Einsteins special relativity nonsense

And finally, here you are attempting to apply a trick to deceive me, as you have been deceived. Its a trick or rhetoric. Einsteins whole hypothesis relies on sleight of hand rhetorical tricks, that lead the reader along a path then switch the meanings around, catching out the unsuspecting reader.

I ask you to stop trying to take me through Galileo's reference frames, baby step style, with carefully constructed key words, which you will later twist into meaning something totally different.
Its the old salesman trick, of getting the customer to say yes to a series of small sensible statements, then he is most likely to say yes when the salesman asks the final question, "can you see how this gizmo is going to benefit your family, is one enough or should you have two?"

Please just make your conclusions about Galilean relativity in a concise sentence, and I think I'm big enough to agree or criticize your version.

Galilean frames of reference are only useful as tools that allow the calculation of motion to be applied from different positions but still come up with the same result.
Einstein twists this function so that the calculation from different positions results in different answers!

Show me how Im wrong in this claim. The we can proceed on to M&M experiment.

1. I am not trying to trick you. I am trying to educate you. If you think that anyone who is trying to explain something to you is trying to "trick you", then you will never learn anything. The Physics taught in University is what everyone learns, and they go on to send robots to Mars, to design GPS systems... everyone who is pushing the science and technology that we all depend on learns the same Physics. There are correct answers... but science is difficult. You need to study to understand them.

2. My original point on this thread is that You should understand a scientific principle before you try to debunk it. I think that this is reasonable. I offered to help you to understand what you are missing about Relativity. You agreed as an experiment. That is what are doing.

3. If I am going to teach you about relativity, you need to understand it. If you don't understand Galilean relativity in a real way (i.e. be able to conceptualize it, and solve problems correctly) then you can't possibly understand Special Relativity. If you were in a real Physics class you would not only have these dialogs, you would also have tests. (By the way, I highly recommend this if you really want to understand physics).

You were making good progress (with a few corrections), now you seem to be backing off. Shall we continue?

There is no point in arguing... this discussion is interesting if you or anyone else really wants to learn.

I will point out that the Michelson Morley experiment was designed with zero idea about Special Relativity. The people who designed the experiment only knew about classical Physics.

The year of this experiment was 1887. Einstein published his paper on Special Relativity in 1905, and it took a few years after publication until the scientific community started accepting it as correct.

If you want to continue, and make a sincere effort to understand the Physics, then let's go on. You should have some experience with calculating motion in one Frame of Reference as seen from another Frame of Reference. If you were a student you would take a quiz on this topic... it is quite useful skill (and critical if you want to progress in your understanding).

The next step is this question .... For this question, let's pretend (or assume) that Einstein is completely wrong, and that the calculations of classical physics are all we need.



Star is fixed (not moving) by the common base (i.e Frame of reference) that we agree to use.

A is moving slowly, lets say 10 miles/s
B is moving very fast, let's say 180,000 miles/s
L (let's say this is a spaceship named "Lux") is moving at 186,000 mile/s

How fast will B say that Lux is moving from its Frame of reference? If B has an instrument attached to the ship, that measures speed, or if they calculate how much the distance has changed between B and L and devide by time... how fast will they say L is going compared to B?

I am jumping ahead, in hopes you are still on board with our experiment.

The experiment presented in that paper shows that even when the source is moving at a relative speed of close to the speed of light, the light received from the source is still traveling at the speed of light, not the speed of light plus the speed of the source.

You are jumping ahead Brandon. He needs to understand the concept of differing reference frames before he understands the theory, or sees the problem raised by classical physics. This quote suggests he still sees a difference between "what he measures with his measuring equipment" and some idea of the "true" speed (suggesting a universal frame of reference). Note his use of the word "medium".

Everyone who studies Physics has to figure this out, it is a little counter-intuitive. This is the reason I am getting him to think about the spaceship situations.

Let's work through the spaceship examples where there is no medium.

I have often noted your excellent work in this kind of situation. You are very patient. Keep up the good work.

Hi again, Just a quick response to these 3 points.
Ive already studied SR as thoroughly as you have, and as with all Physics, its completely sufficient to have a clear understanding of the claims of a theory without having to work through any examples with math.
You are attempting to "teach" me as if I have no understanding of the claim of Einstein whatsoever, as in your mind, if I disagree with it then Im obviously not fully comprehending something.
However I understand it better than you as I have already followed a great many explanations and followed their examples with their math, and my conclusion is that they effectively do a twist of the facts then quickly apply a series of math steps and come up with Einsteins results of Length contraction, time dilation and Mass increase.

I call it a trick, and you don't even know its happening, because you have learned the same old routine that contains the twisted facts, so you are now incapable to recognizing the problem.

So really I'm attempting to re educate you by stopping you every time you attempt to build a false rhetoric that can later be twisted into something else.

I aks you this: What is more likely? (occams razor)
that A/ time shrinks, Mass increases from nowhere, and Length but not height or width magically also shrinks, simply because someone who fantasizes an imaginary new frame for measuring stuff, happens to observe the first guy moving.
OR B/ Einstein has made a logical or rational error somewhere in his hypothesis?

Which is MORE likely?
I would like you to consider the obvious here, and admit that first, we should go over Einsteins hypothesis LOOKING critically for where he has made the most probable mistakes.

Because I can assure you that there is no information you can add to the reams of information that I already have studied on Einsteins Relativity.
Its not as if I'm going to read your explanation and suddenly announce, " Oh. NOW I get it, I was looking at this all wrong all along!, I just needed yet another explanation as to how it worked."

Per your original assertion, the relative states of motion of the source of the light and the observer have no bearing on the measured speed of light emitted in vacuum, which is always c.

I know this. Both Einstein and Newton and Maxwell all said that the speed of light is independent of the source.
Its stated in Einsteins 1905 paper, and is nothing new.
But only Einstein said (without explanation) that its also independent of the motion of the OBSERVER. Newton and Maxwell would never agree with this assumption.

I'm still here, I can hear what you are saying....
and its unscientific to say these days that space is not a "medium"
Lawrence Krauss summed it up when he stated, "Empty space is not empty, its teaming with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence". Other famous Physicists have said as much in different words. So there is an effective "medium" through which light can propagate through "space". Einstein himself claims that this space. is actually a physical stuff he called spacetime, that can effectively push whole planets around, (the process we erroneously call gravity,) so, in my statement, the speed of light in the "medium of the vacuum of space" is valid.

Exactly! but Einstein does not say this! He claims that the speed of light is NOT relative to the medium, but rather its relative to the OBSERVER, because that is the only way any observer moving at any speed or direction can ever still measure light speed at c.
The correct statement is that the moving observer, who cannot influence the speed of light, (which is only ever relative to the medium through which its traveling) will get a measured speed of c plus or minus his own speed, relative to that same medium. And doing the math he will then calculate the actual speed of light and find the answer of is c.
The speed of any wave, (sound, vibration, or light) can only ever be relative to the medium, and never to the observer.

He is not doing too well here, he is a slow learner, set in his errors he learned by rote many tears ago. Hard for these guys to think critically.

Can we just skip to the bit where you try to convince me that its impossible to have a absolute frame of reference?

B will measure Lux divergent velocity at 6000 mps.
If B bothers to measure Lux's speed with S as the base, then B will say that Lux is going 186000mps.
Keep moving ahead, Ill play along.

I thought we were past this already. I think you have to prove this, not me (it is not generally a burden of proof to prove a negative).

If you are asserting that there is an absolute frame of reference, how would you define it? You can define any absolute frame of reference you want. I don't know what good it would do you. What frame of reference do you suggest should be the "absolute" one?

Good (you can do the math correctly).

So you agree that your speed in any frame of reference will change the "divergent" velocity of this ship... surely you have figured out that Lux is a stand in for light.

Since you want to jump ahead, tell me if you understand the following two principles. If you don't see why they are correct (given the parameters of the exercise) then stop me.

In a non-relativistic universe (i.e. if Einstein is incorrect).

1) If your speed in any frame of reference changes, the measured speed of light will also change.

2) If you direction in any frame of reference changes, the measured speed of light will change.

In a world where Einstein is incorrect... do you understand and accept why these two principles must be true. Be very careful answering this, if you don't get it... the next step will be impossible for you to get.

With comments like this, it doesn't seem like you are as open minded as you would like to be.The purpose of this experiment is to see if you can gain a new perspective and change your way of thinking once you have additional understanding.

Hopefully, if you end up changing your perspective based on this exercise you will see this as a success. It is never a bad thing to learn something new.

Yeah, all of the world's scientists have been wrong for over a century. Only you see the truth. A hundred plus years of measurement and testing is all wrong. Have fun.

So you do science by committee vote or popular opinion?
Many famous groundbreaking discoveries were at total odds with popular opinion.
And I'm just one of thousands of people who don't accept that Einstein's Hypothesis is correct. People have been saying this since Einstein published his paper.
None of the "tests" are valid, because that use the wrong model and wrong math equations.