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

#35 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 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
  • 303 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
  • 605 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
  • 303 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!



#39 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 05:08 PM

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!

Nope, I'm firmly with you on these matters.

But it seems that the relativists are now just choosing to place us on the ignore list, as no one is trying to defend Relativity anymore.

It's funny how the people who claim to know the truth of Physics and have the worlds most intelligent people on their side, are unable to come up with solid arguments.

And when presented with evidence that their claims are false, they shrink away like schoolgirls. Actually, that's not fair, schoolgirls are far more feisty than Relativists who realise they are in the presence of critics.



#40 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 05:13 PM

 

It's funny how the people who claim to know the truth of Physics and have the worlds most intelligent people on their side, are unable to come up with solid arguments.

And when presented with evidence that their claims are false, they shrink away like schoolgirls.

 

What planet are you on?



#41 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 10:15 PM

What planet are you on?

Well, its no wonder you can't understand why Einstein's theories are wrong when you have to ask simple questions like "what planet are we on"?

But this is typical of your lack of answers to direct problems I've raised.  You fail to address the problem and offer unrelated information to sidestep the issue.



#42 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 10:46 PM

I haven't failed to address anything. It doesn't matter what account you do this from, you have been wrong multiple times. Reported.



#43 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:30 PM

I haven't failed to address anything. It doesn't matter what account you do this from, you have been wrong multiple times. Reported.

do I need to make a list of all the issues that you failed to answer?



#44 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:32 PM

I haven't failed to address anything. It doesn't matter what account you do this from, you have been wrong multiple times. Reported.

Post #32 is a recent one you skipped, but you have failed to give a reasonable reply to any of my posts.  A half baked answer that leaves as many holes as it tries to fill is not sufficient from the self-appointed authority of what is Physics truth.



#45 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:36 PM

And here's the next interesting problem for Relativists:

https://www.youtube....h?v=iffHjlpbvyg



#46 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 04:52 PM

I want to deconstruct this one little post of yours to show why you are either invincibly stupid or a troll, or both.

 

As I have already explained to you, it was NOT Einstein who first said that the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, it was Galileo! Do you not have a memory, either?

 

Now what does that mean? It means that in any frame which is constant uniform motion, there is no experiment that you can conduct to prove that you are in motion, as distinct from being at rest. This has already been explained to you!

 

So Postulate One is from Galileo, NOT from Einstein! Understand? It is called Galilean relativity.

 

Only Postulate Two — that the speed of light is invariant as measured in all inertial frames — is from Einstein. This postulate is OBSERVED to be true.

 

It means — as has been explained to you! — that photons, lacking rest mass, do not obey Galilean additivity (addition of velocity calculation). From this, it automatically follows that relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction MUST occur.

 

The idea that the laws of physics are the same as measured in all frames is something that occurs WITHIN a frame. Even without Einstein, and with only Galileo, someone on the ground who watches a train rushing past will insist that someone inside the train who is bouncing a ball is bouncing it in a zigzag path! The rider, of course, will see the ball bouncing up and down — as he would at rest!

 

You see, WITHIN A FRAME, the meter stick does not shrink nor does the clock run slow nor does the ball zigzag — that is the whole effing point!

 

So your real beef, as I have explained to you, is with Galileo and not Einstein!

 

Now please don’t keep lying and say that no one has rebutted your garbage, troll. Thankfully, this crap thread has been removed from the standard science forum and placed in the trash heap where it belongs.

<<I want to deconstruct this one little post of yours to show why you are either invincibly stupid or a troll, or both.>>

 

And I want to deconstruct your logic to show you why you have been lied to by the University.

 

<<As I have already explained to you, it was NOT Einstein who first said that the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, it was Galileo! Do you not have a memory, either?>>

 

I know that, but its Einstein’s deceptive misuse of Galileo that I’m interested in.

 

 

<<Now what does that mean? It means that in any frame which is constant uniform motion, there is no experiment that you can conduct to prove that you are in motion, as distinct from being at rest. This has already been explained to you!>>

 

You see this is where Einstein begins his deception, his twisting of Physics using half-truths to fool gullible or trusting people.

Because First, Galileo was talking about simple kinetics, dropping balls from ships or balloons and the like.

Einstein took this and added a whole new level involving a trick that says that even NON PHYSICAL things, (light) would be applicable to Galileo’s simple kinetic motion observations.

 

Now as its already been PROVEN that Einstein’s postulate that you can’t do any experiment to prove if you are moving or stationary, is WRONG.

So before I even get into deconstructing your “gibberish” Einstein is already discredited.

I only need ONE proof that shows that his hypothesis is wrong, and there it is already, but there are more to come.

 

So, you CAN do an experiment to see if you are in a box stationary on Earth, or in a box, in deep space, accelerating under inertial conditions, at 1 g.

So this destroys Einstein’s whole argument, does it not? (if you can do such an experiment)

 

I’ll wait for your reply before I continue to destroy your god.



#47 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2637 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 05:01 PM


So, you CAN do an experiment to see if you are in a box stationary on Earth, or in a box, in deep space, accelerating under inertial conditions, at 1 g.

So this destroys Einstein’s whole argument, does it not? (if you can do such an experiment)

Ok, this one I'm really curious about.

How do you tell if you're the one moving? If the boys and gals up in the ISS don't look outside, what experiment can they do to prove to themselves they're moving? That's quite a claim, and I'm terribly interested in your answer.



#48 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 05:23 PM

Ok, this one I'm really curious about.

How do you tell if you're the one moving? If the boys and gals up in the ISS don't look outside, what experiment can they do to prove to themselves they're moving? That's quite a claim, and I'm terribly interested in your answer.

It's quite clear that you are NOT interested in rational thinking or sound logic, because this proof has been described in this forum before.

But you choose to ignore it, as it destroys the relativity hypothesis.

 

In this example, a box on earth and a box in free space, under inertial acceleration, matching Earths gravity, one could easily tell which was what. The destroys Einstein's basic assumptions on which his whole hypothesis rests.

 

The Earth box has gravity that has "pull" towards the Earth centre, so the measurements from left to right of the direction of the gravity are not parallel.

You may need a very wide box to measure this, but it's real, and measuring ease is not the point here. Additionally, the box under gravity has a lower gravity at the top than the bottom which is closer to the source. Gravity on a mountain top is less than gravity at sea level.

 

In a box in space, the acceleration is uniform left to right, and top to bottom.

 

You can't try to get around this by enlisting some variation of General or Special Relativity as we are still at the postulate criticism stage of Einstein's Hypothesis.

 

There are similar proofs for boxes in free fall, and boxes floating in deep space. You can tell the difference, but the important point to note is that none of this posturing was the point that Galilei was trying to make.

Einstein intended to take Galileos simple physics and abuse the hell out of it, along with his BS about Light, in order to make moronic conclusions that seemed somehow to be following the established laws. They are NOT.

Einstein is a fraud. It's that simple. You have been fooled by an expert.



#49 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2637 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 08:55 PM

In this example, a box on earth and a box in free space, under inertial acceleration, matching Earths gravity, one could easily tell which was what. The destroys Einstein's basic assumptions on which his whole hypothesis rests.


Woah there hombre. ACCELERATION is one thing, the problem is COASTING.

ISS, not on some maintenance burn. Not looking out the windows. Just 4 dudes and 2 chicks floating in a can. What can they do?
 

It's quite clear that you are NOT interested in rational thinking or sound logic, because this proof has been described in this forum before.
But you choose to ignore it, as it destroys the relativity hypothesis.


First off, a quick reminder that the rules page can be quickly accessed via the bottom right of every single page. You'll see a nice little link labeled "Science Forums Rules" Kindly go read them, and consider how your last post is going a bit past toeing the line on a few of them. I'm more patient than Some of the other fellows, but you've already been on "stress leave" for an attitude. I politely and rationally request that you hakuna your tah-tas.

Second off,  I'm quite interested in both Logic and Rationality. They're integral to theory of mind, and I rather like 'Philosophizing with a Hammer" as well. Look it up some time, juicy read. Sadly I'm unsure why you resort to fallacy of character-attacks in response to a question. That would indicate to me you need to take a moment to reconsider weather your response is rational and responsible, or is merely lashing out irrationally. This brings us directly to:

Thirdly, you're failing at a key part of a fully functional psyche here. I mentioned Theory of Mind earlier. It's a bit of a digression from the main post but this is important. "because this proof has been described in this forum before" seems to indicate you fail to understand than my experiences and the things I have viewed directly are not those you have viewed directly. You're failing the Sally-Ann-task and you should probably work on that. No amount of sass will make up for such a cognitive defect if you wish to speak of rationality and logic. I don't read EVERYTHING here, I've got plenty of other things to occupy my attention. You and your talks are but a minuscule fraction of what I lay eyes upon. Once you realize this you'll stop failing a task most people master in childhood. I recognize you don't read everything I post and experience. So I'm pointing you to these things in good faith and reminding you of the rules for the same reason, despite how redundant the task is with how often I've done it with other individuals. That's called rationality, please drink the koolaid.

Beyond that, I see your sufficiently wide elevator idea, though I'm not precisely sure how you'd account for transverse gravitation (like that experienced next to mountains or particularly dense crust) which could easily swing a "sufficiently sensitive instrument set" in a "sufficiently wide box" well away from the overall barycenter towards the local one. Same way it would be hard to account for "burps" in fuel and uneven nozzle wear in an equally large accelerating box with a equally sensitive instrument set. That's the problem with simplistic thought-experiments: reality is far stranger than your mind can conceive unless you experience it yourself, and you must play by it's logic not the reverse. Still, I'll leave that in the box of brain-fu for now and allow you an ideal perfectly homogeneous and spherical planetoid in a perfectly straight and perfectly large box with perfectly calibrated and perfectly sensitive instruments being able to tell barycenter acceleration from a straight vector acceleration. The question still remains for the important one: Coasting at speed in a tin can, how do you define your speed? That's one of the important ones and the one I'm particularly interested in your answer for.
 


Edited by GAHD, 20 June 2019 - 09:54 PM.
postmerge


#50 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 10:56 PM

The one body problem - simply stated, if you were alone in the universe, there are no other frames of reference and you may as well not exist.

 

Two body problem in relativity - you cannot be biased about who is moving faster, both observers will experience the time dilate from the perspective of the other, the question remains, who is moving faster?

 

The third body problem - you are at rest with Earth and you can measure with some confidence, time has slowed down on the ship to the one who holds the measuring stick. On the ship, the pilot wisens up and realizes that the stationary observer has a second reference, and to him, time must be slowing down on the ship, even though it cannot be detected from his own motion from his own reference frame. 



#51 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 20 June 2019 - 11:00 PM

There is a fourth principle, an all body motion. This is the basis of relativity, there is no such thing as rest, not even quantum mechanics.





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