Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@justafool44,

Quote:

So, Lorentz was solving a non existent problem,

OK, then.

After all I've said already, I don't want to address all the wholesale declarations you're making one at a time.

I know from experience that it would be a complete waste of time to even try.

You certainly don't need to look to me, or anyone else, for answers. You have all the answers already.

2 Replies

@layman,

So you concede that I am right then, great.
Because if you had any rational response, I sure would see it here in print.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok, then don't address the "wholesale" declarations.

Just pic ONE of the THREEE statements that i did make, and explain.

I'm waiting patiently.

If you don't respond, you are exactly the same as maxdancona.

If your view is solid, you will easily show me where I'm wrong.

0 Replies

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

I don't believe this explanation of the Doppler effect in any way addresses my question.
Yes, the sound travels through this atmosphere at sea level, at a reasonably constant rate.
If you stood still and a car approached you would measure the sound wave moving relative to you and the earth and the still air, at the speed of sound.

But if you were moving in the same direction as that sound wave front, at half the speed of sound relative to the Earth, (still air) then you would measure the relative velocity of the sound to you as being one half the speed of sound.
Because its possible to actually catch up with that sound front, and pass it, its called breaking the sound barrier.
The relative speed of the sound to the jet pilot who just broke the sound barrier, would be a negative speed or sound, or rather the sound is receding in the opposite direction.

So want to try another way to explain how it could be possible NOT to get a similar result when doing the exact same thing, but with light? Assume we could go faster than light, just for the example to jive with the example of sound wave speed.
Your thoughts?

Sound waves propagate through air, which is made up of non-ionized gas molecules that resist compression due to their electrons being neutralized in a voluminous cloud around the nucleus.

Light waves propagate through ???? when electrons gain and lose energy relative to the positively-charged ions they 'orbit.' How can an object made of non-ionized molecules move faster than electrons move in relation to ions? And how can electrons move faster than the waves of energy they emit and absorb by jumping between energy states within their orbital patterns?

1 Reply

@justafool44,

Quote:

justafool44 wrote:

So you concede that I am right then, great.
Because if you had any rational response, I sure would see it here in print.

Your M.O. has not changed a bit. It goes something like this:

"1. Ignore any and all evidence which might support the notion that the moon is not made of green cheese. Nobody can conclusively prove any of that evidence, so it is all unreliable.

2. Now, after doing that, how, pray-tell, can you rationally say the the moon is NOT made of green cheese?"

It doesn't merit a response.

Your ultimate agenda and message is always the same too. It goes something like this:

1. Nobody knows anything about anything.

2. I will admit that even I don't know anything about anything.

3. However, unlike all others, I alone understand that nobody knows anything about anything.

4. That makes me a unique genius.

5. You can try to refute me if you want, but I already know that nobody knows anything about anything, so nothing you could possibly say would matter.

Keep on truckin, homeboy, but don't expect me to participate in your cheap-ass games.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

As I said several times above, anyone who claims the understanding to correct the world physics community should at least be able to demonstrate that he can solve high school level physics problems that kids solve every day all over the world. So, here is one:

On a pool table, one ball collides with another, identical ball. The initial speed of the first ball is 2.2 meters per second. After the collision, one ball is found to be moving at 1.1 meters per second at an angle of 60 degrees with the incoming ball's line of motion. Find the velocity (which means speed and direction) of the other ball. No solution will be accepted unless all work is shown.

I will either verify that your answer is correct or, if it is not, solve it myself.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Why don't you just address the topic, if you have anything substantive to say about it?

Hmmmm?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

How does asking a question about how light travels across a vacuum, answer my question which was, "how can you explain how its possible for any moving observer to all get the same measurement of the speed of a single light beam?"

Doppler does not explain it at all, and neither does anything you just wrote.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Many of my students could solve this in the center of mass frame. These jokers probably don't know what that means.

I agree... people who don't understand basic high school Physics shouldn't be criticizing real Physicists. To my credit, I did try to correct Layman's errors, he isn't educated enough to see them even when you stick his nose in them.

LivingLava physics is a lot easier than real Physics because you can say any nonsense you want, with no accountability.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are misrepresenting my case, presumably because your ONLY reason to use the LT is because you BELIEVE that it seems to work.

Ive simply said that ALL experimental evidence must be interpreted by someone, and that's one of the reasons why evidence is not proof.

Ive not presented any claims, ive only questioned your claims.

And you have practically just admitted that you cant justify the development or use for the LT, you only use it because you believe it works.

I may be wrong, but that approach to science is not considered a very reliable one.

Why is it that you cant simply explain why we should want to apply the lorentz math fudge?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Heh, Max, you ignore all my posts and all of my questions to you, and only furtively sneak back in when you think you see a homey who can help you avoid the issues and make more hollow claims devoid of substance. That's your M.O., as shown by repetition ad nauseum.

2 Replies

@layman,

And you are doing the exact same thing to me.
What is the rational justification of applying the LT math fudge to Galilean transformations?

0 Replies

@layman,

I have responded to lots of your posts. You keep on ignoring the obvious facts.

You lack a basic knowledge of Isaac Newton. You are unable to solve Physics that is understood by high school kids and was understood by Physicists hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

You can't possible understand Einstein until you first understand Newton. When I try to explain Newton to you, you see the first whiff of mathematics, or testability and you run away into a word salad.

Reading your posts is like reading the result of someone dropping a Physics dictionary into a blender. You are writing lots of words... none of them make any sense.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Heh, your "responses" are always utterly non-responsive and consist only of unsupported disparaging comments.

Try this, for a change, Max. Find something you think I'm wrong about, and explain why I'm wrong. Hint: An explanation does not consist of saying "you're wrong."

2 Replies

@layman,

Let's start here. No Einstein... just Galileo.

1. Your claim is that is either moving or not moving by absolute fact.
2. You claim that the Earth is moving.
3. You seem to claim that a boat that this tied to a dock... and that is not moving compared to the solid ground.. is not moving.

I can explain this easily... using mathematics learned in high school. This was fully understood in the time of Isaac Newton (hundreds of years before Einstein was born).

So if the Earth is moving, and a boat isn't moving... doesn't that mean that a person on Earth would see the boat apparently rocketing up into the sky?

What exactly is the behavior of a motionless boat on a moving Earth?

If you can't answer this simple question, then you can't possibly understand Einstein.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

An incoherent response, once again. I already told you that I was not talking about a docked boat in any of my examples.

I can't even discern what straw man argument you're trying to impute to me.

Let me say this: As between the two, the earth is orbiting the sun (more precisely the barycenter), not vice versa. Do you agree with that?

1 Reply

@layman,

Sure... I think I see where this is going. One of the things you anti-science folks have wrong is the purpose of Physics. Physics is about experimental results, and theories are valid or false based on the ability to make predictions on experimental or observed data.

In physics, if two mathematical models predict the same experimental data, they are considered equivalent.

But yes, I agree with your statement. You may proceed (you may be right that I confuse you with Lava).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But yes, I agree with your statement.

OK, good.

Then you would agree, I assume, that it would be incorrect, as a matter of physical "reality," to say that the heliocentric and geocentric views are "equally valid" and hence that it is impossible to discern which one is "correct."

2 Replies

@layman,

You would be incorrect... unless you could propose a complete model that explains all of the observed data.

If you can develop a heliocentric mathematical model that got the same mathematical results with Isaac Newton in every possible experimental test, than you model would be equivalent to Newton's model.

I think this is possible. I think the mathematics would be considerably more difficult.

But in Physics all mathematical models that match the same experimental results make the same predictions and are equally valid.

Physics is not looking for Philosophical truth. It is looking for testable, and confirmable by experiment and precise measurement.

1 Reply

@layman,

Newton's laws explain the difference between heliocentric and geocentric very well in a way that in confirmable by experiment (in that the laws do not make accurate predictions if the Sun is orbiting the Earth).

That is why Newton's laws are valid in most cases (with a few minor measurable discrepancies).

If you were going to develop the equivalent heliocentric model, you would have to abandon Newton's laws. If the experimental results were the same, then your model would be equally valid (although most likely far more complex and impossible to use).

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know