Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[OceanBreeze]

It seems that nobody took seriously what I wrote, which is a foundational knowledge in neurosciences:

 

 

If GTR has to be true, it has to pass not only tests derived from instruments, but by human senses also.

 

Humans, and most of mammals, have an extremely accuraty sensorial system for motion, acceleration and spatial location.

 

It's called the Vestibular System, which works with differential values and has precision beyond the current technology (learn about

CIA's funded General Dynamics robots).

 

Either standing on the enclosure, or being sat at a chair, a human can easily differentiate between both instances. So, for humans (something

that Einstein forgot to include) the "equivalence principle" is absolutely false.

 

And so, the general theory of relativity.

 

 

I put the simplest link here, so anyone can learn more about this absolutely incredible system.

This system is the nightmare of neurologists, because its failures can't be easily differentiated

from neurological diseases and causes dizziness, falling over, vertigo and many more problems

that transform a person's life into a living hell.

 

https://en.wikipedia...stibular_system

 

 

 

As you can see, at our inner ear we have the vestibular system, which is an organic instrument that

we have to process (along with the limbic system) motion, position and acceleration.

 

The sensitivity of this system is incremented by its differential measurements (both ears), data which is

processed deep into our brain (primary cortex) and that is used for stabilization when we turn our heads.

The processes of the vestibular system are autonomous and run as an "organic analog computer", for which

we are not normally aware of its operation, but it works permanently.

 

The sensitivity to gravity and motion is enormous and, if we are voluntarily focused into the sensorial task, we

can provide information to our visual system (50% of our brain power) in order to focuse a point under random

movement (and acceleration) times better that a Go Pro cam.

 

If a person is sat at the "Einstein's elevator"  AND IS AWARE, he or she easily can differentiate between gravity

(null result, as we automatically discount it) and fake upward acceleration, SPECIALLY if we walk within the elevator.

 

Read more about this, as it is an entire branch of neurology and is VITAL for our survival.

 

And if you want to get "hard data", just do as scientists are doing since mid XIX century. Use a CAT and plant electrodes

at key areas of the brain, where ELECTRICAL signals from the vestibular system arrives.

 

Then, put the cat (not the Schrodinger's cat) either on the ground or into an elevator and tell me if the neuro-information

changes. Of course, we can't tap the limbic system (which complements the action of the vestibular system by coupling it

to primal emotions), but if we could we would be able to understand how the effect of motion expands and is amplified into

our brain, generating feelings like dizziness, uncomfortable feelings, etc.

 

I repeat: Einstein the genious should have known better instead of parloting around about equivalences and convincing

lesser strong minds (not less intelligent, but weaker) that he was right. He was a better psychologist than a physicist, because

he used the ancient art of sophism to overcame people's rational thought processes. He was the king of the supression of

cognitive dissonances, as an hipnotizer does.

 

Read about his Olympia academy and how he invested his formative years discussing more about philosophy than science. This

explain volumes about his real background. He should have received the Literature Nobel Prize,

 

 

"He should have received the Literature Nobel Prize"

 

No, I think that prize should be reserved for you instead. ;)

[sluggo]

I am sorry to have not included the conditional requirements. The environment (box) is restricted to a small volume and a short time interval. Since a uniform field is an idealization, a real case field (planet) would cause tidal forces, including stretching in the vertical and contraction in the horizontal.The thought experiment was sufficient as a basis for the general theory.

[LightStorm]

I am sorry to have not included the conditional requirements. The environment (box) is restricted to a small volume and a short time interval. Since a uniform field is an idealization, a real case field (planet) would cause tidal forces, including stretching in the vertical and contraction in the horizontal.The thought experiment was sufficient as a basis for the general theory.

 

The box must be a point box, then one cannot distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration. Theoretically any box with a non zero volume one could determine a real field from acceleration.

[LightStorm]

 

In conclusion, Einstein's GTR is a product of pre-design knowing the results, chance and opportune contributions

from others (voluntarily or not).

 

Einstein colluded (through mediators at Germany) with britons and jewish biased press at Germany, England and US, to

exploit the results of the 1919 eclipse.

 

The rest is history. Read the Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein, available on line, with thousands of details.

 

I agree.

[Vmedvil2]

While I was away from the Science forums I designed a new MAGA hat for support of Trump making science forums great again and banning all the relativity Cranks. He will be signing an executive order tomorrow banning all relativity cranks. We will next build a proxy wall allowing no relativity cranks into the science forums with the help of Trump, We must protect our internet borders from illegal refutation of Einstein's Theories.

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[sluggo]

rhertz#211;

 

the "equivalence principle" is absolutely false

 

.

 

Using the equivalence principle, Einstein predicted the bending of light. It was verified in the 1919 eclipse, and in current research as gravitational lensing. For me, the bending of light (with no rest mass) near a massive object was a totally unexpected phenomenon.

[OceanBreeze]

It won't matter to him. (rhertz)

Edited May 9, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[sluggo]

LightStorm#212;

 

The equivalence principle is wrong. In an enclosed box that is accelerating, the force felt by the box is the same at every point in the box. Whereas on a real planet, the force of gravity at the feet is stronger than at the head. That's how you can tell you're on a real planet or if you're in a box that is accelerating. 

 

I added the conditional statements for a correct perspective in the post of 5-8.

Most thought experiments are done in an ideal world, without the clutter of reality. It helps to present a principle without superfluous details. The inverse square rule (human interpretation of a law) for gravity fails at extremely small scales where particles would become inseparable, and at extremely large scales where the gravitational noise would obscure the effect of the earth g-field. The earth g-field becomes insignificant when you approach the next large mass beyond the solar system. Science conceives and defines in the 'ideal' environment. That's why the common phrase "it's more complicated than we originally thought"
The word "significant" can help temper the conclusions from theories.
Example: the H-K experiment tested for time dilation from SR and GR, with variations of nanoseconds. It verified the theories quite well, but my dentist wouldn't care if I was late by 1 billion times those variations.
Einstein knew the two acceleration cases aren't identical, but by restricting the space and time intervals, he could demonstrate the difference between the two modes of acceleration inside the box became progressively less significant.
In the opposite direction, the demonstration of the gravitational gradients are very obvious in the case of tides caused by the moon.

[sluggo]

LightStorm#215;

 

The universe isn't spinning. It's the skater that is spinning. Her arms fly outward because of centrifugal force. Rotations are absolute. not relative. Newton's bucket experiment proves this. What you are saying above makes no sense to me

 

.

I agree with that, and was attempting to show Machs idea couldn't work.
Just ignore that post.

 

[OceanBreeze]

I am sorry to have not included the conditional requirements. The environment (box) is restricted to a small volume and a short time interval. Since a uniform field is an idealization, a real case field (planet) would cause tidal forces, including stretching in the vertical and contraction in the horizontal.The thought experiment was sufficient as a basis for the general theory.

 

I covered the tidal forces in my post. An elevator would need to be huge in order for effects felt from earth's curvature to be detected. I mentioned it anyway just for completeness. If we limit ourselves to an ordinary, human scale elevator, There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating.

[sluggo]

rhertz#230

 

With all due respect, such an insignificant and inexact analogy wasn't and isn't enough to develop the extension of the STR toward the GTR. ;

 

It’s rare (in my 12 yr of forum participation) to see someone submit a character analysis of the authors of theories. I agree with the benefit of insight as to how they think, as a means of understanding their conclusions. I just haven’t gone into as much detail as you have.
I don’t mean to imply the elevator experience is the single idea leading to GR. Einstein didn’t believe there should be a special privileged frame for the SR environment. After successfully developing SR, he extended the same idea to GR.
If we had access to all the details of invention by anyone, most would include or extend ideas from the past. The greatest neurosurgeon could not perform without the prior development of tools and procedures, and a support team. The anti-relativity posters would accuse Einstein of stealing ideas from others. Why should he reinvent the wheel when it’s already established. The same posters will read material and apply ideas that aren’t theirs. Apparently they don’t understand the process of invention.

[rhertz]

rhertz#230

 

 

It’s rare (in my 12 yr of forum participation) to see someone submit a character analysis of the authors of theories. I agree with the benefit of insight as to how they think, as a means of understanding their conclusions. I just haven’t gone into as much detail as you have.

I don’t mean to imply the elevator experience is the single idea leading to GR. Einstein didn’t believe there should be a special privileged frame for the SR environment. After successfully developing SR, he extended the same idea to GR.

If we had access to all the details of invention by anyone, most would include or extend ideas from the past. The greatest neurosurgeon could not perform without the prior development of tools and procedures, and a support team. The anti-relativity posters would accuse Einstein of stealing ideas from others. Why should he reinvent the wheel when it’s already established. The same posters will read material and apply ideas that aren’t theirs. Apparently they don’t understand the process of invention.

 

Since I was very young, I've been a fervorous reader of scientific theories and the biographies of the persons behind them. I can't tell why.

Maybe because I wanted to understand the relationship between the whole persona's values, actions and commitments and their achievements.

 

I did it while knowing that the general attitude is to separate the human being and its flaws or strengths from their work. I never could.

 

I was used to do it in this way, whichever the field some famous person delivered his work: literature, art, music, science, politics, military, etc.

Whatever caught my interest ended in that way.

 

One example (maybe silly for you) is the "invention" of the transistor, which involved Shocley, Bardeen and Brattain from 1946 to 1947. Most people

around me, at the University, were satisfied knowing the "one page history" about this discovery and something about the horrible person Shockley was.

I remember reading several books where this history was given half a page or less. But it wasn't enough for me. I wanted to know their motivations, their goals, their feelings about each other, their background and every possible detail that led them to discover the junction

germanium pnp transistor. Also, as an engineering student, I wanted to know the learning curve that existed between the initial discovery

and the full "reliable" industrialization of this and the next generation of transistors (Shockley), which took more or less 10 years.

 

I never asked myself why did I things in this way, as I enjoyed the technical knowledge as much I enjoyed the personal journey of those involved into any creation.

 

This served a lot to understand the history of science as well the science itself (which are completely different topics). Today, in educational boards is being discussed if history of physics (for instance) should be taught along with physic theories. There is some consensus into the

fact that teaching both causes the student to loss focus onto what college or high school want them to learn. Teaching physics is almost like to follow a structured body of knowledge, as in an academic book, with every piece of information connected to others in logical sequences. Teaching history of physics drives any student toward a tortuous road of individual actions connected to collective actions at the time around the central theory, times before the one being used to situate the developments, personal attitudes and emotions of the people involved

(hate, envy, jealousy, stealing, plagiarism, lies, vindictive actions, contempt, etc.).

 

Maybe because of an incorrect search of perfection and great dosis of innocency, I separated people at science in two groups: good people and bad people.

 

Along my life, I've known both types, and I celebrate the first group and detest the second group.

 

For instance, take four historical scientists: Newton, Maxwell, Planck and Einstein. Now I order them from good to bad: Maxwell, Planck, Newton, Einstein.

 

For me, James Clerk Maxwell embodies the perfection as a scientist (and also as a human being): Incredibly smart and creative, humble, prolific worker, a polymath (mathematician, experimental and theorical physicist, inventor, philosopher, poet, etc.), loyal friend, devote son

and husband, pet lover, religious person, etc. I put him at the highest level in the scale of physicists, with no one near him. This is my opinion

and, as such, has to be respected.

 

To reach to such a valuation, it is needed to get access to primary information about any of them, historical information. A biography written decades after a person passed away is prone to have "deformations" of historical facts. In the case of Maxwell, I invite to read his biography,

written by a friend two years after his death, wich covers since his childhood till his death, and is filled with personal notes, letters and

comments about colleagues and friends.

 

This biography portraits the insights of Maxwell's life and achievements and, not to wonder about, the profound respect and admiration

toward him, which has passed the test of time, and is equally revered today as 150 years ago (read about IEEE homage).

 

This is the title of his biography, far from having a political bias or any hidden agenda, available for free download (354 pages):

 

THE LIFE OF JAMES CLERK MAXWELL

WITH A SELECTION FROM HIS CORRESPONDENCE AND OCCASIONAL WRITINGS

AND A SKETCH OF HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE

 

BY

LEWIS CAMPBELL, M.A., LL.D.

PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS

AND

WILLIAM GARNETT, M.A.

LATE FELLOW OF ST. JOHN S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

PROFESSOR OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, NOTTINGHAM

 

London, MACMILLAN AND CO., 1882

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to many other science's icons, Maxwell hasn't accumulated a single accusation of wrongdoing or plagiarism.

 

Had he lived 20 years or more, instead of his horrible death being 48 years old, probably he would had been capable of advance physics a century or more.

 

He was close to relativity, he worked with gravity and was one of the founding fathers of statistical mechanics, along with Boltzmann. Besides his work with color theories and human vision, he founded the science of electromagnetism single handedly and his original 20 equations in

quaternions (of course, he credited previous practical and theoretical values which he used as evidence: Faraday, Gauss, Weber, ,,,).

 

Reading this bio, along with his monumental Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, allowed me to follow the path of his prolific work, which is somehow random, as he had so many areas of interest.

 

I did the same with Kepler, Newton, Laplace, Lagrange, Fourier, Kirchoff, Boltzmann, Planck, Wien, Einstein, Poincarè, Lorentz, Bohr, de Broglie, Rutherford, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Dirac, Pauli, Fermi and so many others, that it allows me to have a vision of physics

and its development that is very broad. And I not only read positive things. I also nurtured my knowledge by reading critics over theories

and scientists. I don't adopt anything dogmatically.

 

Einstein is, for me, the greatest enigma. Because of that, I devoted more effort researching about him than about any other one. And, as I said, I read and ponder positive and negative information about the persona and his work.

 

After all of this amount of information digested and processed, still remain my OWN OPINION about any theory. I'm capable enough to read any theory and understand it and, when I have a doubt (because translation to English sometimes are biased), I work with the original papers (german, french, italian, etc.).

 

So, my anti-relativity position (and I don't have replacement theories) is based on personal convictions, not inductions.

 

- I don't believe in Lorentz Transforms (Poincarè, to name them properly). They are fallacious as they are developed by using the same conjectures   that they are supposed to prove wrong (that light is not aditive to the motion of sources or receivers).

- Extending that to the second derivation of Lorentz Transforms (1905 Eistein's paper), the thing is more evident (the use of c+v and c-v to later prove  his second conjecture (he called postulate) is incredibly wrong and I don't understand why the scientific community didn't

scream FOUL!),

- I don't believe in length contraction, unless it can be stated as a perceptual and subjective phenomena, which IS NOT SCIENCE.

- In the chain of events of disbelief, I also don't believe in time dilation, which suffers the same considerations as length contraction.

- Therefore, I don't believe in relativistic mass (even Einstein disproved this) nor I believe in relativistic adition of velocities (due to the violation of 2nd. postulate  within the same 1905 paper.

 

- I don't believe that space-time is a physical entity. It's OK for Minkowski, a mathematician, to believe on it in the mathematical world.

  But space and time have no material properties and can't be subjected to effects of physical actions.

  They are mathematical definitions!!

 

- I don't believe in space-time bending/slowing under gravitational fields (less yet in gravitational waves). You can't deform the structure of

  nothingness by something. Space and time are human creations to serve as references to express position and motion, but are abstract

  creations. Gravity is real, and exists even if we don't. Big difference with space and time.

 

- I don't believe in re-interpretations of singularities at differential calculus. They are exactly what they mean: special failures of calculus at

  cartesian coordinates, due to some particular and unexplained phenomena. It's similar to give a physical interpretation to the ln(0), or to

  value of gravitational force when r=0. And this problem with infinities extedns also to the quantum physics, leading to renormalization?

 

  Hence, I don't believe in black hole theories that are derived from the GTR solutions.

 

- I don't believe in a primordial singularity with infinite energy and temperature that went off and created the Universe. Plain and simple.

 

If it helps, I believe in the spherical shape of Earth, planets, moons and stars. Also, I believe that rockets do work in vacuum and that

artificial satellites exist. Also, I believe in the heliocentric theory, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, electrons and quantum levels of

energy (and their transitions with a photon mediating).

 

I hope that these explanations may help you to label me in the proper "cranck" category, if there is one for me.

Edited May 10, 2019 by rhertz

[OceanBreeze]

^^^^^^^^

[MikeBrace]

The "chink"is a gaping chasm.

If you want to see the chasm in SR, then look at the first postulate of Einstein's 1905 paper.

The Postulate is that light always travels at a constant speed.

 

But later in the paper, in order to develop his hypothesis, he quietly slips in a SECOND claim, which is NOT RATIONAL.

 

That claim is that the speed of light will always be recorded as 300000000m/s REGARDLESS of the velocity or even direction of the recording device!

 

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

 

Physicists need to explain how this is possible, which they never even attempt to do.

 

The above quote is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the discussions in this post, and how they can go so badly astray and end up as bullshit. I use this post as not because it is in error, because it (like so many other posts in this thread) keep basing their arguments on informal fallacies; in this example it's the speed of light.

 

Many on this thread keep thinking that the speed of light is a constant and the arguments based on this assumption are sound physics. I hate to break the news, but scientist have long ago figured out a way to slow light down, and I am talking about slowing it down to not just a crawl, but stopping photons in mid-flight altogether.

 

Need proof? Just so some detective work. You may find that on the Jan 24, 2001 the Harvard Gazette reported that they got it down to 36 mph … then still slower later on. CBS talked about it on 19 Feb, 2001. Like one of the articles so eloquently said: …"the speed of light was considered one of the universe’s great constants. Albert Einstein theorized that light cannot travel faster than 186,282 miles per second. No one has proved him wrong, but he never said that it couldn’t go slower."

 

If y'all really want to cut the bullshit out of physics - get your ducks in a row first, then make your point. Anything less is just bullshit.

[ralfcis]

OMG Mike, light just happens to travel at the speed limit of speed in a vacuum which for brevity is called the speed of light. 

[Sherwood]

The SRT pdf at trybasics is difficult to follow and unnecessarily complicated.

 

 

with a = v/c and u/c = 1/gamma, i.e. the clock ticks slower, the faster it moves past observer A. This phenomenon is not restricted to clocks but applies to all processes involving light interactions.

 

   

    "the clock ticks slower the faster it moves past observer A."  

     It is also moving at different speeds past various other observers such as observers D,G,Q,M,K, etc., etc., who are probably moving at different speeds with respect to the clock and each other.  Thus the clock has to read different times with respect to each that is at a different velocity.  Difficult for one clock.

 

    'Time dilation' exists only in the mathematics of SR, not in reality.  Light starts out in a spherical direction from a source at speed c.  (If light 'travels at speed c in all reference frames', it certainly travels at speed c from its source.)  Something (object) moves with respect to the light source, call it in the horizontal direction.  Then the 'vertical' (perpendicular) portion of the light has moved distance (I=ct) from the source at speed c for time t.  Meanwhile, the object has moved the horizontal distance x'. So now the light is the vertical distance I plus the horizontal distance x' from the object for a total distance of

                                             H=(x²+I²)^1/2 

The sum of the vertical distance (I) plus the horizontal distance (x') is (H).  The speed of the light relative to the object (or vice versa) is obviously the distance (H) divided by the time (t) which could be called (c') in order to differentiate it from the speed

                                                 c = (I/t) 

of the light with respect to its source.  At the very least one must agree that distance (H) is greater than distance (I).  

    If you insist (postulate, assume, etc.) that the speed of the light is the same both with respect to the light source and the object, then you end up with

                                          I/t = c = c' = H/t

which is obviously not true since

                                    H>I    and therefore    c'≠c.

    If at this point you simply get around the inequality by changing the time in the object's reference frame to (t'), then you have just created Einsatrein's theory of Special Relativity!!  Now, 

                                       I=ct    and    H=ct'

and all the equations and concepts of SR follow directly.  E.g., the Interval equation changes from 

                                 I² = ((c't)² - x' ²)    in Newtonian Mechanics (NM)

to

                                 I² = ((ct')² - x' ²)    in Special Relativity (SR)

and the gamma function (g), which can also be written (H/I), changes from 

                        (H/I)=(c't/ct)    in Newtonian mechanics (NM)

to 

                        (H/I)=(ct'/ct)    in Special Relativity SR.

 

    From this point, all the equations and concepts of SR can be derived.  The discussion in post #96 is more complete, although the format of the posting leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited May 11, 2019 by Sherwood

[GAHD]

     Light starts out in a spherical direction

LOL. NO. Not spherical. Try again?