Einstein Frames of Reference illusion

The problem here is an ignorance of basic Physics starting with Isaac Newton and Galileo. There is nothing shameful with ignorance, it just means you don't understand something. It is a something that you can fix, if you take the time to learn something.

The problem here is that you are unwilling to learn. You have ideas that are wrong (and there is nothing wrong with that). But you are stubbornly holding on to them without even trying to learn.

I taught Physics in both high school and college. There are millions of students who go through the education system and come out with an expertise in Physics. The process is pretty much the same.

1) You start with Newton. We don't just teach the "facts" of Newton... we are teaching to do the math.

2) In college Physics when we teach Newton, we don't ask the students to accept anything on faith. Everything is mathematically derived and testable. There are some tricky things where the results are counter-intuitive, but each student can (and does) check the math for themselves. Each student learns to make predictions and then test them to confirm that the theories match reality.

3) When studying Newton, a student develops a feel for concepts Frames of Reference. These are mathematical concepts, but it is helpful to have the experience of working through the problems yourself so you can develop a real understanding. When you are solving problems, any misunderstanding you have will get corrected because the problem will unsolvable until you change your understanding.

4) Only after mastering Newton to students go on to Einstein. There is an important reason for this. You can't possibly understand Einstein without understanding Newton.

5) The reason that educated people believe Einstein is because we understand the theory and we understand the math and we know how Einstein's theories can be tested by experiment.

JustaFool has some basic misunderstandings that have nothing to do with Einstein. He is repeating words about length contraction, and mass etc. without understanding what experiments he could do to test them.

I have been through the process of learning Physics as a student (I have done the work, solved the problems, worked through the difficult concepts, done the labs). I went though the process as a teacher.

Someone who hasn't been through the process is just spouting nonsense. On these threads, you will notice that I always bring the conversation back to Newton. JustaFool is wrong because he misunderstandings basic high school Physics, and there is no way for him to learn until he corrects the problems he has with Newton.

He seems unwilling to do this.

I don't think JustaFool understands length contraction. Length contraction happens when you convert one frame of reference to another. To understand what this means, we need to go back to Isaac Newton and see what happens when we convert one frame of reference to another.

Once you understand... then you can explain an experiment. These experiments involve taking measurements in different frames of reference. I have done these experiments using diffraction and laser light (every college Physics student does them). If length contraction didn't happen, then the math shows that the diffraction will detect a difference between FORs. One repeatable experimental result to the contrary, and Einsteins theory will be disproved.

JustaFool is talking about things that he doesn't understand. I can't even talk about experiments with him.

The Education System works for Physics. We all go through this process of learning science by experiment. I love Physics because everything is testable, I don't have to take anything on faith and nothing is a matter of opinion.

The experiments say what is true, and the experiments work the same way for everyone.

If you want to understand Physics (and particularly if you want to disprove Einstein) you have to go through the process of education. It takes work to do this, but it is the only way to learn how science actually works. Sorry.

It matters not.
Einsteins hypothesis was accepted as a total replacement for classical Physics of Newton, Galileo because the classical theory was a "wrong model".
Einsteins model it is claimed, is totally correct for ALL SPEEDS, from stopped right through to light speed.
So there is no excuse now to ever be still using classical physics because the theory has been replaced.
"Close enough" is not good science, an we have computers to do the math for us. Einsteins relativistic equations could even be built into the calculator functions on your mobile phone, but the are not.

Our teacher friend with all that experience and knowledge, with the work of the greatest genius Physicist ever, and the full support of the whole academic community behind him, has quit this discussion.
Why? Because I am so stupid that I cant follow these simplistic ideas?
No, that's not the reason.
He never once even attempted to explain exactly the mechanism, the Physical forces and processes that could cause an object to shrink, only in one direction, and only for a remote observer, not for the observer on the shrinking object. The exact same forces, ( and it must take a force or energy)
must also be responsible for causing the object to gain Mass, (not momentum, that's not Mass, nor is Energy mass) despite te object now having a smaller volume. And the exact same physical force is somehow also responsible for causing the Time, only as seen by the remote observer, to have dilated fir the remote object.
Finally and hardest of all, the shrinking, the dilation and the gain of Mass that actually does happen to the remote object, will give totally different results for every other observer simply on account of the fact that each remote observer has a different relative speed, or even just a different location.

If you believe this, above the much more reasonable conclusion that somewhere Einstein's hypothesis contains a critical error, then you are quite irrational.
This teacher guy, and your Professor have repeated the same end result that I've come across about a dozen times personally, when dealing with academics that claim to possess the superior knowledge of Einstein, yet in every case, (two were Particle Physicists) they end up running away, and none try to address the issues I raise.
Their only defense ends up being that I'm such a moron that its a wonder I can brush my teeth, I'm so stupid.
I actually can brush my teeth all on my own, and I may be stupid, but still I expect that the experts should be able to provide a really solid, full explanation for every aspect of the Theory that has overturned Classical Physics.
(the classical Physics that they still teach, and test you on, and which every scientist and physicist still uses daily. The classical Physics that NASA used to design rockets, and send them into deep space...)

But despite the fact that I've asked and challenged many experts, none has ever even attempted a reply. No books have been written, no Papers submitted for publication.
Education is a big business, and the institutions have a vested interest to keep full and absolute control. They do this because kids are easiest to control when fully indoctrinated.
You can never challenge their authority, or you will get kicked out, fail to get your degree, and have no job opportunities.
And I still never got to move on to all the other problems with Einsteins work.

So you have "challenged" many experts. But you haven't taken a simple course in Physics?

Go to your local community college and sign up for a course in basic Physics. You would learn a lot.

Wow you are particularly slow to catch on.
Which part of Newtons or Galileo's ideas about motion do you imagine I can't understand?
I've already given you my sound rational reasons why I'm not interested in moving into Math or Experiments at this stage, but you cant accept this.
If its true that there is some aspect of Classical Physics that I have missed, then just tell me what it is.
There is no need to use Math,, just tell me what I don't understand.
The real reason why you want to jump into Math, is because its then that Einstein can begins to use deception, and mathematically generate a false result, due to a twisted basic understanding of the underlying Physics.
To get to Einstein's irrational conclusions of Mass Increase, etc, you can ONLY get there my using the twisted equations he derives. You can never get there by just explaining whats supposed to happen.
This is why after all these communications you have danced all aver the place, but always carefully avoided actually just answering my simple questions.

And I specifically requested that we don't address any claimed supporting experimental evidence until we critically examine Einstein's actual claims.

Actually there is not one experiment that can be considered a slam dunk, solid, unquestionable piece of evidence in support of Einstein, that does not also have other explanations from Classical Physics.
Supporting evidence is never able to constitute Proof.
You have been through the mill of the education system and come out the other side with a mass produced brain, unable to think for yourself and totally one eyed.
THE ONLY WAY you can explain Relativity is to mechanically step through the EXACT sequence of logic and math that was drilled into you at school by rote learning. You have become a little tape recording of the instructions of your superiors.

I asked you to give a non mathematical explanation of Relativity, and you CANT DO IT. (one that makes sense)

Now I use "frames of reference" every time I design something, I use them more that you have! If I did not understand classical Physics I could not do my job.

Every teacher can give me a verbal, succinct, accurate and sensible account of Classical Physics principals, BUT NOT ONE CAN EXPLAIN EINSTEINS SPECIAL RELATIVITY is a similar manner.

No, you have to do it exactly this way, you step by step lead the naive and trusting student through a deceptive maize of irrational nonsense, all the while reminding him that it was the worlds greatest Genius who figured it out, and all those experiments! So shut up and calculate! Who are you to even ask a question?

So ether front up with that explanation or admit that you can not explain SR unless I go along with you through the exact same sequence of twisted math that you have been literally brainwashed with.

It no wonder Tesla said that bit about "Physicists inventing equation after equation that bear no resemblance to reality...."

I expect a big put down of Tesla now... as if that is somehow an answer to my questions.

I don't want to talk about your experiments. Not until you do some explaining.
If we don't have a solid understanding of what we are trying to demonstrate, then experiments are of no value.

Newton says that the length of an object remains exactly the same irrespective of its relative speed. And Time is unaffected, and certainly Mass remains exactly the same.
I understand that very very well.

Now move on to what Einsteins thinks....

And you never did that experiment in 'different frames of reference" at all!
The whole time you were in the Uni Lab, along with all your equipment, IN THE ONE IMAGINARY FRAME!. To actually test light with an interferometer, you need to have the interferometer on Earth, and you need to whizz past at close to light speed, shining a laser pulse into the equipment, THEN you are working with two different frames of reference! (and get a solid result too, not some 10 to the minus 37 type SFA result.
ALL of Einstein's supporting evidence results are always in the SFA range. (sweet f*#k all)

One repeatable experiment? The Sagnac effect Gyroscope "records" a fringe shift as the "frame of reference' changes, thus demonstrating that Einstein is wrong.

But I want that explanation explaining what I missed with classical Physics, and then how SR actually makes things shrink.

You really are not getting this.
I've gone through every series of lectures by the most prominent Yale, Stanford, MIT professors, on the subject of SR.
There is not a chance in hell that the local University can add anything to these courses.
I've watched the lectures, paused, done the math, followed along, repeated the viewing DOZENS of times, I probably have spent more time on it than you have.
But the same errors are made by every lecturer. ALL of them are top recognized Physics professors, the best. (not that this should matter)

They ALL jump quickly into the MATH before they can explain WHY.
In fact, the ONLY way to get to SR is via the MATH route.
Rational explanation for SR is IMPOSSIBLE.

And this is why you cant answer my questions.

You insist that I follow you like a child down the garden path, with a promise of a candy.

So explain or just admit that you can not.

Is THIS what your issue is? That you don't understand Special Relativity?

Here ya go: Special Relativity Simplified

No math, easy language, educational... Give it a go.

I get it....

You have an ongoing feud with real Physicists that you have apparently carried across multiple platforms. You tell the real Physicists that they are wrong, and they don't take you seriously. I suppose I am just another part in your long standing battle against Physicists.

Your comment about Tesla made me laugh because you are right. Most real Physicists don't consider Tesla to be a real scientist and generally feel he is overhyped. I am no different... but you have apparently already had this discussion. I am just another in a long line of people with Physics degrees that you have picked fights with.

No, YOU don't understand it. I fully understand it, and know why its nonsense.

Whats the point of sending me to a site that just repeats the same old nonsense?

Who all fail to explain the simple question I ask.
Great, so you are happy to be included in the big club of failures?

Yes absolutely. My "big club of failures" (i.e. people with science PhDs) have created wifi, shrunk computers down to the size of watches, built supersonic airplanes, and landed robots on Mars.

I am very happy to be included.

I'm not and never have claimed that Physics or Science is wrong. I'm only claiming that Special Relativity is wrong, THAT is where you are all failures.
Stop claiming that I'm saying things that I never have.
Can you try to answer the question now?
Yes or No?

You are attacking "Yale, Stanford and MIT professors". All of them apparently tried to explain it to you.

Millions of students learn basic Physics every year. There is no reason why you can't learn basic Physics either.

If you don't learn basic Physics, then no, I can not answer your questions. The answers depend on basic Physics. If you are unwilling to learn... then no one can answer your questions.

I was kind enough to point out your immediate problem (that you don't understand how Frames of Reference work under Classical Physics and Newton). Instead of saying "oh.... let me work on that", you just kept going. My high school students got it just fine... I am pretty sure you could learn if you wanted to.

No, none tried to explain what I asked, including you.

Truth is not judged by the number of people who believe.
Once everyone believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe, EVERYONE, but turns out they were all wrong!


Which part of "I understand classical and Relativistic versions of Frames of Reference", don't you get?

I get it, but I don' agree with how you came to the conclusions and assumptions that you made in order to get there.

And this is why I've reduced the issue down to just one simple question, which you are clearly incapable of answering.

So stop claiming that there is some big mystery about this simplistic Physics that I don't understand.

You will never understand yourself as long as you have a "set in stone " approach to this topic.

You cant even consider that you may just possibly have something wrong somewhere, can you?

This is NOT what Scientists keep telling me, that ANY Theory can at some stage be discovered to be wrong, but NO, not Einstein's wacky ideas, THEY alone are never able to be wrong, and anyone who has an issue with Einstein MUST therefore be a quack.
And as 'McGentrix' reported, His Professor just said, "That guy is a quack, he's just wrong, so don't read what he says". Shut-up, ask no questions about this, and do the math exercises. Einsteins is right because we say so, don't question us, we are the authority. The learned Professor never attempted to answer the questions.

That is not a Scientific approach, its not learning well, and its more akin to a religious doctrine.

Science is about experiments.

The reason that Einstein is right (and you are wrong) is that real Physicists have theories. They have said "If Einstein is wrong, then we will see these experimental results". Then they run the experiment or make the observation, and time and time the most intelligent Physicists in the world have failed to show experimental results that Einstein is wrong.

Any scientific fact that I believe... I can make a similar statement. As part of my education I was trained to test my beliefs. So any thing I believe to be scientifically true I must be able to explain an experimental result that would disprove my belief.

One reason I know you aren't a scientist is that you have never provided an experimental way that could show any one of your "ideas" to be wrong. You keep on inventing terms like "illusion" or "apparent" without any experiment that would distinguish between an "apparent" velocity and any other type of velocity.

This is why educated Physicists don't take you seriously. You come up with crazy idea that aren't testable, and you allow for no way to prove you wrong. Real scientists are always testing their ideas, and they will tell you themselves what experimental data would prove their theories wrong.

Science is NOT about experiments.
It must first begin with observations, which lead to explanations as to what seems to be happening.
IF, and only if the explanation is RATIONAL, LOGICAL, without contradictions and obvious errors, THEN, and only then, can you begin to think about a possible experiment that could support your explanation.
Science includes experiments AFTER the hypothesis is critically examined.

You at this stage are refusing to examine the hypothesis.

Also, you have no valid experiment that has conclusively supported Einstein's theories, that also can't be explained in other ways.
That is one reason why experimental evidence can never be considered as proof. You know that.

And I don't have any hypothesis to promote. I'm ONLY looking critically at Einstein's claims.

I see that he fails to provide an experiment that can clearly show he is wrong.

So, as I've said god knows how many times, we must begin at the hypothesis, is it rational, error free and contain no errors?
The answer is NO.

And finally, I'm not standing here alone with some new crackpot theory if my own.
Many others (actual PhD Professors) have written about the errors of Einstein, and none have been really shown to be wrong.

A lot of running around in a big circle is the usual rebuttal.

So, No, your are jumping the gun, skipping over the mistakes and deceptive language of Einstein's hypothesis, and insisting that I instead just do your Math, and look at your experiments, (whilst ignoring the alternative explanations)

If , IF you had a decent argument to make for Relativity, you've had plenty of opportunity to explain it here, but you haven't even attempted it.

So, last time, can you explain SR's answer to my question or not?
It's yes or no.
Go ahead, pretend that I do understand Newtons Frames of Reference if you like, but just explain what I asked, at least attempt it.