Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[Dubbelosix]

I will say though, tex commands are not always easy for people to learn, and may take some time. But in that time, it is part of the learning of how to write in a scientific language. From time to time, you will notice small errors after you become acquainted with this language, just go back and edit... before any one jumps on you, so try and look over your posts for these errors, to quickly fix any typo's.

[Dubbelosix]

I cannot connect to the links provided,

 

[Not Found

The requested URL /ewExternalFiles/Understanding SRT 2c 4-2-17.pdf  was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.]

[OceanBreeze]

try these:

 

http://www.trybasics.com/ewExternalFiles/Understanding%20SRT%202c%204-2-17.pdf

 

https://www.trybasics.com/special-relativity.html

[Dubbelosix]

Working now, will take a quick look soon.

[Dubbelosix]

Ok a quick look over the first link, this is much easier to read and the dimensions of the equations make sense (which is at least promising). I would have to take more time to properly assess it though.

[marcospolo]

What I was trying to ask/say is in view of Sherwoods post, (which I would need on paper in front of me to go through), and the experimental proof of Special Relativity in the link I posted, does the experimental proof against Newtonian mechnics still stand? Clearly you think not, I am just wondering if the devil is in the detail? Trying to find a chink, so to speak.

The "chink"is a gaping chasm.

If you want to see the chasm in SR, then look at the first postulate of Einstein's 1905 paper.

The Postulate is that light always travels at a constant speed.

 

But later in the paper, in order to develop his hypothesis, he quietly slips in a SECOND claim, which is NOT RATIONAL.

 

That claim is that the speed of light will always be recorded as 300000000m/s REGARDLESS of the velocity or even direction of the recording device!

 

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

 

Physicists need to explain how this is possible, which they never even attempt to do.

[Amplituhedron]

We do so because time dilates and lengths contract. Derp! 

[marcospolo]

We do so because time dilates and lengths contract. Derp! 

 

Please  try hard to think a little bit.

 

You are missing the fact that in the 1905 paper, we don't yet have any length

contraction or time dilation, that is what the final conclusion is supposed to be. (as well as stuff gets heavier)

 

The whole point was that Einstein made just 2 postulates which the validity of was supposed to be obvious after he fully explained the whole hypothesis.

 

Now the 1st postulate was ONLY that light always goes at a fixed speed. Nothing more.

 

But without any announcements, half way through the paper (before we have any time dilation or length contraction) Einstein ADDS a new and irrational THIRD POSTULATE. That is the claim that any observer moving at any speed whatsoever, in any direction, will STILL measure light speed with a value of C.

 

There is a massive difference between these two postulates! The first is rational, and acceptable, the second one, which he hid in the body of his paper, is totally irrational, and quite impossible.

 

If you discount this postulate as being beyond the bounds of reason, then you NEVER can get to say that Time Dilates, Length contracts and Mass increases.

 

Because of the hidden and impossible third postulate, Physics should and must admit that the 1905 paper on Special Relativity is not a valid hypothesis.

 

Unless you can save the day with your counter argument?

[Sherwood]

It would have been nice if he had just edited or deleted the erroneous posts.

 

I would be happy to get rid of those erroneous posts, the ones that left out the gamma function 50 times.  If I delete them, will this cause any dislocations in this thread?

I have referred to my posts as, e.g., "my second post" but just now realized they are numbered and I can refer to a post by its number.

Awaiting your answer to the question so I can help clean up the confusion I caused.

[Sherwood]

The "chink"is a gaping chasm.

<snip>

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

 

Physicists need to explain how this is possible, which they never even attempt to do.

************************

 

    Einstein seems to have asserted his postulate of light travel in at least two ways.  In the English translation of his 1905 paper I read his statement of the postulate: 'light always travels at speed c in free space'.  I use single quotes since I may not have every letter correct but that is what was meant.

    Nothing in the universe has velocity or kinetic energy per se.  Everything in the universe has velocity and kinetic energy with everything else in the universe except those things which are not changing distance with it over time.  

    I have driven my Honda at over 930 mph; in fact I have driven it at over 830 mph—backwards!  How?  At my latitude, the surface of the earth is traveling about 880 mph.  Velocity only has meaning when you specify what the speed of anything, including light, is with respect to.  'Free space' is not an answer.  

    Post #96 shows exactly where Special Relativity (SR) goes off the rails.  Einstein did not get there by this route but SR is the math that results when you specify that something (anything) traveled the same speed (it does not matter what that speed is) in both of two reference frames moving with respect to each other.  Distance is vt.  The something will travel different distances in two frames moving with respect to each other.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say the distance in the other frame =v't.  SR would say the distance =vt' because it insists the ratio of distance to time must be kept the same, and since the distances are different, the time must be different.

Post #96 details all this.  As you will see, the math is not difficult.  The trick was examining the SR equations in detail to discover what was really going on.

    Notice that, since any speed can be used to generate the SR equations and concepts, an 'infinite' number of possible SR's can be created.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Sherwood

[marcospolo]

 

The "chink"is a gaping chasm.

<snip>

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

 

Physicists need to explain how this is possible, which they never even attempt to do.

************************

 

    Einstein seems to have asserted his postulate of light travel in at least two ways.  In the English translation of his 1905 paper I read his statement of the postulate: 'light always travels at speed c in free space'.  I use single quotes since I may not have every letter correct but that is what was meant.

    Nothing in the universe has velocity or kinetic energy per se.  Everything in the universe has velocity and kinetic energy with everything else in the universe except those things which are not changing distance with it over time.  

    I have driven my Honda at over 930 mph; in fact I have driven it at over 830 mph—backwards!  How?  At my latitude, the surface of the earth is traveling about 880 mph.  Velocity only has meaning when you specify what the speed of anything, including light, is with respect too.  'Free space' is not an answer.  

    Post #96 shows exactly where Special Relativity (SR) goes off the rails.  Einstein did not get there by this route but SR is the math that results when you specify that something (anything) traveled the same speed (it does not matter what that speed is) in both of two reference frames moving with respect to each other.  Distance is vt.  The something will travel different distances in two frames moving with respect to each other.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say the distance in the other frame =v't.  SR would say the distance =vt' because it insists the ratio of distance to time must bar kept the same, and since the distances are different, the time must be different.

Post #96 details all this.  As you will see, the math is not difficult.  The trick was examining the SR equations in detail to discover what was really going on.

    Notice that, since any speed can be used to generate the SR equations and concepts, an 'infinite' number of possible SR's can be created.

I'll read post 96 when time permits, and get back to you on that.

But what are you implying when you say that an infinite number of SR's can be created? Because ANY speed, presumable not only light speed? can be used in the Math?

Is that it? 

Please give a brief synopsis of your idea, as it seems not to be in accord to what Einstein was saying. #96 is too wordy, a simplified explanation will suffice to convey the idea.

 

Postscript: Scratch that request, I went and looked at you web site.

Edited May 2, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

 

The "chink"is a gaping chasm.

<snip>

This is clearly impossible.   How could we obtain the same fixed valued for C whether the detector is stationary, or when its moving with the lights at any speed, and also even when moving in the exact opposite direction to the light vector at any speed?

 

Physicists need to explain how this is possible, which they never even attempt to do.

************************

 

    Einstein seems to have asserted his postulate of light travel in at least two ways.  In the English translation of his 1905 paper I read his statement of the postulate: 'light always travels at speed c in free space'.  I use single quotes since I may not have every letter correct but that is what was meant.

    Nothing in the universe has velocity or kinetic energy per se.  Everything in the universe has velocity and kinetic energy with everything else in the universe except those things which are not changing distance with it over time.  

    I have driven my Honda at over 930 mph; in fact I have driven it at over 830 mph—backwards!  How?  At my latitude, the surface of the earth is traveling about 880 mph.  Velocity only has meaning when you specify what the speed of anything, including light, is with respect too.  'Free space' is not an answer.  

    Post #96 shows exactly where Special Relativity (SR) goes off the rails.  Einstein did not get there by this route but SR is the math that results when you specify that something (anything) traveled the same speed (it does not matter what that speed is) in both of two reference frames moving with respect to each other.  Distance is vt.  The something will travel different distances in two frames moving with respect to each other.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say the distance in the other frame =v't.  SR would say the distance =vt' because it insists the ratio of distance to time must bar kept the same, and since the distances are different, the time must be different.

Post #96 details all this.  As you will see, the math is not difficult.  The trick was examining the SR equations in detail to discover what was really going on.

    Notice that, since any speed can be used to generate the SR equations and concepts, an 'infinite' number of possible SR's can be created.

 

Ok Sherwood, I have understood what you are saying.  You make the same mistake that Einstein and every relativist makes about these inertial reference frames and the irrational use of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is the Math related to geometry, not Physics.

To see why you cant do this, have a look at my short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58wEhAk5upU

[Sherwood]

    You missed an important point.  It's true that the photon won't zig zag.  However, from the point of view of another reference frame moving by, zig zag is exactly the path of the photon in the 2nd reference frame.  There, the distance traveled is the vector sum of the vertical distance in the mirror frame and the horizontal distance in the second frame.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say that the speed of that photon in the second frame is that greater distance divided by the time.  This makes sense.  

    However, Special Relativity (SR) simply claims (postulates, insists, etc.) that we must say that the speed (=distance divided by time) of the photon in the second frame, or any other frame, must be considered to be the same as in the first frame.  To 'accomplish' this, SR increases the 'time' in the second frame to accommodate the increased distance and keep the ratio of distance to 'time' (the 'speed') the same in both frames.  

    Einstein did not get to SR  by this route but this is exactly what he created.  The rest of the SR equations and concepts follow mathematically (logically) directly from this fallacy.  All of it.  A good description of SR might be: "silly".  Because of SR's 1:1 mathematical correspondence to NM you can still solve problems using SR but I don't think you can actually understand what is going on.  E.g., time does not actually 'dilate'.  What is labeled 'time' in SR does.

    By the way, there is a quantity in SR that is the same as what people inherently understand as time.  It is the SR Interval divided by 'the speed of light', i.e., t=I/c, which is the same in all reference frames, just like NM time, and is the same value as NM time. 

    Post #96 covers all this well.  I will eventually get a more readable form of it (superscripts where they are supposed to be, major equations centered, etc.) onto the READ THE RULES ABOUT SELF PROMOTION website.

Edited May 2, 2019 by GAHD
Read the rules. This is the second time I've warned you

[marcospolo]

    You missed an important point.  It's true that the photon won't zig zag.  However, from the point of view of another reference frame moving by, zig zag is exactly the path of the photon in the 2nd reference frame.  There, the distance traveled is the vector sum of the vertical distance in the mirror frame and the horizontal distance in the second frame.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say that the speed of that photon in the second frame is that greater distance divided by the time.  This makes sense.  

    However, Special Relativity (SR) simply claims (postulates, insists, etc.) that we must say that the speed (=distance divided by time) of the photon in the second frame, or any other frame, must be considered to be the same as in the first frame.  To 'accomplish' this, SR increases the 'time' in the second frame to accommodate the increased distance and keep the ratio of distance to 'time' (the 'speed') the same in both frames.  

    Einstein did not get to SR  by this route but this is exactly what he created.  The rest of the SR equations and concepts follow mathematically (logically) directly from this fallacy.  All of it.  A good description of SR might be: "silly".  Because of SR's 1:1 mathematical correspondence to NM you can still solve problems using SR but I don't think you can actually understand what is going on.  E.g., time does not actually 'dilate'.  What is labeled 'time' in SR does.

    By the way, there is a quantity in SR that is the same as what people inherently understand as time.  It is the SR Interval divided by 'the speed of light', i.e., t=I/c, which is the same in all reference frames, just like NM time, and is the same value as NM time. 

    Post #96 covers all this well.  I will eventually get a more readable form of it (superscripts where they are supposed to be, major equations centered, etc.) onto the REDACTED website.

No, you are wrong still.  There is no frame in which that "photon" is moving in a zig zag.  None.  Its light, it moves in straight lines, for everyone, in any imaginary frame they dream up. You can bounce light off a mirror any get it going in a new direction, by changing the angle of the mirror, but as my video showed, this is not possible once the photon is moving, its too late to move the top mirror and hope that the light will change its vector and still strike that top mirror.  If you left the mirror still, and angles it, then the photon would strike it.  But NOT otherwise.

So for any observer, they must all see light moving in the same vector as any other observer.

How do you imagine that some certain observer could see a zig zag path?  Explain please.

Edited May 2, 2019 by GAHD

[GAHD]

    You missed an important point.  It's true that the photon won't zig zag.  However, from the point of view of another reference frame moving by, zig zag is exactly the path of the photon in the 2nd reference frame.  There, the distance traveled is the vector sum of the vertical distance in the mirror frame and the horizontal distance in the second frame.  Newtonian mechanics (NM) would say that the speed of that photon in the second frame is that greater distance divided by the time.  This makes sense.  

    However, Special Relativity (SR) simply claims (postulates, insists, etc.) that we must say that the speed (=distance divided by time) of the photon in the second frame, or any other frame, must be considered to be the same as in the first frame.  To 'accomplish' this, SR increases the 'time' in the second frame to accommodate the increased distance and keep the ratio of distance to 'time' (the 'speed') the same in both frames.  

    Einstein did not get to SR  by this route but this is exactly what he created.  The rest of the SR equations and concepts follow mathematically (logically) directly from this fallacy.  All of it.  A good description of SR might be: "silly".  Because of SR's 1:1 mathematical correspondence to NM you can still solve problems using SR but I don't think you can actually understand what is going on.  E.g., time does not actually 'dilate'.  What is labeled 'time' in SR does.

    By the way, there is a quantity in SR that is the same as what people inherently understand as time.  It is the SR Interval divided by 'the speed of light', i.e., t=I/c, which is the same in all reference frames, just like NM time, and is the same value as NM time. 

    Post #96 covers all this well.  I will eventually get a more readable form of it (superscripts where they are supposed to be, major equations centered, etc.) onto the READ THE RULES ABOUT SELF PROMOTION website.

This right here, looks like BS Physics to me. Especially the link :) I think it's the second time you got warned about that?

 

Couple ways for you to put down more readable equations here if you really want to;

1. there's 2 pinned threads in Physics & math to show you how to use LaTeX Fomulas
2. Unicode characters also work for the less fancy versions. :)

 

[Amplituhedron]

Ok Sherwood, I have understood what you are saying.  You make the same mistake that Einstein and every relativist makes about these inertial reference frames and the irrational use of the Pythagorean Theorem, which is the Math related to geometry, not Physics.

To see why you cant do this, have a look at my short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58wEhAk5upU

 

O…M…G!

 

You made this video? And then posted it? You’re even proud of it??

 

I can’t even … 

 

Um, have you ever traveled? You know, in a car, or in a boat, or on a choo-choo train, or on an aero plane?

 

I don’t know … this is so nuts … am I seriously explaining this to you?

 

So, you are traveling in constant uniform motion on some conveyance … and you take out a little rubber ball, and you bounce it …

 

Um, what happens?

 

It comes back up to your hand, doesn’t it??

 

And then you can bounce it again, and it comes up to your hand again, and again, and …

 

Um, what do you think the ball’s path looks like from the POV of an at-rest observer, genius?

 

It’s a zigzag path!

 

Now let’s just consider the earth, and, for simplicity sake, discount its rotation on its axis. The earth is revolving at 19 miles per second around a common center of gravity with the sun. This means that, according to your reasoning, if I throw a ball into the air  and it takes one second to reach its highest point, and another second to fall back down into my palm, why, it won’t fall into my palm at all — it will fall on the ground 38 miles behind me! 

  

So what’s the difference between a ball and the photon, which both (obviously!) follow zigzag paths from the POV of a rest frame?

 

ONLY this: the bouncy ball picks up the velocity of the conveyance, in accord with Galileo’s addition of velocities formula … but the photon doesn’t. Which is EXACTLY how we get relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction, Sherlock!   

 

Wow, this is crazy! 

 

Dude, they oughta put you in a rubber room! :lol:

[marcospolo]

O…M…G!

 

You made this video? And then posted it? You’re even proud of it??

 

I can’t even … 

 

Um, have you ever traveled? You know, in a car, or in a boat, or on a choo-choo train, or on an aero plane?

 

I don’t know … this is so nuts … am I seriously explaining this to you?

 

So, you are traveling in constant uniform motion on some conveyance … and you take out a little rubber ball, and you bounce it …

 

Um, what happens?

 

It comes back up to your hand, doesn’t it??

 

And then you can bounce it again, and it comes up to your hand again, and again, and …

 

Um, what do you think the ball’s path looks like from the POV of an at-rest observer, genius?

 

It’s a zigzag path!

 

Now let’s just consider the earth, and, for simplicity sake, discount its rotation on its axis. The earth is revolving at 19 miles per second around a common center of gravity with the sun. This means that, according to your reasoning, if I throw a ball into the air  and it takes one second to reach its highest point, and another second to fall back down into my palm, why, it won’t fall into my palm at all — it will fall on the ground 38 miles behind me! 

  

So what’s the difference between a ball and the photon, which both (obviously!) follow zigzag paths from the POV of a rest frame?

 

ONLY this: the bouncy ball picks up the velocity of the conveyance, in accord with Galileo’s addition of velocities formula … but the photon doesn’t. Which is EXACTLY how we get relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction, Sherlock!   

 

Wow, this is crazy! 

 

Dude, they oughta put you in a rubber room! :lol:

 

O…M…G!  You are clearly just a Mathematician, not a Physicist.

 

You are NOT using logical arguments here.

 

If as you say, the photon cant pick up any velocity of the "conveyance" as you put it, then it will not ever "go along" with the light clock will it?

 

(try thinking at this point)

 

Here is an even simpler example that even you may understand.

 

Armstrong is on the moon standing beside that mirror they put there.  From the Earth we shoot a burst of laser light exactly to the mirror, allowing for the slight rotation of the Earth and motion of the moon, so that the laser burst can strike the mirror.  (the actually did this, so its possible. )  All is well so far.  But if Armstrong MOVES the mirror to a different location, WHILE the laser pulse is still traveling to the moon, (1.3 seconds I believe)

 

(He moves that mirror during that 1.3 seconds,)

 

you will say that the laser beam will change its vector so that it can still strike its intended target, right?

 

Because that's exactly what you think is going to happen with a pulse of light in a light clock, when someone MOVES the mirror SIDEWAYS, BEFORE the light pulse gets there! 

 

The "someone" here is the ship moving along x at some decent proportion of C, and so in my rational world, that means that the light CAN NEVER hit that mirror, because  once the pulse has been fired, the pulse of light CANNOT then decide to change its vector, and somehow always follow the moving mirror!

 

So you see my stupid friend, I am not the crazy one here.

Perhaps you need time to think this one through.