Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

How does the always obvious possibility that an assumption could be wrong possibly "remove" the problem?  I don't get it.

If you dog pisses on the neighbour's lawn, its a problem.

 

If two theoretical Physicists are having an argument about an imagined problem, then that not quite the same type of problem.

 

One can be solved by shooting the dog, the other only needs a slight shift in thinking of one of the Physicists, as there was never a real problem to begin with, just someone's thinking was crappy.

 

Think different and suddenly there is no way to even repeat the problem, it has effectively disappeared.

 

I cant put it any simpler terms.

 

Up till now no one considered the "obvious possibility that an assumption could be wrong".

They do not even imagine that their assumptions are just assumptions, they think its all facts they work with. They never review the observations in this light.

 

I'm only talking about this one unique case here, MInkowski, Einstein, Lorentz, light theory etc.   Not every damn thing. Stop generalizing.

[Moronium]

Up till now no one considered the "obvious possibility that an assumption could be wrong".

They do not even imagine that their assumptions are just assumptions, they think its all facts they work with. They never review the observations in this light.

 

I'm only talking about this one unique case here, MInkowski, Einstein, Lorentz, light theory etc.   Not every damn thing. Stop generalizing.

 

 

Leaving the arrogant mathematician, Minkowski, out of this, of course both E and L were quite  cognizant of the fact that their respective theories were based on hypotheses that could be wrong.  Each theory could "explain," just for example, the M-M experiment equally well.  And they each acknowledged this. Of course they always "reviewed the observations in this light."  Why would you ever claim otherwise?

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Minkowski (together with the chemist) : The ticking rate of clocks never changes with speed.  Time just slows down, that's all (the chemist differs here, you claim).

 

Lorentz:  The ticking rate of clocks slows with speed, time never slows down or speeds up.

 

====

 

Now, then, I ask some SR disciple to explain to me just how it is that "time" slows down.  Say I fire a bullet from a gun.  How does that bullet, for itself and itself alone, change time?  Does it grab time by the throat, and force it to slow down, or what?

 

He will reach for a piece of graph paper.  I say:  No, just explain to me, conceptually, how that happens.

 

That's when they tell you you're an idiot, ya know?  Too stupid to even talk to.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I can understand, conceptually, how heat (temperature) can make the molecules and atoms of a substance vibrate faster.  Even if I don't know why. And even if I couldn't understand it, I could accept that countless experiments show that this is the case.  So they say, anyway:

 

The average kinetic energy of a gas particle is directly proportional to the temperature. An increase in temperature increases the speed in which the gas molecules move. All gases at a given temperature have the same average kinetic energy. Lighter gas molecules move faster than heavier molecules.

 

I can understand, conceptually, how speed and changes in momentum, etc. could theoretically affect the internal workings of atoms (the rate of oscillations, for example).  But even if I couldn't understand it, I could accept that countless experiments show that this is the case.

 

But I can't understand, conceptually, how "time" could "reach in" and make such changes to matter.

 

Even less can I understand, conceptually, how the matter could remain unaltered while changing "time."

 

Can anyone give me a coherent physical explanation of how that could happen?  Notice that I said "physical" explanation, not a mathematical one.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I could also understand how speeds faster than light could occur, the postulate of SR notwithstanding.  Consider temperature, for example.

 

On the one hand you have the theory:

 

At the physically impossible-to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 273.15 degrees Celsius), atoms would stop moving. As such, nothing can be colder than absolute zero on the Kelvin scale.

 

 

 

 

 

On the other, you have the observations:

 

Absolute zero is often thought to be the coldest temperature possible. But now researchers show they can achieve even lower temperatures for a strange realm of "negative temperatures.

 

https://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

 

As far as theories of relative motion go, LR does not impose a theoretical limit on the speed of light.  Some cosmologists therefore suggest that LR is a better model than SR for explaining the superliminal speeds they detect.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I'm kinda expecting someone to come along and point out that it's not "time" that changes, it's "spacetime."  But the space vs time components of so-called "spacetime" can be calculates separately, they say.  See, for example:

 

The curvature of space alone has almost no effect on the movement of objects until they are moving really fast..In almost all cases the vast majority of an object’s movement is tied up in its forward movement through time...time pointing slightly down is entirely responsible for the motion of the planets, and every other everyday experience of gravity.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31146-whats-up-with-gravitt-and-spacetime-curvature/

 

"Time pointing downwards," eh?  That makes sense, sho nuff.

 

Even in GR, "time itself" doesn't change.  Clock rates do, that's all.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I can understand, conceptually, how heat (temperature) can make the molecules and atoms of a substance vibrate faster.  Even if I don't know why. And even if I couldn't understand it, I could accept that countless experiments show that this is the case.  

 

If you can comprehend the notion of physical processes occurring, then it's not that hard to imagine that the rate at which those processes occur can change.  Get good and drunk and check out the change in reaction time for yourself, ya know? 

 

Temperature affects clocks, too.  It's well known that temperature affects pendulum clocks, for example. On a warm day the pendulum rod will expand and the clock will run a little slower. So you can see that the length of rods can change with temperature too.

 

But is "time" changing?

 

Why is, I wonder, that we don't say that time changes with every degree (or less) of temperature change?  If processes are slowing down and speeding up with temperature, wouldn't that mean that "time" changed when the temperature changed?  Well, it might mean that, if you're an SR adherent, I guess.  Nobody else would ever see it that way, but....

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You can't, using the LT, have BOTH a retardation of clock rates AND a slowing of "time itself."  It would never work out mathematically.  It's one or the other.  Which is it, I wonder?

 

Changes in clock ticking rates have been repeatedly verified.  But no one has ever (or ever will) measured a change in "time itself."

 

Sorry, there, eh, Minkowski?  Back to the drawing board for you.  You can leave the graph paper, though.  This aint a matter of "geometry."

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It is widely believed that the principal difference between Einstein’s special relativity and its contemporary rival Lorentz-type theories was that while the Lorentz type theories were also capable of “explaining away” the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment and other experimental findings by means of the distortions of moving measuring-rods and moving clocks, special relativity revealed more fundamental new facts about the geometry of space-time behind these phenomena.

 

According to this widespread view, special relativity was, first of all, a radically new theory about space and time. This is however not the case.  In comparison with the pre-relativistic Galileo-invariant conceptions, special relativity tells us nothing new about the geometry of space-time. It simply calls something else “space-time."...Special relativity and the Lorentz theory are identical theories about space and time in all sense of the words.

 

 

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9896/1/leszabo-lorein-preprint.pdf

 

What!?  You mean calling time a "fourth dimension" doesn't make it one?  Like, who knew, I ask ya?

 

What a disappointment.  Hell, now we're back to that boring 3 + 1 spacetime.  What fun is that?

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Leaving the arrogant mathematician, Minkowski, out of this, of course both E and L were quite  cognizant of the fact that their respective theories were based on hypotheses that could be wrong.  Each theory could "explain," just for example, the M-M experiment equally well.  And they each acknowledged this. Of course they always "reviewed the observations in this light."  Why would you ever claim otherwise?

The distinction I'm making is not that E or L were willing to admit that their hypothesis was possibly incorrect.

At some stage  E's hypothesis was elevated to ths status of a Theory.

 

What I'm saying is that both E's an L's hypothesis were only possible to postulate because of the previously accepted principals of Physics.

Im saying that certain concepts of Physics dating way back, had become commonly acceptable standard views of how some things worked.

Yet these commonly held principals had never been actually verified, they were in fact just well knows assumptions, now viewed as reality.

(right or wrong was never questioned)

 

Take the universally accepted view that light has a speed, and its traveling from source to target like some arrows.

 

This is the only way for people to think about how light works. Its the core principal behind a massive amount of other studies of Physics, optics, cosmology etc.

Yet it is a commonly held belief that is so accepted that no one needs to even consider that any other way of looking at light could even be possible.

 

Yet the claim that light has a speed and something made up of light actually moves from here to there, then is absorbed on impact, or in the case of glass, its absorbed , then is transmuted into new bits of light that are moving slower,  finally exiting as brand new light bits, out the other side back into the air, where it decides to speed up again.

 

This whole understanding of light may very well be nothing but just complex speculation, a comfortable assumption.

 

THIS is what I talking about, not just the assumption that we have a correct understanding of light, but also those other examples I gave.

 

All are assumed to be true, and are used without question in new hypotheses, such as EInstein's and Lorentz's.

E and L's hypotheses are argued as to their logic and the validity of their own postulates, but no one stops to think that already we have accepted a bunch of concepts used by Physics for which no proof exists.

 

For instance, and not limited to this example, the question of whether light is something that travels, was never answered hundreds of years ago. It was just decided by committee that light travels, so has a speed, and that was the end of  the discussion.

At the time they may have thought that they had some supporting evidence, but they never considered that any evidence could be interpreted in a number of equally sound ways. So very quickly it was accepted that light moves, travels at a certain speed. End of thought about how light works.

 

Years later, when examining some observation related to light, its a given that light travels at "c". We all KNOW it.

But this lack of critical review of all past science, gives rise to the opportunity to miss interpret new experimental evidence.

 

In Einstein's case, he had no experimental evidence to interpret. He just imagined "situations" and what he thought might happen.

 

Based on what earlier knowledge?

Well, he already "KNEW" that light travels, and it has a speed.

 

Who has ever criticized Einsteins postulates because he was assuming that light really is made of  some stuff that flies through space? No one has. (only me apparently) Why would light want to always move at 186,000 miles a second? Why cant it just sit there all shiny? Whats pushing it out like a cannon at that set speed? When a photon (an assumption right there) is generated, what physical action powered by what is making that photon depart in such a hurry, and only in a perfectly straight line? Why don't some spiral out in an unbalanced fashion at least occasionally?   nature is never so precise in other areas, only light is able to maintain its speed across the entire universe, in a perfectly straight trajectory.  How about the fact that light is generated as a sphere, and something ejects photons in every possible direction, exactly equally. A single LED emits or creates and then ejects at 186,000 miles per second, light in the same way a distant star does.

There is not any dull sectors in this ejected sphere of light, its perfectly equal rays, all perfectly straight, all moving more photons along more vectors than there are atoms in the universe, and doing that amount every few seconds. and that's just the photons from one small LED bulb.

 

Well that wraps it up for the ACCEPTED understanding of light.

 

I could add more, but you get the drift. We don't know much about how light really works, as that standard accepted explanation I just gave is nonsensical.

So now armed with that obviously crappy understanding of light, Einstein comes along and imagines what else might happen if he could go that fast alongside a photon!

Is it any wonder that he came up with such nonsense?

 

Its not his fault, he just made the mistake of thinking that he already knew some key things about light, and other things. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed. But even worse if the things you believe are "knowledge" are in fact just assumptions, and false assumptions to boot.

 

So his knowledge was only based on earlier assumptions, not on facts. There is practically no chance that he could come up with any useful new insights given this handicap. There is the basis fro Relativity. Also for LT.

 

SR and LT don't "explain" the M&M experiment.  They make up fudges to the story that was expected but not found. They are excuses as to why the NULL result.

 

No one is going to "explain" the reason why we see interference rings in an interferometer, unless they really know how light works. And no one does.

 

Light is a particle with no size and no mass. (such properties make it a NON particle) But it has Inertia, despite the claim that inertia is mass * acceleration.

Light is a wave, light is sometimes a particle and sometimes a wave, light is neither a particle or a wave, its a "wave packet".

 

Light travels in straight lines. Light is curved by spacetime, and all of spacetime is curved, there is no straight bits.. We can measure distant objects in space using simple  geometry of triangles, with straight lines, even though we just said that all of space is curved and nothing is straight, but forget that for now.

 

Light has no mass yet is affected by gravity, which only affects things that have mass.

 

Light intensity drops off according to the inverse square rule, (ask a photographer about his flash gun for verification) yet we can clearly see light from stars 13 billion light years away!

 Light from the sun bounces off the moon with enough intensity for us to be able to read a book by moonlight on occasion, but although the moon is only one sixth as large as the Earth, there was no reflected "Earth light" on the moon, (the suns light reflected of Earth to illuminate the moon.) during the "night time" on the moon.

It was just always pitch black without direct sunlight, yet the Moon's moon (the earth) is 6 times the size in the sky, even though it never is shown that way by the Apollo astronauts, perhaps they did not think of that when they took the pics from the moon,  the earth looks the same size just like the moon does from Earth!

Anyway, I digress.

Point is, those theories themselves have enough to be critical off, but missing is the criticism and review of all the underlying "common knowledge" on which all theories rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[ralfcis]

I'm about to enter crank world with a new theory and with no math to back it up. Something bothered me about the last answer I gave Marcospolo last night. Concurrently I was exploring the use of light signals in my other thread to establish what time is it really between Bob and Alice. But then I hit an example I couldn't explain; what if Alice returned to earth at so near the speed of light, we could just call it c to make the math easier. I was trying to reconcile that all clocks tick at the same universal rate within a frame so how do they end up with different readings when they meet up due to "relative velocity". I figured  it wasn't something as innocuous as relative velocity that was causing clock ticks to disappear without either observer noticing it on their own clocks, but it was the act of comparing the clocks that was causing the difference. If I just used Einstein's old light signal method to sync clocks but in reverse to see where they get unsync'd, then I'd find the answer to the question. 

 

But when I used the example of Alice returning at near light speed, the answer just didn't make sense. The answer relativity gives is that Alice doesn't age at all during the return leg. From Bob's perspective it takes light 3 yrs to reach him from Alice's turnaround point. Yet from Alice's perspective, she has travelled that 3 ly in no time at all. Her clock hasn't ticked forward a beat and yet from her perspective of her velocity of time through time, she can't go through it faster than c. Ignoring perspective for a second, Alice is hitting velocities through both space and time effectively  greater than c

 

The lame excuse in relativity for this phenomenon is light has no consciousness so it's a no-brainer, literally, for light to cross the entire universe in zero of its time. Light is born and bounces around the universe an infinite number of times in none of its time. But in our example, Alice does have consciousness and what she sees doesn't make sense. She has not only reached Bob in zero of her time, she's everywhere in the universe simultaneously in zero of her time. Well, this is just another example of the impracticality of relativity. So how do I determine what is actually physically happening here.

 

When I have a problem, I set it as my last thought before I go to bed so my brain can process it over night. Usually I wake up with he solution in the morning (heads out of the gutter guys). So I woke up with the solution and it's wild. What if instead of the answer being how much less Alice has aged wrt Bob, what if the answer is how much more Bob has aged wrt Alice. The key here is to bring in the fact that Alice and Bob's clocks always tick at the universal rate so they must always be the same age. They aren't because relativity has a lengthy and convoluted explanation for that. I have a new one.

 

For my example where Alice returns at c after leaving Bob at .6c, relativity says when they re-unite, Bob is 8 and Alice is 4. She lost a year before the turnaround and she lost 3 more after it. I'm saying add that 4 yr discrepancy to Bob's age when they meet so she's 8 and Bob is 12. I only have the answer so far, not the mechanism of how Bob's clock gets extra unseen ticks and at what point do they sneak their way onto Bob's clock. But the answer should be similar to how relativity explains how clock ticks magically disappeared from Alice's clock.

 

Here's a list of return leg velocities and the time difference at unification:

v              age diff

c                4

.9756c       3.4

.8824c       2.8

.8c             2.5

.6c             2

.3946c       1.6

.2c             1.3

0c              1

-.6c            0

 

Instead of subtracting these from Bob's age to arrive at Alice's age, you add them to Bob's. So when Alice returns to Bob at c, she still ages 8 yrs but Bob ages 12. The minkowski graphs don't support this but neither do they support the depiction of relative velocity. A new graphical method must be found to support the correct answers of what's really physically happening.

 

You'll notice that the above table is incomplete. Relativity doesn't allow the calculation of age difference between 0c and -.6c ( or even at those relative velocities) where Alice slows down and doesn't turnaround. It also doesn't allow calculations if Alice speeds up away from Bob (hint, Alice starts to age faster than Bob if relativity allowed this calculation). There are even more far reaching results that I was exploring just before I got kicked off the spcf forum for blasphemy. Here I'll just give you a taste of the answer without explaining it (this was before I realized this morning that the age difference should be added to Bob's age not subtracted from Alice's).

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6185&mode=view

 

and the behemoth

 

 http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6214&mode=view

 

I think John Nash used to make diagrams like this. 

 

enjoy

Edited February 15, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I just had a great idea. I'm going to divide time into causal and non-causal time. Causal is the same as relativity's proper time and non-causal is the same as perspective time. The cause of an event happens in proper time and propagates out as effects whose time is subject to perspective and relativity of simultaneity.. A new type of simultaneity will be defined for causal time which is different from the relativity of simultaneity for non-causal time.

 

PS. I just had another great idea. It shouldn't really matter who you assign the age difference to because it's all relative right? But I don't see how Bob can be 12 at the reunion when he's only aged 8 yrs according to his clock. I'm going to have to sleep on this and come up with some excuse, I mean explanation. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

What I'm saying is that both E's an L's hypothesis were only possible to postulate because of the previously accepted principals of Physics.

Im saying that certain concepts of Physics dating way back, had become commonly acceptable standard views of how some things worked.

Yet these commonly held principals had never been actually verified, they were in fact just well knows assumptions, now viewed as reality.

(right or wrong was never questioned)

  

Well, Marco, in order to solve all the problems of physics it looks like you're gunna have to go back to Aristotle, Democritus, Archimedes, et al, and start from scratch.  You can rewrite the whole history of physics, ya know?  You just have to ask "the right questions."

 

Who knows?  Maybe Parmenides was right when he said, long before those  guys, that all change (motion, etc.) is impossible and therefore illusory.   Maybe he was asking the right questions, but they just didn't listen to the guy, that's all.

 

It may take you a few weeks to re-assess it all, though.  Good luck!

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Form is not substance.  The v (for velocity) in SR is relative; in LR it is absolute.  The form is the same, the substance is not. As applied, they are entirely different.

 

Yeah, sure H-K expected, and found, time variations.  But not "via" SR.  They found it by direct experiment and analyzed those finding "via" the LT (which LR uses).  The problem they had was that the time variations found could NOT be explained by SR.  They could only explain them by establishing a preferred frame and using LR, not SR.  Their findings did not "confirm SR."  They basically falsified SR (no "reciprocal time dilation" and motion could not be treated as relative, for example).  Instead their findings conformed to the expectations of the LT, as employed by LR.

 

The GPS also uses a preferred frame.  It has to in order to work in practice.  Using SR would render it entirely dysfunctional.  Did you even look at the academic paper I quoted (and gave a link to)?  Obviously not, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Learn up, Sluggo.

 

 

Why did H@K post the results in terms of SR and GR?

[Moronium]

Why did H@K post the results in terms of SR and GR?

 

 

They didn't.  Not if you actually read their summary of the experiment, anyway.

 

They did, of course, try to gloss it over and try to give the appearance that SR was confirmed.

 

They said something like "the time dilation predicted by SR in the twin paradox was confirmed!"

 

Time dilation is also predicted by LR, but they didn't mention that in their promotional releases.

 

They confirmed the validity of the LT (not SR), but only if it was applied in the manner prescribed by LR (not that used by SR).

 

Their experiment did (partially) confirm "Einstein," insofar as gravitational clock distortion of GR was found to be accurate. And H & K were quick to invoke his name in connection with their reporting of their results.

 

Their deceptive explanation was, of course, widely accepted without question by the physics community.  To this day you will see people (including physicists) claiming that H-K "confirmed SR" when in fact it effectively falsified it.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Why did H@K post the results in terms of SR and GR?

 

In their published paper H & K invoke "Builder," who did an extensive analysis of SR back in the '50's.  Builder showed, by clear and convincing facts and arguments, that the clock retardation assumed by SR (and LR) made no sense unless  a preferred frame existed.

 

But, of course, SR denies the existence of, and strictly prohibits the use of, a preferred frame, so it's not "SR" any more if you do that. At that point it is Lorentzian Relativity.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ether and Relativity  (G. Builder)

 

Article in Australian Journal of Physics 11(3):279-297 · January 1958

 

The relative retardation of clocks, predicted by the restricted theory of relativity, demands our recognition of the causal significance of absolute velocities....The observable effects of absolute accelerations and of absolute velocities must be ascribed to interaction of bodies and physical systems with some absolute inertial system. We have no alternative but to identify this absolute system with the universe. Thus, in the context of physics, absolute motion must be understood to mean motion relative to the universe, and any wider or more abstract interpretation of the "absolute" must be denied.

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262959486_Ether_and_Relativity

 

I can't find, offhand, a copy of Builder's paper which I can copy and paste from, but it's well worth reading in it's entirety. You can read it here, if you want:  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B The foregoing excerpt is from the abstract.

 

A number of theoretical physicists have pointed out, and elaborated upon, Builder's contributions since his time (he died in 1960), but relatively few.  Fortunately for H & K, they were (or at least became) familiar with his analysis.  They knew relative motion couldn't explain their results.

 

Since Builder's paper was published it has been discovered that one need not invoke an "ether" per se, or the "universe" as a whole, in order to get reliable predictions with LR. The center of the gravitational mass which is dominant in the vicinity being investigated serves as the appropriate preferred frame.  That's what H & K used, i.e., the non-rotating earth-centered inertial frame ("ECI"). 

 

The GPS uses the same. And incidentally, many physicists also try to claim that the GPS "confirms" SR because SR "concepts" are used.  They're just talking about the LT, which is not even an SR concept.  It was invented by Lorentz and lifted from his theory by Einstein.  Like H-K, the GPS basically refutes SR.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium