Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

relativity einstein physics

  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#18 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 05 June 2019 - 11:21 PM

May I suggest we begin with reasons why Special Relativity is an impossibility? The first problems with this work of trickery are the incompleteness of the two postulates. These half statements are used to lead readers to draw wrong conclusions.

The first postulate only says that physics works the same in all inertial frames of reference, moving or not.

This is only half of the correct statement, which is, "within moving or stationary inertial frames, physics provides the same results AS MEASURED BY AN OBSERVER IN THE FRAME OF INTEREST. 

This fuller statement about the use of inertial frames gives a different picture of the way we should apply this knowledge. It means that the results of measurements are only going to be identical across any inertial frame, PROVIDING that the measurement is ALSO done within that individual frame.

So a ball moving up and down in a speeding car will be measured as moving up and down in exactly the same way in a stationary car, PROVIDING the measurements are taken by some observer within that car.

 

IF, and only if an observer outside in the car wants to measure the balls action, AND STILL GET THE SAME RESULT as the cars occupant gets, WOULD BE to take the measurements THEN APPLY a compensation to allow for the fact that the car is in motion relative to his position when he took his measurements.

ONLY then, can the Galilean principal of the equality of inertial frames still work. Both moving observer and stationary observers will find that physics works the same in all inertial frames.

 

But because EInstein only states HALF of this basic principal of Physics, he is able to trick and fool the reader with this half truth postulate.  Einsteins hypothesis is wrong when he allows the stationary observer to measure the motion of the light pulse in the moving vehicle, BUT FAIL TO APPLY THE REQUIRED COMPENSATION. Then Einstein claims that there will be a discrepancy between the two obsevers requiring a Lorentz transformation, when in reality, if physics is done correctly, there is no discrepancy.

 

The half postulate makes no sense if you think about it, only the fuller, complete statement makes sense.

 And armed with a correct understanding of how inertial frames work, the reader of Einstein's paper will come to the place where Einsrtein's weak logical arguments fall down, because of this one deceptively stated postulate.

 

But it gets worse, as the second postulate is also a half-truth. And also allows the formation of the deception that is called Special Relativity.

We will look at this later.

 

I'll give a try by writing about the origins of relativity.

 

I don't know who developed galilean relativity, but it was in times where time was considered as absolute, universal.

 

The galilean relativity is simple, and explain basic behaviors observed in nature (like sound waves and Doppler effect):

 

Being (x,t) variables for unidimensional positions (one axis) and absolute time then, moving in an inertial platform at

a constant longitudinal velocity, the observer on the moving platform has coordinates for space and time as (x', t'),

in a way that they relate to static coordinates (x,t) by the formulae:

 

x' = x - v.t

t' = t

 

So far so good. But, in January 1897 and prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment, the german physicist Woldemar Voigt

published a paper about sound waves and the Doppler effect, taking into account that information between the resting frame

and the moving frame takes a finite amount of time to reach the moving observer.

 

He, then, introduced the concept of LOCAL TIME, which is pre-Lorentz's relativity attempts (PROPER TIME), and he wrote

a modified galilean set of equations which accounted for retardation in the time it takes the sound to reach the moving

observer, when it was emitted by the observer at rest (think of a train, a station and two observers at each platform).

 

Voigt introduced these modifications:

 

x' = x - v.t

t' = t - x.v/w2

 

where w was the speed of sound.

 

With these modifications, the local time t' of the moving observer is different from the time "t" of the observer at rest.

 

If the fixed observer at station (x = 0) emits a sound, these things happens:

 

Synchronizing clocks for both observers WHEN t = 0 (this is set in this way) it gives that position x' equals position x

(checked by observing markers at both reference axis x and x').

 

But sound hasn't reached the moving observer yet. Then, even when it's measured that position x' is equal to position x,

the time t' for the sound wave is delayed by an amount:

 

t' = -v.x/w2 (which implies that t' is delayed in reference to t).

 

The moving observer will have to wait  a time t' = -v.x/w2 to hear the sound emitted by the fixed observer at x=0.

 

Remember that the observer at x is not moving. Is standing still at the train station.

 

The following things can happen:

 

1)  If the speed of sound is infinite, then t' = 0 when t = 0 (what gives a truly galilean relativity with absolute time).

     This means that there is no delay, and that time is absolute.

 

2) If x = x' is too large when t is set to 0 (t = 0) (i.e.: 1 Km far away from the station), the moving observer will have

    to wait in order to hear the sound wave emitted at the station (x = 0) a delay given by  -v.x/w2.

 

3) The same thing happens if the velocity v is high, because the sound wave has to catch up the train, and the

    delay is still   -v.x/w2 .

 

4) If the velocity of the train is equal to that of the sound, then the delay for the sound emitted at x=0 has a delay  -x/w,

    For hypersonic values of "v", the formula from 3) still applies, only that the delay becomes larger and larger.

 

The above concepts were the basis of the paper of Voigt for the propagation of sound. His work is more complex than my

simplification, as he uses a 3D representation for the sound wave and there are no trains or "observers", but is the genesis

of Lorentz-Poincarè-Einstein relativity.

 

Credits for Voigt are: the introduction of LOCAL TIME and the introduction of the GAMMA FACTOR, even when he doesn't

apply it to the x axis or the time.

 

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

 

Lorentz was looking for "length contraction" only, in order to explain the "fail" of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

However, the expression of "time dilation" appeared as a collateral "damage" in the Lorentz-Poincarè relativity.

 

When Einstein used all of the above and abolished the ether and any absolute frame of reference, he made profit

of the time-dilation consequences of the Lorentz-Poincarè relativity and ASSERTED that this was a REAL THING.

 

This happened in the Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity and, for unknown reasons, physics never went back from this.

 

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

 

My advice: start with Voigt's LOCAL TIME concept (which Lorentz inherited).

 

Once you accept it (or reject it) you can give a try to Einstein's PROPER TIME, which is equal to Gamma Factor x Voigt's Local Time.

 

And this is the core of the einstenian relativity, being Gamma Factor the root of all evils around special relativity, as it replace the speed

of sound by the speed of light, and then it's declared that "c" is an unbreakable limit for any speed at THIS world.

 

Hope this can help you a little. At least, I tried to show you how the concepts evolved with time since 1897.



#19 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 12:15 AM

I'll give a try by writing about the origins of relativity.

 

I don't know who developed galilean relativity, but it was in times where time was considered as absolute, universal.

 

The galilean relativity is simple, and explain basic behaviors observed in nature (like sound waves and Doppler effect):

 

Being (x,t) variables for unidimensional positions (one axis) and absolute time then, moving in an inertial platform at

a constant longitudinal velocity, the observer on the moving platform has coordinates for space and time as (x', t'),

in a way that they relate to static coordinates (x,t) by the formulae:

 

x' = x - v.t

t' = t

 

So far so good. But, in January 1897 and prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment, the german physicist Woldemar Voigt

published a paper about sound waves and the Doppler effect, taking into account that information between the resting frame

and the moving frame takes a finite amount of time to reach the moving observer.

 

He, then, introduced the concept of LOCAL TIME, which is pre-Lorentz's relativity attempts (PROPER TIME), and he wrote

a modified galilean set of equations which accounted for retardation in the time it takes the sound to reach the moving

observer, when it was emitted by the observer at rest (think of a train, a station and two observers at each platform).

 

Voigt introduced these modifications:

 

x' = x - v.t

t' = t - x.v/w2

 

where w was the speed of sound.

 

With these modifications, the local time t' of the moving observer is different from the time "t" of the observer at rest.

 

If the fixed observer at station (x = 0) emits a sound, these things happens:

 

Synchronizing clocks for both observers WHEN t = 0 (this is set in this way) it gives that position x' equals position x

(checked by observing markers at both reference axis x and x').

 

But sound hasn't reached the moving observer yet. Then, even when it's measured that position x' is equal to position x,

the time t' for the sound wave is delayed by an amount:

 

t' = -v.x/w2 (which implies that t' is delayed in reference to t).

 

The moving observer will have to wait  a time t' = -v.x/w2 to hear the sound emitted by the fixed observer at x=0.

 

Remember that the observer at x is not moving. Is standing still at the train station.

 

The following things can happen:

 

1)  If the speed of sound is infinite, then t' = 0 when t = 0 (what gives a truly galilean relativity with absolute time).

     This means that there is no delay, and that time is absolute.

 

2) If x = x' is too large when t is set to 0 (t = 0) (i.e.: 1 Km far away from the station), the moving observer will have

    to wait in order to hear the sound wave emitted at the station (x = 0) a delay given by  -v.x/w2.

 

3) The same thing happens if the velocity v is high, because the sound wave has to catch up the train, and the

    delay is still   -v.x/w2 .

 

4) If the velocity of the train is equal to that of the sound, then the delay for the sound emitted at x=0 has a delay  -x/w,

    For hypersonic values of "v", the formula from 3) still applies, only that the delay becomes larger and larger.

 

The above concepts were the basis of the paper of Voigt for the propagation of sound. His work is more complex than my

simplification, as he uses a 3D representation for the sound wave and there are no trains or "observers", but is the genesis

of Lorentz-Poincarè-Einstein relativity.

 

Credits for Voigt are: the introduction of LOCAL TIME and the introduction of the GAMMA FACTOR, even when he doesn't

apply it to the x axis or the time.

 

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

 

Lorentz was looking for "length contraction" only, in order to explain the "fail" of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

However, the expression of "time dilation" appeared as a collateral "damage" in the Lorentz-Poincarè relativity.

 

When Einstein used all of the above and abolished the ether and any absolute frame of reference, he made profit

of the time-dilation consequences of the Lorentz-Poincarè relativity and ASSERTED that this was a REAL THING.

 

This happened in the Einstein's 1905 paper about relativity and, for unknown reasons, physics never went back from this.

 

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

 

My advice: start with Voigt's LOCAL TIME concept (which Lorentz inherited).

 

Once you accept it (or reject it) you can give a try to Einstein's PROPER TIME, which is equal to Gamma Factor x Voigt's Local Time.

 

And this is the core of the einstenian relativity, being Gamma Factor the root of all evils around special relativity, as it replace the speed

of sound by the speed of light, and then it's declared that "c" is an unbreakable limit for any speed at THIS world.

 

Hope this can help you a little. At least, I tried to show you how the concepts evolved with time since 1897.

Great history lesson.  The thing is that Time is not allowed to be a variable in a single equation. If you are comparing one event according to two observers, one moving, then one or to things MUST occur. ( if they are going to each have meaningful data) Either both use the exact same time keeping device, Or use two synchronized clocks.  As they are conducting an experiment that is duration critical. they must agree on a common time. 

 

So big deal, sound or light takes more time to reach a moving observer, so what? we still have an accurate time synchronization my allowing for the further distance travelled by the moving guy.

 

But to use this basic physics problem to somehow claim that Time shrinks are crazy. The reason provided how this is supposed to happen is just one big error of Geometry with the incorrect use of Pythoragus theorem.

 

Lorentz transformation was developed to explain that there was still an aether, and it explained that length contraction was the reason why the M&M experiment failed to detect it. A Lorentz equation REQUIRES an ABSOLUTE stationary rest frame to work. That was his whole idea.

Any use of Lorentz equations en=ven Einstein's is using an absolute stationary rest frame, even though Einstein claimed it wasn't required, he went ahead and employed it anyway.

He admitted this later in his life.

And its obvious in his 1905 paper, but he disguises it with other terms.

 

So where does that leave us? Still with the obvious conclusion that measurements of things moving inside a certain reference frame need to be relative to that frame, or alternatively if measured outside that frame, then suitable Galilean transformations need to be taken into consideration to compensate and relate the measurements back to the moving frame.

Otherwise, you get meaningless statements such as "A snail crawled 10 meters inside a plane, which was flying from A to B, as the trip was 10 hours, the distance was 1000 miles." So the snail crawled 1000 miles in 10 hours! a record-breaking snail speed of 100 MPH!  (this is Einsteinian logic)

 

But the key is that Time ain't changing, nor is length when someone moves! And measurements need to based on agreed standards. We call that Physics.



#20 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 08:10 AM

Great history lesson.  The thing is that Time is not allowed to be a variable in a single equation. If you are comparing one event according to two observers, one moving, then one or to things MUST occur. ( if they are going to each have meaningful data) Either both use the exact same time keeping device, Or use two synchronized clocks.  As they are conducting an experiment that is duration critical. they must agree on a common time. 

 

So big deal, sound or light takes more time to reach a moving observer, so what? we still have an accurate time synchronization my allowing for the further distance travelled by the moving guy.

 

But to use this basic physics problem to somehow claim that Time shrinks are crazy. The reason provided how this is supposed to happen is just one big error of Geometry with the incorrect use of Pythoragus theorem.

 

Lorentz transformation was developed to explain that there was still an aether, and it explained that length contraction was the reason why the M&M experiment failed to detect it. A Lorentz equation REQUIRES an ABSOLUTE stationary rest frame to work. That was his whole idea.

Any use of Lorentz equations en=ven Einstein's is using an absolute stationary rest frame, even though Einstein claimed it wasn't required, he went ahead and employed it anyway.

He admitted this later in his life.

And its obvious in his 1905 paper, but he disguises it with other terms.

 

So where does that leave us? Still with the obvious conclusion that measurements of things moving inside a certain reference frame need to be relative to that frame, or alternatively if measured outside that frame, then suitable Galilean transformations need to be taken into consideration to compensate and relate the measurements back to the moving frame.

Otherwise, you get meaningless statements such as "A snail crawled 10 meters inside a plane, which was flying from A to B, as the trip was 10 hours, the distance was 1000 miles." So the snail crawled 1000 miles in 10 hours! a record-breaking snail speed of 100 MPH!  (this is Einsteinian logic)

 

But the key is that Time ain't changing, nor is length when someone moves! And measurements need to based on agreed standards. We call that Physics.

 

I remarked key concepts.

 

One thing is the "inocuous" Voigt's LOCAL TIME, which accounts for delay in any signal to reach the moving observer from his emission by

the stationary observer (can be a sound wave or light). The mathematical expression from Voigt doesn't distort the LOGIC of our senses.

 

PROPER TIME, which is linear Voigt's LOCAL TIME modified by the Gamma Factor, was something that Lorentz-Poincarè DIDN'T WANT.

Lorentz was searching for Length Contraction, and mathematics (not physics) was the cause that PROPER TIME appeared. Neither Lorentz

nor Poincarè (two great minds in relativity) payed attention to PROPER TIME, probably because they thougth this was IDIOTIC.

 

Yet more, when Lorentz derived his equation for PROPER TIME in 1904, the expression was mathematically incorrect (as it appears on his

published paper). Lorentz was a physicist and didn't care about HIS PROPER TIME being wrong.

 

It was Poincarè (a mathematician, but also a polymath) who CORRECTED Lorentz's PROPER TIME in the current known form.

As Poincarè was a Lorentz's friend, when he published the correction (exactly the one used by Einstein), he credited Lorentz for

this new mathematical form, and called them as Lorentz Transform in 1905 and 1906.

 

None of them (Lorentz, Poincarè) gave any physical value to the expression of PROPER TIME, which is:

 

t' = Y . (t - x.v/c2),  with Gamma Y = [1-(v/c)2]-1/2

 

As everything he did in his life, it was Einstein (plagiarizing Poincarè) who gave PROPER TIME = Y. LOCAL TIME a physical sense.

And, by doing so, Einstein confused (and poisoned) the mind of generations of physicists and students, specially since 1910 when,

with the "strange" help of Planck, his IGNOTE 1905 theory began to gain momentum as Planck introduced it to the top physics

community (at which, the respect for Planck was the highest).

 

Why did Planck, a very conservative prussian and a thermodynamicist supported Einstein, is a MYSTERY. Something "fishy" happened

with Planck, because he allowed those famous 1905 papers to be published at the Annalen der Physik (where he was Chief Consultant

for Theoretical Physics). Planck allowed it, even knewing that they contain mathematical errors (which he corrected in 1906 and 1907)

because he was convinced by Einstein's supporters (very few but powerful by 1905) to do so? Did Einstein convinced Planck about the

importance of his 1901 paper, which was validated by 1901-1902 experimental work of von Lenard on the photoelectric effect? (These

works granted von Lenard a Nobel Prize). Was Maleva Maric (Einstein's wife), who worked as von Lenard assistant by then, who stole

Lenard's papers and experimental data (beyond the published one) to feed his hubby?

 

That is one mystery around the rise of Einstein in the german physics community between 1905 and 1912.

 

What is not a mystery is the personality of Einstein, which can be easily profiled at a distance of time: He was an arrogant twat, utterly

resented by his early life as a jewish in an increasingly anti-jewish german society (by 1890) who left the country to became a Swiss

citizen, even dropping high school. Einstein also was an idealist who hated math, because he tought it posed no value beyond differential

calculus, and he preferred to spent hundred of hours talking about Philosophy with his friends (search for the Olympia Academy). Also,

as he was outcasted from the german-prussian society for being "poor", he HATED stablished authority and also developed a visceral

HATE for Germany due to psychological traumas he suffered (call it "humillations").

 

He used philosophy to construct his path along physics, not physics itself. Einstein shared a love for Maxwell and thermodynamics with Planck,

the key figure for his popularity in the early years.

 

Einstein was a master at a branch of existencial philosophy based on CYNICISM, which is called SOPHISM, and he loved it.

 

And by using SOPHISM (a very dangerous ancient greek branch of philosophy which destroy what reality is), he destroyed the physics around

him, by introducing paradoxes into a rigid and structured body of knowledge based on deduction (the scientific method).

 

And, using these simple weapons upon a naive society plus his hidden ambitions to be famous and to get even with life, he destroyed every single thing that he touched (wife, kids, physics, friends, country). But, even when he treasoned almost everyone he contacted, he NEVER treasoned his real and hidden supporters: the ones who drove him to fame and later used him for fund-raising on his travels around the world.

 

If you want to know the real reasons behind Einstein success, you have to research about who were his friend's fathers: Marcel Grossman's father, Conrad Habicht's father and Maurice Solovine's father, and what help did Einstein received from them in the period 1901-1904.

 

I can't put it more easy for you to find out the real history. I like historical research, because it's the only way to value the doings of a person.

 

For instance, there is a Saint at science, who is beyond any earthly criticism: James Clerk Maxwell (Einstein's idol). Absolute genius, revered and also forgotten, except for a minuscule group of IEEE engineers around the world, who helped 20 years ago to restaurate Maxwell's home and forced to declare it as an historical site to Scotland authorities (a shame that foreigners rescued one of the most prodigal son of Scotland).


Edited by rhertz, 06 June 2019 - 08:15 AM.


#21 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 09:42 AM

marcospolo#2;

 

The first postulate only says that physics works the same in all inertial frames of reference, moving or not.
This is only half of the correct statement, which is, "within moving or stationary inertial frames, physics provides the same results AS MEASURED BY AN OBSERVER IN THE FRAME OF INTEREST. This fuller statement about the use of inertial frames gives a different picture of the way we should apply this knowledge. It means that the results of measurements are only going to be identical across any inertial frame, PROVIDING that the measurement is ALSO done within that individual frame.

 


["The laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames in uniform translatory motion." He has already dismissed the idea of 'absolute rest' (intro par.). Measurement, the verification tool of science, is part of the observation process in any frame. He defines simultaneity and the 'local time' of an event for observers A and B, thus the red/underlined statement is implicit in postulate 1. Measurements of events outside a frame will depend on relative motion. In SR there is no special frame, which is the fundamental point of SR. Each observer can make measurements and predictions, independently of any other reference.]

 

So a ball moving up and down in a speeding car will be measured as moving up and down in exactly the same way in a stationary car, PROVIDING the measurements are taken by some observer within that car.

 


[In this case, all elements of the car frame have acquired the speed of the car and the physics is the same as if the car is at rest, no difference, or Newtons physics.]

IF, and only if an observer outside in the car wants to measure the balls action, AND STILL GET

THE SAME RESULT as the cars occupant gets, WOULD BE to take the measurements THEN APPLY a compensation to allow for the fact that the car is in motion relative to his position when he took his measurements.
ONLY then, can the Galilean principal of the equality of inertial frames still work. Both moving observer and stationary observers will find that physics works the same in all inertial frames.

 

[The coordinate transformations convert A-events to B-events, based on relative velocity. Galilean relativity used an absolute universal time, which approximates SR at slow speeds.]
 

Einsteins hypothesis is wrong when he allows the stationary observer to measure the motion of the light pulse in the moving vehicle, BUT FAIL TO APPLY THE REQUIRED COMPENSATION.

 

[Any observer in SR will measure the speed of light as c, without any type of compensation. There is no such requirement.]
[ You are misinterpreting the SR theory, and cannot erase the years of experimental verification.]

 



#22 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 10:19 AM

marcospolo#;

 

1. Maxwell never suggested that light will be measured at c in any inertial reference frame. Maxwell said that light has a fixed velocity.
2. He also knew that the velocity of light was different when it was passing through water, or vacuum or air or glass or diamond.
Light speed is NEVER relative to any observer in any inertial frame of reference. It's only relative to the medium it's passing through, and that speed is c in the medium of a vacuum.
3. So, despite the false claims that Maxwell's equations needed "fixing" because they were "not invariant" for motion, this is a false claim, as it falsely places the speed of light relative to the observers frame, when Maxwell was clear that light is always only relative to the medium that it's passing through.
4. When Einstein falsely made light speed relative to the observer,
Its simply IMPOSSIBLE that one can measure light speed at C when moving alongside the light, and also measure that same light as still moving at c as measured by someone moving directly against the direction of the light.

 

[1. He was mathematically analyzing the work of Faraday on electromagnetic fields. The electric and magnetic properties of a vacuum allowed calculation of the propagation speed of the fields. Since the value was equal to that for light propagation in a vacuum, he concluded the fields and light were equivalent. This was about 30 yr prior to any relativity theories, i.e. no reason to extend its application.]
[2. So did Einstein and the others working on their relativity theory. Light propagation speed in space (vacuum) is constant and independent of its source. To verify light speed requires a measurement relative to the observer. SR is stating, the measured speed of light is always c. Light propagation is a physical process and therefore included in postulate 1.]
[3. The only change to Maxwell's equations was the addition of the Lorentz factor gamma required by the coordinate transformations. From the 1905 paper, par 1:
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 'c'

to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."]
[4. All measurements are relative to a ref. frame/observer. This lack of comprehension is due to not considering the effect of motion on measurement and perception. There is the reality of the physical world and its behavior without human observation, and the reality of human perception.]

 



#23 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 04:56 PM

I remarked key concepts.

 

One thing is the "inocuous" Voigt's LOCAL TIME, which accounts for delay in any signal to reach the moving observer from his emission by

the stationary observer (can be a sound wave or light). The mathematical expression from Voigt doesn't distort the LOGIC of our senses.

 

PROPER TIME, which is linear Voigt's LOCAL TIME modified by the Gamma Factor, was something that Lorentz-Poincarè DIDN'T WANT.

Lorentz was searching for Length Contraction, and mathematics (not physics) was the cause that PROPER TIME appeared. Neither Lorentz

nor Poincarè (two great minds in relativity) payed attention to PROPER TIME, probably because they thougth this was IDIOTIC.

 

Yet more, when Lorentz derived his equation for PROPER TIME in 1904, the expression was mathematically incorrect (as it appears on his

published paper). Lorentz was a physicist and didn't care about HIS PROPER TIME being wrong.

 

It was Poincarè (a mathematician, but also a polymath) who CORRECTED Lorentz's PROPER TIME in the current known form.

As Poincarè was a Lorentz's friend, when he published the correction (exactly the one used by Einstein), he credited Lorentz for

this new mathematical form, and called them as Lorentz Transform in 1905 and 1906.

 

None of them (Lorentz, Poincarè) gave any physical value to the expression of PROPER TIME, which is:

 

t' = Y . (t - x.v/c2),  with Gamma Y = [1-(v/c)2]-1/2

 

As everything he did in his life, it was Einstein (plagiarizing Poincarè) who gave PROPER TIME = Y. LOCAL TIME a physical sense.

And, by doing so, Einstein confused (and poisoned) the mind of generations of physicists and students, specially since 1910 when,

with the "strange" help of Planck, his IGNOTE 1905 theory began to gain momentum as Planck introduced it to the top physics

community (at which, the respect for Planck was the highest).

 

Why did Planck, a very conservative prussian and a thermodynamicist supported Einstein, is a MYSTERY. Something "fishy" happened

with Planck, because he allowed those famous 1905 papers to be published at the Annalen der Physik (where he was Chief Consultant

for Theoretical Physics). Planck allowed it, even knewing that they contain mathematical errors (which he corrected in 1906 and 1907)

because he was convinced by Einstein's supporters (very few but powerful by 1905) to do so? Did Einstein convinced Planck about the

importance of his 1901 paper, which was validated by 1901-1902 experimental work of von Lenard on the photoelectric effect? (These

works granted von Lenard a Nobel Prize). Was Maleva Maric (Einstein's wife), who worked as von Lenard assistant by then, who stole

Lenard's papers and experimental data (beyond the published one) to feed his hubby?

 

That is one mystery around the rise of Einstein in the german physics community between 1905 and 1912.

 

What is not a mystery is the personality of Einstein, which can be easily profiled at a distance of time: He was an arrogant twat, utterly

resented by his early life as a jewish in an increasingly anti-jewish german society (by 1890) who left the country to became a Swiss

citizen, even dropping high school. Einstein also was an idealist who hated math, because he tought it posed no value beyond differential

calculus, and he preferred to spent hundred of hours talking about Philosophy with his friends (search for the Olympia Academy). Also,

as he was outcasted from the german-prussian society for being "poor", he HATED stablished authority and also developed a visceral

HATE for Germany due to psychological traumas he suffered (call it "humillations").

 

He used philosophy to construct his path along physics, not physics itself. Einstein shared a love for Maxwell and thermodynamics with Planck,

the key figure for his popularity in the early years.

 

Einstein was a master at a branch of existencial philosophy based on CYNICISM, which is called SOPHISM, and he loved it.

 

And by using SOPHISM (a very dangerous ancient greek branch of philosophy which destroy what reality is), he destroyed the physics around

him, by introducing paradoxes into a rigid and structured body of knowledge based on deduction (the scientific method).

 

And, using these simple weapons upon a naive society plus his hidden ambitions to be famous and to get even with life, he destroyed every single thing that he touched (wife, kids, physics, friends, country). But, even when he treasoned almost everyone he contacted, he NEVER treasoned his real and hidden supporters: the ones who drove him to fame and later used him for fund-raising on his travels around the world.

 

If you want to know the real reasons behind Einstein success, you have to research about who were his friend's fathers: Marcel Grossman's father, Conrad Habicht's father and Maurice Solovine's father, and what help did Einstein received from them in the period 1901-1904.

 

I can't put it more easy for you to find out the real history. I like historical research, because it's the only way to value the doings of a person.

 

For instance, there is a Saint at science, who is beyond any earthly criticism: James Clerk Maxwell (Einstein's idol). Absolute genius, revered and also forgotten, except for a minuscule group of IEEE engineers around the world, who helped 20 years ago to restaurate Maxwell's home and forced to declare it as an historical site to Scotland authorities (a shame that foreigners rescued one of the most prodigal son of Scotland).

I have my ideas about how exactly Einstein was promoted to fame and his quacky theories were forced to the fore.

But let's stick to the simple Physics here, or we will be called Conspiracy theorists, ( which is a realist, who recognizes that powerful groups do exist, and they do plan their day)

One of the Key points is regarding the concept of Time.

The ONLY rational way to view time in Physics or in any aspect of life, is to recognize that we only live in that instant called NOW.

Everybody only exists in the NOW.  You, me the guy on the other side of the Earth, the alien on the Andromeda Galaxy, and the other alien on the far side of the universe, ALL of us exist in the instant called NOW.  It's the same NOW no matter where you are. Now in my Kitchen is the same now as the now in Starbucks coffee shop. 

The arguments begin when people who should know better, start trying to measure what their clocks are reading on Earth compared to that alien s clock on Andromeda. Or calculating how long a radio signal will take to reach him.  But no matter the means of getting in touch with that alien, be it by laser signal, radio or carrier pigeon, the time taken by the messenger can easily be accounted for, and NOW can be easily set on everyone's clocks so that we can say 12oclock, instead of NOW.

(keep in mind that ALL clocks on Earth show the exact same time, NOW, but the readouts will be adjusted to account for the time of day. That is, its no use to say its midday in London, AND also midday in San Francisco, as its clearly going to be in the middle of the night there. So although all clocks run on NOW, their readouts match local daylight conditions for convenience.)

 

Any talk that involves the denial of NOW, is going to be quackery.  It's that simple.



#24 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 06:47 PM


One of the Key points is regarding the concept of Time.

The ONLY rational way to view time in Physics or in any aspect of life, is to recognize that we only live in that instant called NOW.

Everybody only exists in the NOW.  You, me the guy on the other side of the Earth, the alien on the Andromeda Galaxy, and the other alien on the far side of the universe, ALL of us exist in the instant called NOW.  It's the same NOW no matter where you are. Now in my Kitchen is the same now as the now in Starbucks coffee shop. 

The arguments begin when people who should know better, start trying to measure what their clocks are reading on Earth compared to that alien s clock on Andromeda. Or calculating how long a radio signal will take to reach him.  But no matter the means of getting in touch with that alien, be it by laser signal, radio or carrier pigeon, the time taken by the messenger can easily be accounted for, and NOW can be easily set on everyone's clocks so that we can say 12oclock, instead of NOW.

(keep in mind that ALL clocks on Earth show the exact same time, NOW, but the readouts will be adjusted to account for the time of day. That is, its no use to say its midday in London, AND also midday in San Francisco, as its clearly going to be in the middle of the night there. So although all clocks run on NOW, their readouts match local daylight conditions for convenience.)

 

Any talk that involves the denial of NOW, is going to be quackery.  It's that simple.

 

The madness with einstenian time spread like a virus infecting everything, as it gain more support in other fields than physics, like cosmology.

 

Cosmology, which deals with what the universe is, the properties and shape it has, what kind of existance does it have (perennial, from a bang or continuously banging, expanding, collapsing, imploding - REPEAT) was almost unknow by the year 1900, when there was not known that more than one galaxy existed.

 

The father of cosmology is, paradoxically, Karl Schwartzchild, a gifted german astronomer, mathematician (a truly polymath).

 

In that year of 1900, he wrote a seminal paper at which he dealt with the shape and length of the universe, and analyzed if it had any one of three kinds of curvatures. He was the first astronomer to use Riemann's concepts of curved space, 15 years before Einstein. There was no relativity there and the paper is naive from for our current understanding of the universe. But that paper initiated the field of cosmology within astronomy.

 

Years later, Schwartzchild was going to give an exact analytical solution to the problem of Mercury's perihelion, only one month after Einstein presented his GTR in November 1915. Imagine the mind-power of Schwartzchild, who solved in one month a problem using a theory that took Einstein years to be developed and that Einstein BELIEVED couldn't have analytical solutions, except by using approximations. Sadly, Schwartzchild died only four months after his paper was published, in January 1916. He had everything to propose a better theory than Einstein's GTR, and he subtely made it know to Einstein, when he criticized (December 1915) the use of approximations by Einstein to solve Mercury's problem (he even suggested, somehow, that Einstein approximation contained falsifications). After Schwartzchild death, Hilbert (who hated Einstein's guts) modified Schwartzchild's solution to make Einstein theory appear as idiotic. To hide from history, Hilbert (a co-worker with Schwartzchild by 1900 at Gottingem) renamed his solution after Schwartzchild. Hilbert's solution is the one that was used, 40 years after, to develop the theory of black holes (it was that stupid, a mock upon Einstein).

 

Time passed and, in 1922 it was inaugurated the Mont Wilson's observatory, whith a 2.5 meters mirror (twice the size of the most powerful telescope by then). Hubble was named director of that observatory and that team started to discover galaxy after galaxy, beggining with Andromeda, which was believed to be a nebula within the Milky Way.

 

By 1929, Hubble had collected enough information about galaxies and their red-shifting behavior to propose that the universe was expanding.

The original values for expansion were of about 500 Km/sec/MegaParsec (1 Parsec aprox 3.2 light years or ly) by 1929, which was reduced to about 72 Km/sec/MegaParsec by today.

 

Using these simple (non-relativistic) concepts, Hubble was able to estimate the radius of the visible universe R = c/H (H: Hubble's constant) because beyond that radius, galaxies were receding faster than light so we never will be able to observe them.

 

Then, by 1930, you had almost that was needed to develop and understand the modern world based on Maxwell, Tesla, Planck and Hubble. As you can see, the whole modern world based on the work of four persons (seven or eight, if you want to include Rutherford, Bohr, Dirac and Fermi).

 

Hubble's universe was an extraordinary source of developments for about 40 years, until cosmologists (using the Big Bang theory) started to mess the order around. In the next 50 years since 1969, einstenian cosmologists DISPLACED hubble cosmologist from the scenario.

 

And the new generation of cosmologist started to mess with TIME, but not current TIME. They messed with the WHOLE F****NG TIME since

his t = 0.

 

Then, with the last cosmological model (finished in the last decade), called Lambda-CDM (or Lambda-Cold Dark Matter) model, they are trying right now to erase any trace of the Hubble's universe (and the so called Hubble's Sphere), which contains the VISIBLE universe.

 

Continuing with the degeneration of time and distance, concepts like PROPER DISTANCE, CO-MOVING DISTANCE and modified Hubble's constant, they are parroting around with a new conception of distance: Proper Light Year.

 

With this RELATIVISTIC concept, 1 light-year is no longer a measure of distance (the distance that light travels during 1 year). No Sir.

 

You HAVE TO include the RELATIVISTIC concepts of space dilation (general relativity) plus inflation (derived from a modified BBT). Then, a new size was born: Radius of the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, which they currently calculate as having a 46.5 Billion Light Years radius, instead of the "sacred but non relativistic" 13.5 billion light years radius, derived from the simple use of the Hubble's constant (RH = c/H).

 

It doesn't matter that the BBT universe is almost equal in age to the magnitude of the Hubble's radius (13.77 Bly).

 

Cosmologists, using relativity and the BBT, claim that this is a "fictitious radius" and that the light we can see right now from the edge of

the universe has travelled 46.5 Bly. That this gives that light has travelled at a speed of more than 3.c is not a problem for them.

 

There is a demand from the community of cosmologists that the MSM (at any of his media) publish distances in proper light years, which

are 3x larger than NASA and ESA publications about the farthest observable galaxy. They claim that the distance, instead of being published

as 13 billion light years away, be published as being 43 billion light years far away (due to relativistic corrections).

 

And this is to mess with time at the largest scale even possible.

 

Now, we as laymen, what can we do about this degeneracy of concepts due to new generations of depravated scientists looking for fame and money?

 

How can we protect ourselves from being driven either to the negation of modern science or to the level of stupidity that ignorance carries?

 

I think that we are hopeless. And to be honest, I'm glad to be old and I pity young people for the world to come.

 

Every time I have a doubt, I remember the movie "Idiocracy", a genial satire of our fate.


Edited by rhertz, 06 June 2019 - 06:49 PM.


#25 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 02:26 AM

The madness with einstenian time spread like a virus infecting everything, as it gain more support in other fields than physics, like cosmology.

 


Every time I have a doubt, I remember the movie "Idiocracy", a genial satire of our fate.

I thought that Idiocracy was a documentary brought back from the future?

 

It's certainly a great shame and blight on humanity that a handful of people over 100 years ago were able to infect the minds of scientists even to this day.

And the next generation is lapping up the stagnant waters at the university fountain of Knowledge, unsuspecting that its all deception. Either deception by mistake or perhaps by design, but the theories are certainly deceiving them.



#26 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:57 AM

No I don't think the future will be like Idiocracy because of relativity you guys have a problems, this is more like the movie the grudge.

 



#27 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 06:57 AM

No I don't think the future will be like Idiocracy because of relativity you guys have a problems, this is more like the movie the grudge.

 

 

I don't relate the future's fate of mankind to Einstein's relativities. I relate it to the disconnexion between 99.9999% of population being disconnected from the dominant 0.0001% left, with less than 10,000 persons ruling the fate of the rest: consume, give us your money and shut up!

 

And this concentration of power is strictly based on the power of technology and disinformation, like it's happening (and accelerating) in the past 20 years.

 

You, VictorMedvil, are no longer free to thought and express yourself. Your profile is being updated in real time at concentrated sites, owned by that group of persons, are your future steps are being predicted. If you behave, you'll stay. If you are noisy, well.....

 

You are fed by force and you are not allowed to have any original thought anymore. If you do, you'll became tagged (like a person of interest).

 

Go ahead, and try to make an statement that you are forced to consume trendy things (I saw that you like games), that social media is a tool for TPTB to dominate you and that MSM is full of fake news, and let's see what happens to you (at work, in your personal life, social life, etc.).

 

That's what I mean about your future. And, in five years, try to form a movement against AI and robots displacing you from work, and stablishment blocking you to access knowledge, and see what happens. It's not so much time: it's only by 2024, which is around the corner.

 

Such a state of affairs is achieved not by having an enlightened mankind, but by a dumbed down one. So, enjoy the new "bread and circus" paradigm.


Edited by rhertz, 07 June 2019 - 06:58 AM.

  • marcospolo likes this

#28 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 07:02 AM

I don't relate the future's fate of mankind to Einstein's relativities. I relate it to the disconnexion between 99.9999% of population being disconnected from the dominant 0.0001% left, with less than 10,000 persons ruling the fate of the rest: consume, give us your money and shut up!

 

And this concentration of power is strictly based on the power of technology and disinformation, like it's happening (and accelerating) in the past 20 years.

 

You, VictorMedvil, are no longer free to thought and express yourself. Your profile is being updated in real time at concentrated sites, owned by that group of persons, are your future steps are being predicted. If you behave, you'll stay. If you are noisy, well.....

 

You are fed by force and you are not allowed to have any original thought anymore. If you do, you'll became tagged (like a person of interest).

 

Go ahead, and try to make an statement that you are forced to consume trendy things (I saw that you like games), that social media is a tool for TPTB to dominate you and that MSM is full of fake news, and let's see what happens to you (at work, in your personal life, social life, etc.).

 

That's what I mean about your future. And, in five years, try to form a movement against AI and robots displacing you from work, and stablishment blocking you to access knowledge, and see what happens. It's not so much time: it's only by 2024, which is around the corner.

 

Such a state of affairs is achieved not by having an enlightened mankind, but by a dumbed down one. So, enjoy the new "bread and circus" paradigm.

 

Strangely, I agree with everything said here. I say we march on the government buildings all over the world simultaneously and show em who the boss is. Worldwide Riot!

 

Let me put on my war face.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 07 June 2019 - 07:24 AM.


#29 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:24 PM

Strangely, I agree with everything said here. I say we march on the government buildings all over the world simultaneously and show em who the boss is. Worldwide Riot!

 

Let me put on my war face.

So why are you so opposed to the concept that the elite rulers have also used education, knowledge to manipulate our beliefs?

Such as the with the BS of Einstein and Quantum. and Cosmology?

If there is ONE thing that I know to be true in this world, (related to Physics) that is the fact that Special and General Relativity are deceptions. totally incorrect. The evidence condemning these two theories is overwhelming.

But you need to read the evidence and actually THINK for yourself, instead of trying to constantly defend the guy. (einstein)



#30 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:30 PM

So why are you so opposed to the concept that the elite rulers have also used education, knowledge to manipulate our beliefs?

Such as the with the BS of Einstein and Quantum. and Cosmology?

If there is ONE thing that I know to be true in this world, (related to Physics) that is the fact that Special and General Relativity are deceptions. totally incorrect. The evidence condemning these two theories is overwhelming.

But you need to read the evidence and actually THINK for yourself, instead of trying to constantly defend the guy. (einstein)

 

Because I don't think that is the case with Knowledge of Science, they may manipulate History, Education and Religion but I don't think it is possible to change the facts about the universe. See, during my time in physics class I have done all these experiments that prove this stuff during the Lab part of the the class and know that it works this way. Atleast during my formal physics education we redid these experiments to teach us what physics was based off and I am telling you it works the way these theories say, from time to time I have had discussions about other theories with professors and they just don't fit reality as well as the standard theories do. Physics is a brutal science, there are only right and wrong answers that is why you often hear me say "It just doesn't work that way" that is what my professor once said to me about one of my theories during discussion that I now realize is clearly wrong.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 07 June 2019 - 04:36 PM.


#31 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 07 June 2019 - 04:45 PM

Because I don't think that is the case with Knowledge of Science, they may manipulate History, Education and Religion but I don't think it is possible to change the facts about the universe. See, during my time in physics class I have done all these experiments that prove this stuff during the Lab part of the the class and know that it works this way. Atleast during my formal physics education we redid these experiments to teach us what physics was based off and I am telling you it works the way these theories say, from time to time I have had discussions about other theories with professors and they just don't fit reality as well as the standard theories do. Physics is a brutal science, there are only right and wrong answers that is why you often hear me say "It just doesn't work that way" that is what my professor once said to me about one of my theories during discussion that I now realize is clearly wrong.

However, in the case of Relativity you did no experiments at all. You only believed what they told you they tested.

David Copperfield can point to tjhe time he made a whole plane disappear, and show video proving it.

The test is not in concocting some demo, but in deciding if the hypothesis could be correct.

SR's hypothesis is 100% error, and the Gamma Math is just wrong totally.

So how then could they have experimental evidence to support a totally wrong hypothesis?

Something is not right.

I'll go with the first principal of showing a rational hypothesis first, then, if it's sensible, and not self-contradictory, then I'll go look at experiments.

NOT the other way around.

Relativists always begin lectures with statements like, "this is going to sound unbelievable"..

and they are correct. I don't believe their hypothesis. and I don't believe their fraudulent demos.



#32 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 02:00 AM

Ok, Here is the next problem with SR hypothesis.

 

We have the thought experiment of Einstein, the light clock on a moving vehicle, and a stationary observer.

Here is the illustration, showing what the two observers will see, according to Einstein.

Let's pretend that I have not already proved that this zigzag path can never happen, we will humour Einstein and assume that it is what the stationary observer will see.

 

special%20relativity%20light%20clock.png

 

But it's still not even correct.

A stationary observer will only see the triangle perfectly when the ship is passing immediately in front of him.

As the ship moves to the right, the stationary observer will see that essential triangle appear to change proportions, eventually, the hypotenuse will seem to become more vertical the further the ship goes.

 

light%20clock1.png

 

So the question is, as gamma is calculated from this triangle, but the triangle SEEMS to be changing as the ship gets further away, does this mean that Time itself will gradually return to normal? That is Time DIlation calculated is only valid for the split second that the moving clock in directly in front of the observer?

Please don't claim that this is an illusion of perspective, as the WHOLE damn hypothesis of Einstein HANGS totally on the stationary observer's PERCEPTION of reality, NOT in reality itself. Einstein always uses the very word, "SEEMS LIKE".

 

So there we have another reason why SR fails as a hypothesis, its irrational gibberish.


Edited by marcospolo, 08 June 2019 - 04:50 PM.


#33 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 08 June 2019 - 12:12 PM

rhertz#18;

 

So far so good. But, in January 1897 and prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment, the german physicist Woldemar Voigt published a paper about sound waves and the Doppler effect, taking into account that information between the resting frame and the moving frame takes a finite amount of time to reach the moving observer.

 


[Looks like a typo. MMX-1887, Voigt-1887,][1]

rhertz#20;

[Lorentz accepted length contraction as a real phenomenon, via Fitzgerald via Heaviside. He was also aware of a need for a local time for an observer at rest in the ether and a revised time for an observer in motion. He considered this as a mathematical stipulation for a consistent 'theorem of corresponding states' in 1892 and 1895. Poincare saw 'local time' as a necessity, and wrote this interesting text in
"The Measure of Time', 1898:
"We do not have a direct intuition for simultaneity, just as little as for the equality of two periods. If we believe to have this intuition, it is an illusion. We helped ourselves with certain rules, which we usually use without giving us account over it [...] We choose these rules therefore, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we could summarize them while saying: „The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism".
Interesting when compared to this:
"That light requires the same time to traverse the same path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."[1]

Relativity The Special and the General Theory

Albert Einstein 1961 Crown Publishers Inc. pg 23.
or heliocentric vs geocentric.
In my reference material, it states Poincare corrected the transformation equations for charge and current density in the Lorentz theory.]

[Human thought prefers simplicity as an aid to understanding.

What I see is an approximation to understanding our world via models and a constant refinement of knowledge. Theories are always built on prior work of others. Human society will never comprehend the actual foundation and functioning of the universe.]

ref[1] Lorentz Ether Theory, Wiki, June 2016



#34 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:50 PM

[The coordinate transformations convert A-events to B-events, based on relative velocity. Galilean relativity used an absolute universal time, which approximates SR at slow speeds.]

 

And Einstein also requires an absolute stationary reference frame but he just pretends that his hypothesis does not use it, But it's in there.
 

[Any observer in SR will measure the speed of light as c, without any type of compensation. There is no such requirement.]

 

 You have no way to explain how this could possibly work. The simple fact is that anything that moves, can be compared to anything else, which leads to the logical formula of C+ or minus V.

 

[ You are misinterpreting the SR theory, and cannot erase the years of experimental verification.]

There is NO experimental verification for SR that holds up to scrutiny. 

Muons are probably the most solid looking candidates to support SR, but after analyzing the claims of the experiment, it fails to demonstrate what they claim.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity, einstein, physics