Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[LightStorm]

Just one point that I would challenge though.  Its the notion that there could be such a thing as Time Dilation.

Why would you want to hang on to this idea?

 

Take a planet revolving around the sun. Every full revolution is one unit of time. If you suddenly move the sun, the planet has to travel an extra distance to make a full revolution. This means, it takes longer to circle the sun. This is an instance of slowing down of a process or time dilation. This is per Newton physics. Which is why is said, time dilation is a pre-relativity effect. I prefer the term, 'clock dilation'. Time does not slow. It's only the clock.

Edited May 4, 2019 by LightStorm

[marcospolo]

Time dilation is slowing down of a process. For eg vibrations in an atomic clock. The vibrations are subject to external motion. Therefore when you move an atomic clock, you change its vibration rate. This is slowing down of a process, aka time dilation. I am not fond of the term "time dilation". I prefer "clock dilation". Especially atomic clocks where vibrations are involved. Big clocks don't undergo this slowing down. Therefore I am very specific about the kind of clock that is in question.

OK, so yes, I do agree with you if you are sure that its clocks that are slowing, (not functioning correctly under some circumstances) and not a claim that the concept we know as Time is somehow slowing but only for some. (Einsteins version of time dilation)  Time is a convenient invention of man applicable to the observations of the motions of cyclic events such as the orbits of the planets etc.

In that respect, time is governed or rather measurable for comparative purposes, and is regular, Atomic clocks rely on regular discrete events the same as a grandfather clock does. So its possible that they too can get their cycle period messed up., and loose "time".

So I gather you don't see any need for the Lorentz transform equations? These equations were developed well before any atomic clocks, so it was not an answer to the question of "Why do atomic clocks lose time on those satellites?"  So if you still use LT may I ask why would you?

[LightStorm]

So I gather you don't see any need for the Lorentz transform equations? These equations were developed well before any atomic clocks, so it was not an answer to the question of "Why do atomic clocks lose time on those satellites?"  So if you still use LT may I ask why would you?

 

I don't see any need for LTs. They are wrong in the context of light. I prefer Voigt's transformation which I believe properly accounts for aberration of light. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by LightStorm

[LightStorm]

In that respect, time is governed or rather measurable for comparative purposes, and is regular, Atomic clocks rely on regular discrete events the same as a grandfather clock does. So its possible that they too can get their cycle period messed up., and loose "time".

 

I have something to add to your light clock animation. If you have a point source emit a pulse of light, it will radiate outward in a spherical manner. Now move the mirrors, to the right. Due to the circular emissions, the light will eventually reach the mirror even though it moves. Do you get my drift? This way, one can say light traveled a zig zag path even though the mirrors move. This way light takes longer to reach the top mirror exactly like the relativists claim. One can call this slowing down of time because light took longer to get there. Therefore light clock works the way they say it does, only if the emissions are emitted by a point source. A real light clock can be built with a point source and it would work exactly like they say it would in Relativity.

Edited May 4, 2019 by LightStorm

[Dubbelosix]

Did you get a chance to look over the pdf and did you find the holes that must exist.

 

Regretfully, I haven't really had much time, not really been on the last few days, due to various life activities, but thank you for reminding me, I am venturing soon for some wine, so may take a relaxing thorough look over it.

[Dubbelosix]

It is getting to that time, and since I am on a boat in a fishing harbour with a lot of swell.

 

 

 

The guy who wrote the paper is a medical doctor of sorts not a doctor of physics, so caveat emptor. In that paper might be dragons/howling mistakes cleverly disguised?

 

That sounds nice, good weather for those activities?

 

I admit, yes he may be a doctor of medics, but a lot of medical doctors tend to strive to understand the fundamentals better. I wonder how long the man has spent his time, I mean... spare time looking into physics, this would give me a better understanding at how far he possibly has ventured into the subject and how much of it we can trust, because let's face it, if I find a problem, the same arguments could be done on me.

 

I was a college drop-out at the age of 16 due to mental health problems, but have since, been studying physics (now 34). So you as you may know while I may not have a degree to show, there is still some experience there. Likewise, we have to look back at some of the greats, who were never schooled at all but became pioneers in both physics and mathematics... so let's keep our minds open for now.

Edited May 4, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

We should also remind ourselves, many scientists have been wrong in their own profession many many times. But this is also part of the scientific methodology, it is about falsification from principles when creating a theory. So even if his paper has an error somewhere, it should not distract us that there could be something behind it. I suppose you could call it, a matter of re-calibration.

[Amplituhedron]

I cannot even believe that a place that bills itself as "science for everyone" allows the garbage from these idiots to be posted! :lol:

 

Good luck with your bogus "science for everyone"!

[Dubbelosix]

I cannot even believe that a place that bills itself as "science for everyone" allows the garbage from these idiots to be posted! :lol:

 

Good luck with your bogus "science for everyone"!

 

If you don't appreciate the rules, maybe you should leave?

 

Or at worse yet, maybe the mods might just remove this and you can start a new moniker? But keep in mind, they keep track of these things as I too have noticed strong correlations between posters here, who at times it is hard to pin down, but they are in no position to speak about physics when you yourself have a very little contribution.

 

Just saying how it is. Again, our presence here is at the behest of the moderators, not your constant whining.

[marcospolo]

I have something to add to your light clock animation. If you have a point source emit a pulse of light, it will radiate outward in a spherical manner. Now move the mirrors, to the right. Due to the circular emissions, the light will eventually reach the mirror even though it moves. Do you get my drift? This way, one can say light traveled a zig zag path even though the mirrors move. This way light takes longer to reach the top mirror exactly like the relativists claim. One can call this slowing down of time because light took longer to get there. Therefore light clock works the way they say it does, only if the emissions are emitted by a point source. A real light clock can be built with a point source and it would work exactly like they say it would in Relativity.

Of course light radiates in a spherical manner.

 

But I totally disagree with your conclusions.

 

The example used by physics professors only concerns itself with the photon particle aspect of light which was supposed to have been discovered by Einstein so we should stick to what Einstein and these professors use and not try to make such excuses for their reasoning.

 

Anyway, yes light radiates as a sphere, so it would still strike the top mirror even if it was moving.

 

BUT, you then cant have it both ways, where the light is striking the top mirror at position x=35,y=100, but ALSO striking the same mirror at the exact same instant but say that the mirrors are still located at x=0 and y=100.

 

The light sphere striking the top mirror when the top mirror was moved away, would NOT take the same amount of time, its FURTHER AWAY, so it takes longer! So although the light sphere strikes the vertical target in a certain time, that same light sphere in that instant of time will not have made it all the way to that other location. There is NO ROOM for any discrepancy of measurements here, no opportunity to find a difference that SR could 'solve".

 

The occupant on the ship may IMAGINE he is not moving, and claim that he ignorantly believes that he is at x =0 and the top mirror is at x=0 and y =100, but as this is supposed to be a physics thought experiment, where we must use rational, logical, methodical thought processes, we must recognize that HIS x is NOT the same X that we are using. SO before anyone starts to claim anything, both observers MUST establish a COMMON measuring standard BEFORE they start to compare their data.

 

Einstein claims that the x in both frames refers to the same x, but this is incorrect. Its clearly a flaw of reason and logic.

 

If Einstein presented his 1905 paper for Peer Review  today, it would be laughed at and rejected for a number of reasons. None of which could be recovered by rewriting. 

 

His 2 postulates are actually 3, one is hidden in the body of the paper, and no one bothers to point this out. Its the postulate that if presented in a sentence would be considered to be a contradiction of basic laws of Physics.

 

OK, so MAYBE, just MAYBE the postulate about light speed being the same in a vacuum is correct.

 

Next Postulate 2, physics will still work in an inertial frame, yes.  It also works perfectly in a non inertial frame. We just ALLOW for the acceleration, Physics still works the same.

Will a guy inside a windowless box be able to figure out if he is moving or just under the force of gravity? Is this question anything to do with Physics, what some guy THINKS is happening? He will not if you KEEP him IGNORANT of the facts. Physics requires DATA, factual data from observations, you know measurements BEFORE you can do any science.

So sure if the guy is blind, deaf, has no hands, cant feel anything, has no window, cant call his mom on the mobile phone to ask, "am I in a moving box, or is it just sitting on Earth ion a paddock?"

 

This is the CORE of Einstein's argument here? Really?  Would this pass peer review today, I surely think not.

 

Next the their sneaky and really irrational postulate.

 

That is the one ADDED to the claim that light always go at a fixed velocity, C.

 

This is it:  "Anyone who measures a beam of light, from any location, and moving any any velocity or direction relative to the light beam, will always get the value of C."

 

This is a moronic claim, and the esteemed experts and Physicists of the day, and ever since SHOULD have thrown Einstein out the door the minute they read this postulate.

As they have accepted this postulate as being a fact, then please present physical evidence that this can be done.

Actually in their own example thought experiments, they all contradict this very postulate!

[GAHD]

I think everyone in the past 3-4 pages needs to READ THE RULES again.

Particularly:

• Back up your claims by using links or references: that’s where our name Hypography comes from. (Hyperlink + Bibliography)
• Being calm, reasoned and factual is the best way to refute someone's claims. Point out specifically where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
• Respect the opinions of others, especially when you ask for opinions or espouse personal opinions yourself. As a corollary, we respect people’s right to make fools of themselves in public and when people express unsupported or controversial opinions they should not be surprised when they are refuted.
• Do not assume your points are “obvious.” They many times are not, and simply insisting they are is not a valid argument.

[marcospolo]

 

I think everyone in the past 3-4 pages needs to READ THE RULES again.

 

Particularly:

• Back up your claims by using links or references: that’s where our name Hypography comes from. (Hyperlink + Bibliography)
• Being calm, reasoned and factual is the best way to refute someone's claims. Point out specifically where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
• Respect the opinions of others, especially when you ask for opinions or espouse personal opinions yourself. As a corollary, we respect people’s right to make fools of themselves in public and when people express unsupported or controversial opinions they should not be surprised when they are refuted.
• Do not assume your points are “obvious.” They many times are not, and simply insisting they are is not a valid argument.

 

I agree, but there is no way I can provide links or references for my own logical thoughts.

 

If I was to suggest some new hypothesis, I would indeed supply some supporting material as links, but I'm not making any claims pertaining to a hypothesis.

 

I'm simply pointing out here that the three claims already existing, pertaining to the nature of light, are logical impossibilities.

 

I then ask for anyone to suggest why my assessment is incorrect.

 

Is this not a suitable use of a Physics Forum?

[Dubbelosix]

 

I think everyone in the past 3-4 pages needs to READ THE RULES again.

 

Particularly:

• Back up your claims by using links or references: that’s where our name Hypography comes from. (Hyperlink + Bibliography)
• Being calm, reasoned and factual is the best way to refute someone's claims. Point out specifically where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on.
• Respect the opinions of others, especially when you ask for opinions or espouse personal opinions yourself. As a corollary, we respect people’s right to make fools of themselves in public and when people express unsupported or controversial opinions they should not be surprised when they are refuted.
• Do not assume your points are “obvious.” They many times are not, and simply insisting they are is not a valid argument.

 

 

 

I do try, If I miss a reference, its all on my blogs, so I tend to go back there if someone wants a reference.

 

I do indeed try to back my claims, with scientific reasoning.... 

 

Respect others by how you would like to be treated, is certainly paramount.

 

And I have to blame myself for assuming points have been obvious, but with nice wording to me, I will put even more effort in.

 

 

 

 

But I suspect this really isn't about me? But this is the way a functioning forum should work.

[Dubbelosix]

I agree, but there is no way I can provide links or references for my own logical thoughts.

 

Wrong, logical thoughts are one thing, but it has be on backs of giants, if you get my meaning?

[marcospolo]

Wrong, logical thoughts are one thing, but it has be on backs of giants, if you get my meaning?

The logical thoughts are my own, certainly after being shown that there is something very wrong with the accepted theories.

I can dig up names if you wish, but I dont fully agree with any of these guys totally either, that's why I prefer to nut it out myself, which is why I have no hypothesis, just the observations that show why the existing claims of Physics are impossible.

 

Her's one, just one of many possible sources:

www.flight-light-and-spin.com/relativity-revised.htm

[marcospolo]

While I'm waiting, here is a simple puzzle for all those diehard relativists.

 

Imagine a light source.

A photon (A) departs towards the left, and another photon (B) departs towards the right of the source.

What is the relative velocity between the photons A and B?

You MUST answer "c".

 

Why or more accurately HOW? Please explain.

[OceanBreeze]

That’s not a puzzle.

 

That this seems a puzzle is due to a very common misconception; and you can find this exact same question asked, and answered on countless forums.

 

First thing wrong with your question is the failure to specify a frame of reference. To define any velocity, it is necessary to first specify what frame of reference you are using.

 

If the frame of reference is that of the source S, then the velocity of each photon with respect to S is just c. That is, from the frame in which S is considered to be stationary, you measure the velocities of photon A with respect to S and the velocity of photon B with respect to S, and in both cases, it is c.

 

Photons themselves, do not have rest frames, so it is not possible to use the frame of photon A or the frame of photon B to measure a velocity A with respect to B.

 

There are two ways to tackle this problem:

 

1). You can use Einstein’s velocity addition formula to add the two velocities, that were measured with respect to S, and you will find the answer to be c.

 

2). Or, you can add the absolute magnitudes of the two velocities that were measured with respect to S, to get a separation speed of 2c. This does not violate any postulate of relativity, since relativity places no limits on how fast a distance can increase.

 

The relativistic speed limit of c applies to velocities of individual particles (and also the speed that information can be sent), but it doesn't apply to the rate that the distance can change between two things that are in motion with respect to one another.

 

If two objects are moving locally with respect to each other, the limit on the separation speed is 2c. However, if they are moving non-locally where there is expansion of space happening between them, the separation speed has no limit.