume that the earth is stationary, the sun will "appear" to rise in the east and set in the west. But the appearance would be exactly the same if the sun was stationary and the earth was simply rotating on an axis. It's not the "appearance" that differs, it's your assumptions about what you are "seeing."

This realization is useful with respect to everything. People like to think that their conclusions are dictated by the "facts." But they're not. At best (if the person is not illogical) their conclusions are dictated by their assumptions, not "the facts."

So ultimately, what they call "facts" is likewise determined by their assumptions about what they are seeing.

Try telling some fool that he didn't actually "see" the sun set in the west if he believes otherwise. He will indignantly shout that, "By God, I saw it go down with my own damn eyes! Don't even try to tell me otherwise!"

Likewise, SR starts with two basic postulates. After that, everything is deduced (not observed) from those postulates which most people never question again. They therefore take the necessary implications of the theory to be "fact" and they claim that the theory has been repeatedly "proven." Such people don't really understand science or the scientific method, but they sure think they do.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

So, here's the essential difference between a theory of relative motion which posits absolute simultaneity (as the GPS does), sometimes called "neo-lorentzian relativity" call it "LR," and SR, which posits that simultaneity is "relative."

1. LR says that light will always be MEASURED to be c on any inertially moving object. However, it rejects the notion that it "really is" constant.

3. SR says it "really is" constant. This leads to all kinds of "paradoxes" and contradictions which are non-existent in LR.

And this, by the way, is another conceptual flaw in SR. SR says that the speed of light "really is" constant in every frame. OK, let's suppose that's true. But then why in the hell is SR also incorporating the lorentz transformations into it's theory? If the speed really is c, and if it is being measured by distorted instruments, then you would never measure it to be c. The LT simply have no place in a theory which say the speed "really is" c.

Lorentzian Relativity does need those transformations to explain things. That's because it needs to explain why the speed of c is measured when it really isn't the factual case.

The LT were designed specifically for a theory which posited that c is not "really" the actual speed in a moving frame, even if it is measured to be. Even so, Einstein ripped them off, whole cloth, from Lorentz because they were mathematically (if not conceptually) necessary.

But it's not even that they were conceptually "unnecessary." that's the problem. It's that the incorporation of the LT into SR basically rendered it incoherent (as did other elements of SR).

2 Replies

@layman,

Thanks, your explanations are always great to read, detailed and logical, unlike the explanations I get fro our relativist friends, who final evidence for SR is, "you are too stupid to understand it".

I believe the crux of the comparison is stated with your words,

Quote:

1. LR says that light will always be MEASURED to be c on any inertially moving object. However, it rejects the notion that it "really is" constant.

3. SR says it "really is" constant. This leads to all kinds of "paradoxes" and contradictions which are non-existent in LR.

Now, focusing on sentence one, and rephrasing a bit, we get,
A/ light speed is not constant with respect to any observer in motion, relative to that light.
B/ BUT they always measure it to be constant"c" because their measuring equipment undergoes a real physical, but unnoticeable change. Is this correct?

Further, no actual scientific, Physics hypothesis has ever been suggested as to the mechanism behind the physical changes to the measuring equipment, which only sees a change in the direction of motion.

You elsewhere say that "Time" itself is not really affected by this relative motion, but that only physical clocks begin to experience errors. (loose real time keeping ability)

If this holds true for Time, (its not affected) then how can you claim that Length really is affected? (if measuring devices are changed, then they length is really changed. Ho so for physical rods, but not for real Time, as Einstein claims?
Logically if real lengths can be change by nothing Physical, just the perceived differences in speeds one object to the next) then so to can Time be changing, and hell, may as well bung in there the Mass, it too really undergoes a real change as Einstein certainly said.

So, my final question is really, "Ignoring any claimed positive results of tests for the moment, ( because experimental evidence is not able to Prove any theory, AND all evidence must also be interpreted by people with prior beliefs) ...How exactly does the motion of a body physically unrelated to another body cause some shrinking of that bodies matter in only one direction?"

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

Now, focusing on sentence one, and rephrasing a bit, we get,
A/ light speed is not constant with respect to any observer in motion, relative to that light.
B/ BUT they always measure it to be constant"c" because their measuring equipment undergoes a real physical, but unnoticeable change. Is this correct?

Yeah, that's right, as I understand it.

Quote:

Further, no actual scientific, Physics hypothesis has ever been suggested as to the mechanism behind the physical changes to the measuring equipment, which only sees a change in the direction of motion.

Actually, there have been quite a few of them, but I don't really pay that much attention to them. I'm sure none have been widely accepted, but they're nonetheless at least superficially plausible. They generally address changes on the subatomic/ quantum level caused by "forces" of some kind. Quantum foam, and **** like that. Look at gravity, for example. It is easily conceived as a "force" which only works in one direction (down).

Likewise, so called "fictitious forces" or "inertial forces" are always present with motion. Yardsticks will vary in length according to temperature so we know that length is not "invariable" to begin with. Whatever theory might adequately "explain" it all, it does seem to be happening, however "mysterious" it may currently seem.

Quote:

You elsewhere say that "Time" itself is not really affected by this relative motion, but that only physical clocks begin to experience errors. (loose real time keeping ability)

If this holds true for Time, (its not affected) then how can you claim that Length really is affected? (if measuring devices are changed, then they length is really changed. Ho so for physical rods, but not for real Time, as Einstein claims?

Logically if real lengths can be change by nothing Physical, just the perceived differences in speeds one object to the next) then so to can Time be changing, and hell, may as well bung in there the Mass, it too really undergoes a real change as Einstein certainly said.

[So, my final question is really, "Ignoring any claimed positive results of tests for the moment, ( because experimental evidence is not able to Prove any theory, AND all evidence must also be interpreted by people with prior beliefs) ...How exactly does the motion of a body physically unrelated to another body cause some shrinking of that bodies matter in only one direction?"

Time does not change, clocks do. Likewise length, as a concept, does not change but measuring rods do. I don't have the answers to all that, but think of it this way. Say you are lying on a concrete sidewalk, tied up, and your enemies keep putting more and more weight on your body. How many directions are you going to be "squished" in? Only one, right?

Same deal if you're 500 feet under the ocean's surface. If you're standing in the the middle of the road and get hit by a car going 100 mph, what direction are you going to take?

The accepted belief these days seems to be that there is no such thing as "empty space," and that the universe is filled with minute particles. So "running into" that matter could certainly have some physical consequences, I suppose. I don't find the "one way" thing as being as problematic as you seem to. I 'm not very interested in particle physics, so I'm not the one to ask, anyway.

There are also a number of theorists who say that length contraction (which has never been measured because it's too minute) is not even necessary to the theory, and maybe they're right, I don't really know.

In GR they talk about space-time distortion, but as it turns out it's virtually all "time" and very little "space." They say that the "space" distortion in a low gravity area (such as earth) the diameter of the earth is altered by less that half an inch. All the rest is due to "time" distortions.

I don't pay much attention to GR either, so I don't have any special insight into any of that. But I would say that the whole "spacetime" notion is bogus to begin with. A lot of theorists claim that GR's results can be fully explained in terms of traditional 3 + 1, dimensions, thereby dispensing with some 4 dimensional conglomeration. I believe them, on principle, but again I just not very knowledgeable about that area of physics.

1 Reply

@layman,

About the LT equation:
You say that Lorentz developed this equation to solve the problem that light speed SEEMED to be going the same speed for any observer in any inertial frame, which was not rational, but with the application of his equation, normalcy was restored, and the problem was found to be that the lengths of the measuring device has shrunk, and this led to the wrong conclusion that light was always being "measured" as C in any frame...
I think this is what you are saying.

However there is one massive error in this approach.

As I said in the last post, ignore any interpreted evidence for the moment till we get a grasp on the rationality of the hypothesis of Lorentz and the subsequent development of the transformation equation..

The error is in ASSUMING that observers ARE REALLY GETTING the same VALUE of C, in ANY frame, in the first place!

This is not really happening for anyone anywhere.

Its a false claim, based on incorrect beliefs about the role of immaginery "frame of reference" and the belief that light should obey the same laws of motion and kinetics as does a brick or a ship on the ocean, which was what Galileo and Newton were referring to when they were discussing "inertial frames of reference".

Certainty light bears no similarities or shares the same "laws of Physics" with a brick or a ship.

But based on this false assumption that people are actually measuring light at c whether they are moving in the same direction, the opposite direction or not moving at all, and irrespective of their velocity relative to anything or the light, which is clearly a totally insane non rational claim, Lorentz went ahead and ACCEPTED this stupid claim, and managed to invent a mathematical FUDGE by massaging the numbers till he came up with an answer that "solved" a problem that never existed!
His solution ONLY works on the blackboard, because to this day, no one can demonstrate that an object shrinks lengthwise when its moving.

No physics has ever demonstrated Mass increase either, (now they duck and dodge the obvious objection to mass increase, "where does the extra mass come from?" by pretending that all along Einstein really was meaning Momentum, not mass, and that momentum really means "energy" not really momentum either. Anything but simply acknowledge that the hypothesis of Einsteins is wrong.

But back to Lorentz, the validity of his transform equation relies on a proof that observers all are measuring light speed at c from anywhere, at any relative speed or direction.

There never has been any proposal to prove this claim, and the claim is actually irrational with absolutely not a ounce of logic to it.

Such an experiment can never be performed either, as it would require a machine that could be first calibrated to "light that was stationary", giving a zero point for comparison, and then taking the machine on rockets at differing velocities and directions relative to that light, and coming up always with the same speed. C.
Another reason why it cant be done, is that only a one way speed comparison would be useful, but we conceptually can only measure a two way speed. And there are reasons why a two way speed measure may not be solid evidence in such a test.

So, Lorentz was solving a non existent problem, by fudging measurements that were not actually taken, and claiming that the proof is in the accuracy of his math. And Einstein agreed, but not for the same reasons.

Both physicists, (actually one Mathematician and one Clerk) were offering a similar solution to an imaginary fantasy problem.

1 Reply

@layman,

So your best answer to account for the shrinkage lengthwise of a measuring rod, is either we dont know? or its some sort of magical undetectable "force" like gravity, or centrifugal force that only kicks in when some physics professor is watching a fast moving space ship go by?

The logic is weak here my friend.

If this is the best we have for accepting a clearly irrational set of weird new laws of Physics, then I would rather just be looking for a errors that must be in the theory somewhere.

0 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know