Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And now, a Public Service Announcement.

Nothing that LivingLava is saying has anything to do with actual science (other than a superficial parroting of pop-science phrases). By actual science, I mean the science that is taught in universities and is understood and practiced by actual scientists.

Of course, anyone on the internet is free to state their own opinions about what science should be. But I want to make sure that no one is fooled into thinking that LivingLava has any real expertise on the subject.

Now... back to the thread.

Quote:

Livinglava MIGHT be the next Einstein, or next Copernicus, the only person to really "get it". So you are not being scientific when you discard his comments. the Science Community is not the God and custodian of all knowledge, heaven knows they have harbored a lot of crap in the past.

Copernicus had a doctorate and a solid education in science and Mathematics. Einstein had a PhD in Physics and a solid education in science and Mathematics.

These were not random ignorant people with random ideas they made up themselves. They were people who put in the hard work of mastering the knowledge of the time before they were considered experts.

You and LivingLava clearly don't know what you are talking about. You haven't studied the mathematics. You haven't done the problem sets, or worked in a lab, or any of the other things that people do to become experts. LivingLava is clearly just making stuff up, and he is getting most of it completely wrong. It is nonsense to anyone who has passed even a single real Physics course in college.

Somehow you don't think that matters. Do you really think that ignorance is a virtue?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You might want to step down from the "Holier than Thou" pedestal you have placed yourself and your heroes on.
Many great discoveries and inventions come from self educated people.
A "scientist: is just the guy next door, no different than you or I, who has mostly just memorized the current available literature on any topic, without much thought as to if its right or wrong.
In fact, the more you study, the more closed minded you become.
If you head is full of pre-existing ideas, its practically impossible to make the mental jump to get out of the box you have built for yourself.
Stop being a scientist worshiper. Try taking a look at the concepts they are offering these days, and if you are really critical, and not already a cultist, you will see that most modern Physics and cosmology is really wacky nonsense.
Here, in this topic, I'm attempting to show you arrogant maths nerds that Einsteins SR hypothesis is just nothing but irrational gibberish, sheer nonsense, that's why the conclusions of the hypothesis are labled "unintuitive" a place holder for the real adjective of "impossible".

1 Reply

@justafool44,

You are unquestionably anti-science. You call scientists, "wacky", "uncritical", "math nerds" and "cultists" who just "memorized the current available literature".

That is not what scientists do at all. And is pretty insulting to scientists.

If you got your Physics degree, you would spend most of your time developing skills. We study lots of math. We learn to solve problems, and to prove that they are correct. We learn data analysis and error analysis. We learn to do experiments, to analyze the results, to publish the data and to respond to criticism from peers.

Not only are you anti-science, you seem to have no idea what scientists actually do.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You are wrong again. I'm totally FOR science, Im only against WRONG science.
And you were supposed to be moving on to your next step in your tutorial on SR, you had just explained that M&M experiment failed, and I agreed with you so far. Whats next?
Ps. Physicists studying a lot of Math is not doing Physics. Its doing Math, and Math developed without a proper understanding of the Physics first, is doomed to be precisely, accurately, repeatably , WRONG.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

In fact, the more you study, the more closed minded you become.
If you head is full of pre-existing ideas, its practically impossible to make the mental jump to get out of the box you have built for yourself.

You are not for science. You are literally arguing in favor of ignorance.

Your argument is ridiculous. Your think that you, who have little education about science are better equipped than a real scientist with a PhD because your head "isn't full of pre-existing ideas".

A PhD in Physics knows far more than you. They understand existing ideas far more than you. They are able to develop new ideas far better than you can. This should be obvious to anyone. Yet here you are arguing things that you don't understand at all... and believing you are right because of how little you know. That is silly.

Just to make it clear. The letters "PhD" after someone's name don't mean anything. The reason that they much know more than you is because instead of ******* around on the internet, they spent 10 to 12 years actually learning stuff. They spend the time studying, working, experimenting collaborating and solving real problems... that is why they are experts and you are not.

You admitted you are ignorant. You seem to be proud of this.

Now, stop pretending that you aren't anti-science. If you want to really understand the science, stop pretending you are a scientist and do the work to actually learn something.

(... and for the record, I did start to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. You seemed to lose interest when you and LivingLava went on your little anti-science tirade.)

1 Reply

Is it possible that a brilliant, knowledgable Physicist with a firm grasp of mathematics and a complete understanding of modern Physics might overturn our understanding of General Relativity the way that Einstein overturned our understanding of Newton? The Physicist in question would have to present and defend her ideas mathematically in a way that can be confirmed experimentally. But of course this is possible (and in fact some really good Physicists are already on it).

It is possible that two uneducated people with no mathematical background, no understanding of Physics, and a general dislike of how science is done will overturn Special Relativity by insulting the scientific community as a bunch of "cultists".

No. It's not possible.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
There is also a possibility of being totally knowledgeable, and having studied a subject but still be wrong.
You seem for some unknown reason to think that I don't know anything about Einsteins Relativity.
And that reason seems to be simply because I don't agree that its correct.
So stop rabbeting on and on about how great you are, and your teachers, and how **** I am, and actually present your tutorial on SR, so we can take a look at exactly how brilliant it is.
Just continue with your explanation please, and keep your opinions about my intellect to yourself.
I never lost interest in your explanation simply because I also was able to engage LivingLava in a parallel discussion.
Just get on with it please.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You exhibit a small, closed, indoctrinated mind my friend.
Math is NOT Physics.
And grasping error and hanging on to it whilst thinking its correct is nothing to be proud of.
Finally, the ideas I have are not all my work, I stand on the shoulders of many who have gone before me.
I cant help it if you have a religion masquerading as Science, hiding inside real science can I? (that's the way it seems from the outside view)
Just present your case for SR, and lets move on.
I'm more interested in a real discussion rather than your opinions, which resemble the format of the opinions of a Mormon.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

1. You apparently missed my explanation of Michelson-Morely. You can go back and read it if you want (it is a page or two back now).

2. I agree with you that there is a difference between ignorance and stupid. You are certainly ignorant (by your own admission). I have never called you "stupid".

To understand Special Relativity (or General Relativity for that matter) you need both knowledge and intelligence. Real scientists have both. You have admitted to lacking knowledge, you have never put the time to study the topic in depth.

3. You started this thread to insult real scientists. Instead of attacking modern science, you could be learning more about it.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafoole wrote:

I stand on the shoulders of many who have gone before me."

Really, you are quoting Isaac Newton in your attack on Physicists.? Are you also the "way the truth and the life"?

That is laughable. Isaac Newton was highly educated in math and science. He was part of the scientific community that you are calling "cultists". By saying that is "stood on the shoulders of giants" he is saying that in his education and in the work that he did to become a great Physicists himself he actually studied and understood the work of people before him.

Isaac Newton is a perfect example of the very type of Science that you are attacking . He was deeply mathematical. He studied day and night. And he did the hard work coming up with his ideas and presenting them to the scientific community.

What you are suggesting is that scientists shouldn't do any work learning or studying. You think scientists don't need to do experiments, or prove their mathematics to the community or do the hard work of discovery.

You are just an uneducated person coming up with ideas that seem right to you with understanding of mathematics or the current state of science.

That wasn't Isaac Newton.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

About Information:
If it’s just the idea that light cant travel faster than light, (which is your version of the word “information”, then there is no need for Physicists to mention it.

Sound and light are both forms of information, but they move at different speeds.

Quote:

But actually “Information” in Physics is not just Light. They claim that when light is destroyed by being drawn into a black hole, never to escape, they claim that ALL of the information is NOT destroyed, no, its all collected on a two dimensional surface that is like a sphere surrounding the black hole. “Information” is never destroyed, only the Light is.

That's an exotic issue that doesn't add anything to this current discussion.

Quote:

So clearly they are talking about something totally different than you.
In fact, they claim that ANYTHING sucked into a black hole, leaves its information on that 2d spherical surface. (like a bubble with no thickness)
Once again, this has nothing to do with SR.

So why bring it up?

Quote:

Quote: “The directionality/sequence of temporal events can't be reversed/scrambled, only compressed.”
Again, this is your twist to Einstein’s claims. Einstein says something different.
Einstein’s train going into a barn that is shorter than the train, "thought experiment", shows that for some observers those barn doors are opening and closing with a different SEQUENCE than for other observers. So its not just that the train gets compressed.

I'm not familiar with this. Can you explain it?

Quote:

Quote: “I can see how you would say this if the theory is misinterpreted in the way you describe.”
Here is my accurate description of SR: Please correct it if it’s wrong, then we can proceed.
1, Observer X, observing a moving object (Y) will measure that object has changed, (a) length, (b) Mass, and (c) its Time rate is slower.
2. Measurements made on the object will not detect any such change.
3. Other observers (J, K, L) moving differently to the X, will get totally different measurements for Y.
4. The changes are not just perceived changes, or distortions due to perspective or point of view, No, the object actually physically shrinks, gets more massive and its Time is slower.
5. conversely, an observer on the moving object Y, will notice that the
Lengths, Mass and Time for objects X, J, K and L will shrink or dilate because observer Y can consider himself as being Stationary.
Please comment on my summary of SR.

What does it mean for an object to "actually physically shrink, gain mass, and slow temporally" except relative to other things it is compared with (i.e. measured in comparison with)?

If a clock appears to slow, it is relative to some other clock in a different situation of motion and/or gravity, and then the issue is which clock's speed has changed and which hasn't. How would you assume that your wrist watch's speed changed but not the clock on Earth you view through a telescope, or that Earth's clock speed changed while your wrist watch continued running at the same rate?

Quote:

Q. What is most reasonable, or what is most likely? A or B?
I note that you also have failed to answer this simple question, The allowed answers are either A or B, not some ramble that is befitting of a Politician.
Try to answer it please, either A or B....which do you choose?

You compare what I say to a politician, but your "either A or B" is like something an interrogator would say to effectuate the desired answer.

All I can do is discuss why/how you and I think these physics issues work. If you have reasons to think Einstein is wrong, I can consider those; but not if I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what you're criticizing. Likewise, if you think I am fundamentally misunderstanding something, how can you establish that what I'm saying is valid, i.e. if someone like Maxadona posts that I am a totally misled person without academic scientific education and therefore that anything I say must necessarily be wrong, e.g. that 2+2=4.

Quote:

Quote: “They don't change for the objects themselves. They only appear to change from the perspective of an external observer.”
Well you don’t believe in Einstein’s SR then, because for Einstein physical length, physical Mass and real Time all physically change with velocity.
I thought you were 100% accepting of Einstein’s theories, but apparently you don’t accept them.
If Einstein meant that the changes in Length and Mass were just illusionary, then Time dilation would be just illusionary too, but no expert in Special Relativity says that its all just an illusion. The changes are real. (according to the theory)
And how did you put the rectangle around the quoted stuff in you last comment?

I didn't say they weren't real changes. I said that they don't change for the people in the moving spaceship.

Time actually is moving at different rates for the same observer. It is because time can move at different rates from the same perspective that allows time to remain constant for an observer within their own inertial frame.

So, for you as an observer of a blueshifted object whose time has sped up from your perspective due to it moving toward you, time has actually sped up for that object within your observed universe.

Time is elapsing at different rates in different places depending on gravity and speed; but that doesn't mean it is the same for different observers observing it from different vantage points moving at some speed and experiencing some gravity.

You could have the same wrist watch telling time for you on the launch pad, and then it would continue telling time for you in orbit, and then it would continue telling time for you when you accelerated to half the speed of light, etc. Throughout your entire journey, your wrist watch would continue telling time at the same rate for you in your local frame, but from the perspective of observers elsewhere, they would measure your rate of time changing depending on your speed and/or gravitational situation.

Do you think I am misunderstanding Einstein's theory as I am describing this? E.g. it is often said that GPS satellites have to compensate for time rate differences between orbit and the ground, but do you think that means an astronaut in orbit experiences their own local time at a different rate, or that they measure time on the ground as elapsing at a different rate relative to their wrist watch, which is running at the same rate for them where they are?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I read your M&M story, and agree with it, now I'm waiting for the follow up. You left off with the statement that M&M failed to detect any Aether.
I agreed.
Whats next?
Also, I am claiming that I know as much about Einsteins SR as you do, and even more apparently, as you have missed the errors.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Look Dude, your scientific community, (the authorized committee of self praising scientists) does not OWN Newton.
His ideas don't belong to you.
In fact, if Newton was alive today, he would most likely laugh out loud over the theories of Parallel Universes, BigBang, "Universe is a Hologram" and countless other off the wall claims.
No matter how much you study error, it does not become truth.

0 Replies

@justafool44,

What happened next is that the Physicists saw the basic contradiction in the current set of theories. They abandoned them once it became clear that their previous understanding didn't fit the data.

That is how science works. This is the reason that scientists have to

1) Be skilled in mathematics.
2) Understand the science up to the day.
3) Accept that when experimental data and mathematical results contradict intuition, the science always goes with the experimental data.

The scientists of the time were left with the same dilemma that you are now left with. You believed said that there was a "medium" through which light travelled that provides a set frame of reference. They believed that true.

You stated clearly that under your understanding, light will travel at different speeds as the observer changes speed and direction. Michelson Morely was specifically designed to detect this (since at the time they agreed with you). They failed.

The scientists were educated and skillful enough to see their current model was no longer correct, and open minded enough to look for a better model.

This is the type of Science that you are attacking.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

You are stuck in a view of science from 130 years ago. Science has moved on. Scientists have asked questions, done experiments, had debates, set up tests and made discoveries.

Scientists are clearly open minded to new ideas and progress. You reject all the progress of modern science and refer to "modern scientists" as "religious cultists". I think you are the closed minded one. I keep suggesting that you study math, and take real Physics courses. You reject this, you don't even want to learn.

Just to be clear, I am not taking you seriously any more. I am going to periodically post my warning on these discussions so that people won't confuse what you are doing with actual science.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

You brought up "information", Im saying its not SR.
Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGsbBw1I0Rg&t=1s
from 3:30 about the train in a tunnel. That shows that the sequence of barn doors opening is different depending on who is watching, its not sequential.
At one place, observer 1 says that both doors are open, or closed, but the other observer says that only one door is open, and that both doors cant be closed at the same time.
This is messing up the sequence of events.

I think my description of SR is accurately portraying what Einstein claims.
I just asked you to choose between what Einstein claims and option B, "he is probably wrong somewhere".
Not a hard question. Not a trick question.
Quote: "I didn't say they weren't real changes. I said that they don't change for the people in the moving spaceship.".
Oh but they ARE REAL changes for the people in the spaceship, but those people just don't know it! They cant measure or notice the change, but Einstein says they really have changed. This is where you are getting SR wrong.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

That is how science works. This is the reason that scientists have to

1) Be skilled in mathematics.
2) Understand the science up to the day.
3) Accept that when experimental data and mathematical results contradict intuition, the science always goes with the experimental data.

Everything you say about science is based on social ideas about science as a community of people with cultural traditions. The whole point of science is not to assume things are valid based on cultural/traditional assumptions, so you are taking what science is supposed to transcend and making science into its own cultural tradition with conformism and mindless/uncritical submission to dogma.

Stop destroying science by insisting that it is exactly what it is supposed to transcend.

Quote:

You stated clearly that under your understanding, light will travel at different speeds as the observer changes speed and direction. Michelson Morely was specifically designed to detect this (since at the time they agreed with you). They failed.

They assumed that the medium, if it existed, must rotate together with the Earth.

Look at NASA's graphics showing how solar wind currents, coronal mass ejections, etc. move around the solar system. There is clearly a medium for light, but Einstein might be right that it doesn't matter because light moves through it at the same speed regardless of how it is moving.

I could be wrong that Einstein was right, but I think I am right about the fact that M&M were overreaching when they assumed that if light has a medium, it must rotate together with the Earth. That was a common-sense assumption that may have cut off a line of research that otherwise would have led to fruitful analysis of the kind of data NASA is collecting today using solar observations.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

And I'm going to post warnings to other readers that you are a science Nazi.
Why don't you let other people think for themselves?, Oh I know, its because "thinking for yourself " is not your Scientific way!

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

And I'm going to post warnings to other readers that you are a science Nazi.
Why don't you let other people think for themselves?, Oh I know, its because "thinking for yourself " is not your Scientific way!

Saying this to him is just going to get him going on insisting that 'real scientists' do this and that and discussing everything except science itself.

He basically wants to obstruct discussion of science outside of academia, where it generates economic activity - i.e. because he's a socialist more concerned about economic control than about having free public discourse about science.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Here is you error: Please correct it than proceed with the M&M discussion, and what it means.
Error: Quote: "there was a "medium" through which light travelled that provides a set frame of reference"... Cite one physicists of M&M's day that mentioned in a paper about the detection of the Aether that mentions "a set frame of reference".
M&M never wanted to establish a "frame of reference" absolute or otherwise. They were only trying to detect an Aether. Period. The assumed "Aether Wind" should have been detectable with their inadequate equipment was their goal.

You repeat this twisting and misrepresentation of the actual Science experiment, with the statement, " light will travel at different speeds as the observer changes speed and direction--Michelson Morely was specifically designed to detect this".
It was not ever designed and indeed was incapable of detecting if light could go at different speeds UNLESS THERE REALLY WAS AN AETHER. and that Light was going to move slower when heading into that aether wind. 3 very big assumptions to prove in one basement experiment involving the Universe.

You claim there is no Aether, so the experiment cant possibly detect any change of light speed due to Aether Wind, and that the result they got.

So what are you claiming now exactly?
Seems that spinning a torch around in basement would reveal exactly the same results, the light would strike all 4 walls. hardly grounds to base a whole Physics ground breaking theory on is it?

0 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know