Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

relativity einstein physics

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#35 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 09:54 PM

.

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.

about my post #32

No one has taken a shot at this one?  Einstein depends on the "point of view", the "appearance" of events, how events SEEM to the observer. AND he insists that the observer is kept ignorant about key things such as if he is moving or not.  So here is the accurate apparent path that the light pulse would have.

Now let's see you do the math to come up with time dilation. 



#36 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 10 June 2019 - 10:51 PM

about my post #32

No one has taken a shot at this one?  Einstein depends on the "point of view", the "appearance" of events, how events SEEM to the observer. AND he insists that the observer is kept ignorant about key things such as if he is moving or not.  So here is the accurate apparent path that the light pulse would have.

Now let's see you do the math to come up with time dilation. 

 

I've just posted it before you. Read the science explanation for muon's time dilation and length contraction.

 

I don't agree with that (I wrote a specific thread about muons).

 

I only did the einstenian math that current physics use. Can fact-check it with the link at HyperPhysics.

 

Tell me if what is used as an explanation makes logical sense to any of you. I repeat: I only did the math using Lorentz.



#37 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 550 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 03:06 AM

I've just posted it before you. Read the science explanation for muon's time dilation and length contraction.

 

I don't agree with that (I wrote a specific thread about muons).

 

I only did the einstenian math that current physics use. Can fact-check it with the link at HyperPhysics.

 

Tell me if what is used as an explanation makes logical sense to any of you. I repeat: I only did the math using Lorentz.

Your post about muons seems to have nothing to do with that illustration I posted which showed that the zig zag aspect gradually gets shorter thus mucking up the ratio between the height and hypotenuse. So Lorentz equation should not be a fixed ratio to speed, it needs to account for the changing APPARENT shortening of the hypotenuse as the light clock and ship recede into the distance.

 

I generally have little interest in the Math. I am more interested in the concepts behind a hypothesis, which I claim must be rationally stated and conclusion must be logically sound.

So what did your muon post conclude?



#38 rhertz

rhertz

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 11 June 2019 - 06:28 AM

Your post about muons seems to have nothing to do with that illustration I posted which showed that the zig zag aspect gradually gets shorter thus mucking up the ratio between the height and hypotenuse. So Lorentz equation should not be a fixed ratio to speed, it needs to account for the changing APPARENT shortening of the hypotenuse as the light clock and ship recede into the distance.

 

I generally have little interest in the Math. I am more interested in the concepts behind a hypothesis, which I claim must be rationally stated and conclusion must be logically sound.

So what did your muon post conclude?

 

OK. I was telling you abou the subject of time dilation (which I believe is FALSE) and how relativists keep using the subject of cosmics muons to

tell you (and to them) that it really exists. Also, the same subject (cosmic muons) is used to explain length contraction (from muon's perspective).

 

I always considered this as a stupid demonstration. The problem is that muons are unstable particles and, at laboratories, they have an average

life (called decay time) of 2.2 microseconds. But cosmic muons (from cosmic radiation) are, outdoors, very abundant and are more than 50% of

the total radiation in the atmosphere.

 

Then, how they say that this cosmic muons are generated at the higher atmosphere (10 to 16 Km), and at speed close to "c", they COULD travel

only 660 meters (average). As they can't explain why are so abundant on the surface of the Earth, scientists use Einstein's relativity and time

dilation.

 

I HATE THIS, and my post for muons is about telling that there are DIFFERENT TYPES of muons (the lab created ones and the cosmic ones) and

that science FALSIFY REALITY.

 

It's very difficult to fight the INFECTION of relativity. There are not known antibiothics for this ZOMBIFICATION!!

 

I'm with you on this, never forget, even when we differ in some issues and I prefer to use math to ridiculize einstenians! Keep going!





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