Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Dubbelosix]

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

 

That's fine, but not everything you may think is logical, is actually logical. We try and work with what we have, not try and overthrow it. That isn't the nature of science - as you cannot prove or disprove a theory, you can only add evidence. The thing is, if you want to try and build a better model of reality say, than relativity, you'll have a hard time doing it.

[Dubbelosix]

And let's not forget the philosophy of science, you cannot prove or disprove a theory - nor is it really the scientific methodology to go out to ''debunk'' something, that is not how it works.

[MarkBrezina]

I agree with dubbelosix.
It's one thing to propose something, it's an entirely different game to do science about it, a proposal will never be accepted until it has been proven continously. Though if it has been disproven or simply no action has been taken upon the proposal it's merit is of little value at all. Trying to debunk relativity. Good luck my man. It won't be lifted off the ground ever.

[sluggo]

#154;

E = mc2 is wrong and leads to paradoxes.

 

 

[Nuclear reactions, as energy sources for power grids, submarines, weapons, medical treatments, etc. work as designed. Therefore the calculations must be correct.]

 

Time dilation however is a pre-relativity effect and does occur.

 

 

[it can't be since prior to SR, time was thought to be universal.]

 

 

Why is Einstein redefining "inertia" or centrifugal force? Because he doesn't understand them. imo. See Mach's principle for eg.

 

 

 

[He didn't redefine inertia, but showed that the mass doesn't care how it's accelerated, by gravity, a propulsion unit, or manually.]

[Mach's idea of distant mass producing an equivalent reciprocal effect in a rotating body can be easily challenged. Two equal masses separated by a random distance rotate in opposite directions simultaneously. How can the universe produce those motions?]

 

#156;

 

Time dilation is slowing down of a process.

 

 

 

[Why does it slow down?

That's the effect of the 2nd postulate, "light speed is constant and independent of its source". The light clock is the simplest method of demonstrating this. The light does not acquire the speed of the clock, thus has to chase a moving target, the mirror, to complete a cycle.]

 

#157;

 

If you suddenly move the sun, the planet has to travel an extra distance to make a full revolution.

 

 

 

[This is not time dilation, which depends on speed. A clock on the planet would not tick slower because it travels a greater distance.]

 

#158.

Time is a convenient invention of man applicable to the observations of the motions

 

 

[A truthful statement, and obvious from an analysis of 'applied time', i.e. how do we use it. The world was not ready for Einstein's conclusion that motion altered perception and measurement. There are still people who want to hang on to the notion of a mysterious invisible 'time' that arranges/causes events. This is contradicted by the motion of astronomical objects (a measure of distance) serving and labeled as 'time', the assignment of the time of an event, after the event has occurred, and millenia of philosophical debate with no 'time in a bottle'.

All clocks lose time, since all clocks are moving. An experiment only measures the difference between any two.

 

[marcospolo]

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.

Wow, what a pile of trype. I thought you said it was easy to explain?

 

First, PROVE that we cant imagine an inertial frame for a photon, when we can arbitrarily invent them for anything else. Your claim that "photons dont have rest frames" is unsupported and not rational, on the basis that frames don't exist, they are imaginary.

So off the bat, you have made an nonsense statement, and expected me to accept it. I do not.

Next, you say I MUST specify a reference frame. Why? Who said this was a law?

You possess ALL the information already.  The Light source, and the two photons. There is nothing missing here. No imaginary frame needs to be invented.

The light moves at c to the left and to the right, the net speed is clearly going to be 2c.

A moron can grasp that, and needs no imaginary frames or double talk to figure it out.

and a moron is still smart enough to see that when two objects move apart, they really are moving apart, and its NOT the nothing in between that is expanding!

You are really grasping at straws here, with that ludicrous idea that "ooh, its not that the galaxies are really moving faster than light, no, Einstein said they cant, so it must be that its the space that's moving, and the galaxies are not going anywhere."

 

Is it not more rational to simply say that Einstein got something wrong, than to concoct these crazy work-arounds?

 

Finally, the BS claim that we use LT to calculate the real velocity.

This is as stupid as the rest of your excuses.

 

First we ALREADY measured the individual velocities of each of the photons AND got C....

according to your theory that we must calculate using lorentz transform we should get c/2. (so that when adding the two velocities we still get c)

(When using the lorentz transform on light, we actually get a divide by zero error, or infinity)

 

Now IF you insist in doing your physics by constantly changing the rules of measuring by hopping all over the place in imaginary frames, then here is what we really have:

We have ONE frame. all measures are taken from the one frame, which for logical convenience is the light source.

Lets NOT go hopping to any other imaginary frame while we are taking measurements. Its only making things unnecessarily complicated with no possible benefit.

 

So, we get the relative speed between the two photons as 2c. 

There that is the end of the measuring.

 

If you claim that speed makes the photon go slower, (when you try to look at one photon from the perspective of the other, then by the same reasoning, (or lack of)

that same effect MUST apply in the frame of the light source. So we should have measured the photon moving at zero velocity, having applied the lorentz transform.

 

And  in the imaginary frame of the right hand photon the calculated velocity of the left hand photon must also be zero. (because zero time passed for that photon, and velocity is the result of distance by time. (no distance was covered either, due to length contraction.

 

So, it would seem that all your claims are pure rubbish, Please try again.

[marcospolo]

That's fine, but not everything you may think is logical, is actually logical. We try and work with what we have, not try and overthrow it. That isn't the nature of science - as you cannot prove or disprove a theory, you can only add evidence. The thing is, if you want to try and build a better model of reality say, than relativity, you'll have a hard time doing it.

 

Same for Einsteins thoughts..

How to decide if someones thoughts are useful?

 

The result of Einstein's logic forces us to say that solid matter shrinks, time shrinks and mass increases just because someone moved! and the effects are only applicable for someone who did not move!  This is Einstein's logic in a nutshell. Does that logic seem in any way, reasonable or rational? No, it does not, not for anyone. Its a irrational, illogical claim.

 

I'm not TRYING to overthrow all of Physics.  Claims were made, they contradict themselves, so its not unreasonable to say that they are wrong somewhere, possibly all wrong.

Certainly they cant be all right.

And you cant prove a theory, but you surely can disprove one!

Relativity is demonstrably full of logical inconsistencies and paradoxes, (all unsolved, despite many excuses made) so its far from a stable theory.

Every example supplied of observed evidence supporting Relativity can be looked at in other less weird ways.

 

If the model is faulty, why do you insist we keep trying to force reality to fit it?

Whats the advantage of trying hard all the time to work with a faulty theory, when if you simply admitted that is incorrect would open up the possibility for finding a correct theory?

 

Due to the problems with relativity it can't correctly be called a Theory. Its just an hypothesis. Theories should not be able to be criticized so easily and from so many directions, by so many people over such a long time.

[Dubbelosix]

Same for Einsteins thoughts..

How to decide if someones thoughts are useful?

 

Are you being serious here? A thought is one thing, to test a thought is another. Been repeatedly varified through experimentation, tops logic any day.

[marcospolo]

And let's not forget the philosophy of science, you cannot prove or disprove a theory - nor is it really the scientific methodology to go out to ''debunk'' something, that is not how it works.

You certainly CAN prove a theory wrong, you just cant prove it, only add observations that seem to support a theory.

A Theory is NOT GOD.

 

And it IS the job of every scientist to debunk any theory if it can be debunked. Who said that this is not "how it works". Who assumes responsibility for deciding what I am allowed to question or not? 

 

What you are claiming here is the doctrines of some religious order, not any rational method.

[marcospolo]

Are you being serious here? A thought is one thing, to test a thought is another. Been repeatedly varified through experimentation, tops logic any day.

I thought I was clear on the interpretation of experiments? Apparently not.

 

Observations are all subject to interpretation

.

You can make the observation fit your belief, or not.

 

There are other interpretations that don't require the shrinking of my spaceship, etc.

In science, all FACT is interpreted.

 

I'm just not a member of your faith.

When there is more than one explanation, ill go with the one that does not require the shrinking of my spaceship. (because that's more than unlikely, and never demonstrated.)

[marcospolo]

Observer:  Wow, look at that strange phenomena over there! I don't know what it is! May be just some atmospheric effect not previously seen.

 

Einstein:  No, that's clearly the result of your spaceship shrinking, time slowing over there, and your putting on weight, plus the nothingness of space has been irreparably bent, curved so everything is not where it seems to be. This must be how everything is working, we were totally wrong all this time till I arrived.

 

Observer: WTF are you on about?  Stop smoking that ****!

[Dubbelosix]

No you cannot prove a theory wrong, and I find it offensive you would argue with me on this, because your posts are really off, on the science side of things. If you can demonstrate some humility, read up on Popper philosophy of science, it would be a good starting block for you to learn from.

 

My time in this thread is over. The thread is pointless, you are attacking things you don't fully understand.

[Dubbelosix]

''Theory'' of course, has to be taken in its most purest form of the definition to understand this by the way. You can use evidence to solidify a theory, you can use evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but you can never scientifically prove one to be right or wrong. Absolutist statements like this in physics is often not fully understood.

 

[Dubbelosix]

I think what you mean, is you can falsify a theory? I really hope you can, because a theory can be falsified, but disproved is the wrong word for me. If a theory cannot be falsifiable, then you cannot bring into weight one theory against another. But scientists do not work in absolutist terms, unless the evidence states an overwhelming support for it. This is why relativity lives on... maybe one day a theory will come along and replace it, but its very unlikely, especially after all the evidence we have found supporting it. ''Disproving'' to me, is like an attempt of debunking, and that is not a scientific method.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[marcospolo]

No you cannot prove a theory wrong, and I find it offensive you would argue with me on this, because your posts are really off, on the science side of things. If you can demonstrate some humility, read up on Popper philosophy of science, it would be a good starting block for you to learn from.

 

My time in this thread is over. The thread is pointless, you are attacking things you don't fully understand.

Don't be stupid.  Who said Karl Popper was able to play God and make declarations on what could and could not be done with the acquisition of knowledge.

That's his opinion, its not a universal law.

 

How does being humble make my arguments correct?

How does  being direct and honest make my arguments wrong?

 

Do some science yourself, stop quoting the opinions of philosophers as if that was the end of the debate.

 

The truth is that you have not once replied with a rational answer to any of my objections, you only present more of the same stuff that I am being critical of.

That's no response, its just going around in circles.

 

Either your arguments are rational and logical or they are not.

I don't decide on what's rational, its self apparent if it exists and an argument, same with logic.

 

You and fellow Relativists and quantum fans have repeatedly said that the universe is not rational or logical, and that one reason why your ideas must be correct.

 

If this is the case, (and I can give you a quote from Richard Feynman if you need, and others) then on what basis are you arguing your case? on the Basis of it not making sense, of it being irrational?

 

Come on, just try to answer my questions without all the ducking and weaving, then doing the disappearing act.

[Dubbelosix]

Ok, put it this way, and answer as honest as you can.

 

 

Einstein's theory overcame the Newtonian way of thinking.

 

Question, does this mean Newtonian mechanics has been ''disproven?''

[Dubbelosix]

If a theory has been falsified, does that mean we at a 100% level degree of accuracy know the statements to be ''disproven?''

 

Absolutist statements are a folly, we can be really sure about something, but science doesn't work like the above, a scientist can never ascribe a 100% accuracy to anything.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[marcospolo]

''Theory'' of course, has to be taken in its most purest form of the definition to understand this by the way. You can use evidence to solidify a theory, you can use evidence to cast doubt on a theory, but you can never scientifically prove one to be right or wrong. Absolutist statements like this in physics is often not fully understood.

 

we are not discussing VAGUE theories, such things can't exist in the "Scientific method, peer reviewed process" of the elevation of a hypothesis to a Theory.

 

We are discussing the CORE theory of ALL of modern Physics here!

It better not any vagaries or possibilities that it can be modified to a point where it changes the very laws of the physics which rely on this one mother of all theories.

 

So that as its been claimed, relativity will never be proved wrong, only added to .  This is directly a contradiction.

 

Feynman is backing up what I'm trying to say in this video.

Anyway, who cares what Feynman says. Is his every word correct? We each have to decide if the logic is internally consistent. We cant ask for another's opinion as all we get is their version.

 

But reason-ability and logic don't give opinions. And rationality is already well defined.

 

Are Einsteins claims in accord with any of these three principals (the cornerstones of the acquisition of knowledge)

Well, no they are NOT.