Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@livinglava,

Quote:

This is a discussion forum. Different people have different takes on things and understand things in different ways and try to make sense to each other.

This is a thread about science. It is very clear that you don't know what you are talking about. That is what makes it nonsense.

You have a right to have a "different take" on science. But then it is no longer science. I reject the idea that random people can make up their own ideas about science. That isn't how science works.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
This is a discussion forum. Different people have different takes on things and understand things in different ways and try to make sense to each other.

This is a thread about science. It is very clear that you don't know what you are talking about. That is what makes it nonsense.

It is not science to just declare that what someone is saying is nonsense. You might be reading it wrong or misunderstanding the language because your language/reasoning skills are limited. If you have a problem with something I said, quote it and explain what's wrong with it. Otherwise your opinion doesn't count.

Quote:

You have a right to have a "different take" on science. But then it is no longer science. I reject the idea that random people can make up their own ideas about science. That isn't how science works.

When you say that someone 'has a different take on science,' all that does is groundlessly imply that you know what is science and you assume what someone else says about something is 'a take on science' and not an explanation that's true.

You keep playing rhetorical games using words like, 'science,' 'take,' etc. but you don't post any actual discussion about the science you are talking about.

Therefore your posts are just groundless attacks on other posters that imply that the people/posts you're talking about are bad, but without and explanation/grounding/proof that you have any clue that you actually understand any science yourself.

You're like a student who complains they aren't learning because the teacher doesn't teach. At such a general level, a teacher can't defend the fact that they are in fact teaching. The student might not be listening to and/or understanding a word the teacher says, and then saying that 'the teacher doesn't teach,' is just an excuse that shifts blame. Blaming is all you do. If you want to talk about science, do so. If not, stop talking about science without actually talking about any science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Bill, did you run across Lagrangian Mechanics (or the Lagrangian in general?).

They sprung this on us, I think in them 3rd year undergraduate studies. I hated them.

It been too many decades for me to know one way or another if those concepts was cover or not.

I gotten in trouble however for using concepts learn in one subject area an applying it in another subject area.

I once used a laplace transformation that I had learn in an electronic course to solve a test question in a math course and gotten my correct answer mark completely wrong due the math class did not having covered the Laplace method.

I kind of see the professor point of view however there was no indication that we was limited to any one method other then not cheating to solve the problems an to this day I regret not protesting not being awarded the credit for that right answer.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

When they threw the Langrangian, I had mastered Newtonian Mechanics. I could discuss orbits in terms of hyperbolas, and do statics and systems and figure out the reference frames for sets of particles). I had developed a nice intuition for the things (from doing thousands of problem sets) and my mind was comfortable.

So then they throw a completely new way to look at Mechanics. I found it annoying. "The Lagrangian" produces the exact same results! There is intuitive reason for the Lagrangian to come up with the same results and no easy way to map from one system to the other. It just worked.... all that intuition was gone!

It turns out that LaGrange can solve some problems with relative ease that are quite difficult to solve the "old way" although you can confirm the solutions.

It is actually useful to have more than one framework you can use to solve problems. And, that was the real message I took from that class. Of course, later on in my studies the Lagrangian came back and had a different use.

0 Replies

Here's one criterion for being able to correct the world's physicists regarding state of the art physics. Anyone who cannot solve a typical high school physics problem is not qualified to correct the world scientific community. So, I will personally give the next person here who has no physics background, but claims to be on an even footing with people with physics degrees a typical high school physics problem of a type that thousands of high school students around the world do for homework every day.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Here's one criterion for being able to correct the world's physicists regarding state of the art physics. Anyone who cannot solve a typical high school physics problem is not qualified to correct the world scientific community. So, I will personally give the next person here who has no physics background, but claims to be on an even footing with people with physics degrees a typical high school physics problem of a type that thousands of high school students around the world do for homework every day.

Sound like fun to me how about being kind enough to post a few such problems so I for one could then judge how must of my knowledge had gone away over the decades.

By the way can anyone remember if it was Einstein first or second wife who was a physic major herself and who aided him in doing some of the calculations behind his theories?

For one of the greatest nerds of all time he had an interesting private life.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Talking about tests one of my major achievements was almost giving all my classmates whole scale heart attacks by coming into the classroom early before a final test was schedule in vector mechanics and placing on the class blackboard some very very outrageous problems I had come up with.

Love how the other students came into the class and turn white when they saw the problems they was assuming was part of the final test.

Of course when the professor came in an saw the problems he said what is that and erase them from the board to place his own problems that was more reasonable then the monster problems I had come up with.

I was trying not to laugh as my fellow classmates begin to breathe once more.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

...By the way can anyone remember if it was Einstein first or second wife who was a physic major herself and who aided him in doing some of the calculations behind his theories?...

Mileva, his first wife.

I'll probably post some elementary mechanics problem at about the high school or freshman college level later today. My point being that anyone who cannot do a physics problem such as thousands of high school students do every day for their classes should shut up about correcting the world physics community.

0 Replies

Seems that the original topic has been lost. This was supposed to be a place where educated people could try to explain how to explain SR in a rational, logical manner.
Ive yet to encounter such a person.
Are none of the members here up to this task?

2 Replies

@justafool44,

The task is teaching special relativity to people who don't understand high school physics, who have no interest in learning, and think all Jews are liars.

I admit it. I am not up to the task.

0 Replies

@justafool44,

For what it's worth, Justy, you're absolutely right. SR is physically, even if not mathematically and logically, self-refuting. I could say exactly why any time, but it'a not worth the time, because the non-thinkers would never even consider the possibility that the great Einstein could be wrong or that their profs didn't know exactly what they are talking about, their bluster and self-certitude notwithstanding.

But, after years of self-delusion SR is again being openly questioned by reputable physicists (it has been all along, but only by a few "brave" souls who were willing to put up with the abuse they knew would follow). It is based upon subjective, even solipsistic, premises which are decidedly unscientific..

1 Reply

@layman,

Which "reputable Physicists" are you talking about?

The problem you anti-science folks have is that the experimental evidence keeps supporting the science. It is not just that the math works out mathematically. It is also predicts how the Universe acts through observation and experiment.

The rejection of relativity is almost always from people who don't understand it.

Are you a flat Earther, Layman? Those are the truly brave souls.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Which "reputable Physicists" are you talking about?

.It is also predicts how the Universe acts through observation and experiment.

The rejection of relativity is almost always from people who don't understand it.

1. Dr. George Smoot, Nobel prize winner (in physics) from Stanford, to mention just one.

2. No, it does not and this has been clearly shown by such examples as the hafele keating experiment from decades ago. It was noted by the authors, but subsequently distorted by just about everyone who actually read their paper. For that matter, the inconsistency of SR with empirical evidence is demonstrated daily the by GPS.

3. On the contrary, the acceptance of relativity is almost always by people who don't understand it (on the level of theoretical physics), as strange as that may sound.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Dr. George Smoot, Nobel prize winner (in physics) from Stanford, to mention just one.

Could you provide a link please where he questions relativity?

The George Smoot who won the Nobel prize teaches a course on General Relativity at UC Berkeley.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

For that matter, the inconsistency of SR with empirical evidence is demonstrated daily the by GPS.

You might want to tell this to the people who use General Relativity to design the GPS system. (This claim always cracks me up.)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Could you provide a link please where he questions relativity?

Sure. But like I said, I really don't want to get into this with anyone who is incapable of (re) thinking their entrenched opinion of SR. It's a complete waste of time.

Quote:

The CMB dipole anisotropy stands out by two orders of magnitude above any other CMB anisotropies.

We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic. The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmology work.

As a matter of practice the CMB (which has since been called the "rest frame of the universe") has, for many decades, been routinely utilized by astronomers, astro-physicists, and cosmologists as a preferred frame of reference.

Quote:

To our surprise the direction of motion determined from these observations was not aligned with the orbital motion of the Solar System around the Galaxy. Instead it was nearly in the opposite direction. That means that our Galaxy, in fact the whole local group of galaxies, is moving with a speed of more than one million miles per hour.

A big question at the time was what was causing that motion? A proposed answer was it was the effect of the gravitational pull of the "Great Attractor". The "Great Attractor" was postulated to explain our motion and its predicted location was near to our Galactic plane so that it would have been obscured by stars and dust....This is good evidence that Galileo is right - the Earth does go around the Sun.

https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/#:~:text=

Yes, indeed Galileo was decidedly right, even though his premises contradict those of SR. SR adherents often cite Galileo as "proving" SR, but, once again, they don't even understand what he actually said.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
For that matter, the inconsistency of SR with empirical evidence is demonstrated daily the by GPS.

You might want to tell this to the people who use General Relativity to design the GPS system. (This claim always cracks me up.)

I didn't say a word about GR. I am talking about SR. The GPS does indeed confirm GR's stance on time distortion due to gravity. However, in GR that distortion is absolute, not relative, (unlike in SR)

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

.The GPS does indeed confirm GR's stance on time distortion due to gravity. However, in GR that distortion is absolute, not relative, (unlike in SR)

The theoretical model used in the GPS is based on the premise that time distortion due to differences in speed (not gravitation) is also absolute, not relative, as SR would have it.

In this context I am equating "absolute" with "frame independent" and "relative" with "frame dependent."

0 Replies

When he wrote his 1905 paper on special relatively, Einstein was an avid devotee of Ernst Mach's "positivist" philosophy of science. Al later completely rejected, and even ridiculed, Mach's premises.

But even Mach, proto-positivist that he was, said (paraphrasing): "The geocentric and heliocentric views are equally valid. But the universe is only given once."

What he was saying, in essence, was the the two views cannot be "equally valid" in actual practice. They are mutually exclusive. Al ignored this passage from Mach, and claimed the the two alternative views were, in fact, "equally valid" as a matter of physical "reality" That's where he went fundamentally wrong.

Al himself was never satisfied with SR, which he felt was inadequate on a number of grounds. He called it a "desperate, if inadequate," attempt to resolve a particularly critical theoretical problem in physics at the time.

0 Replies

For the record, I do not claim that any of the critiques I am submitting are novel or a product of my exclusive "insight." All these criticisms were made by prominent physicists long before I was even born.

Although at one time I thought that SR was one of the most ingenious theories ever created, in the back of my mind I also knew that things weren't quite adding up. Those doubts grew the more I reflected on them, and I started seeking out alternate views, such as those espoused by Lorentz (from whom Einstein stole, whole cloth, the "lorentz transformations").

Only then did things start to make actual (as opposed to superficial) sense. The deficiencies in SR were pointed out from the time it was proposed, and they were, and remain, valid. However, for a variety of fortuitous historical reasons, SR eventually became the accepted "dogma" amongst physicists.

A very unfortunate development for the progress of science, that was.

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know