Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[LightStorm]

 

So unless you can overcome this issue, that if we actually could construct a light clock ignoring the problem that such a device is impossible, and accelerated it up to near light speed, in the process, we would find that the photon would bash into the walls of the light clock, never reaching the top mirror..

 

This Michelson quote captures what you are describing in the context of the MMX. (see my animation for details)

"It may be remarked that the rays ba_/ and ca_/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a_/, though the difference is of the second order;"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether 

[marcospolo]

Nice animation. You might wanna take a look at my animation. It is an extension of your animation in the context of the MMX per classical physics. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbOzYRUKL5

Interesting, Ill take some time to go over your information carefully but very interesting just reading the comments.

I always said that the M&M x gave a nul result, meaning that it did not demonstrate anything, especially the postulate that light always goes at c for any observer. The M&M x did NOT demonstrate that claim.

But no matter which way you go from here, SR hypothesis collapses. And this is just one way of showing that the theory is a big error.

Edited May 3, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

1. I agree with virtually everything you said there, Mike.

 

2.  For now, I'm not addressing your assertion that gravity is a resultant force, not a fundamental force.

 

3.  One slight correction:  I think you have misconstrued the difference between formal and informal logical fallacies.  You appear to be addressing the soundness of a premise rather than a defect in form.  A logical argument can be perfectly correct, formally, but still be false.  For example:

 

1. All pigs are green

2.  This animal is a pig

3. Therefore, this animal is green.

 

Formally, this logic here is impeccable. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.  However, the first premise is obviously false.  That does not make the logic invalid.  The "logic" is valid.  But the argument is still false, because at least one of the premises is false (unsound).  It logical terminology, the argument is "unsound," but not invalid.

 

Math and logic are the same in that sense.   They are indifferent to content.  They can't tell you what's "true."  You have to figure that out for yourself.  You can perform the most complex mathematical manipulations perfectly and the answer will be "correct."  Mathematically, that is.  It can be wrong as hell from an empirical standpoint.

 

That's one reason I said above that math is overly relied on and trusted in theoretical physics these days. Many seem to think that math IS physics.  They no longer seem to care much about physical "soundness."  The just want to know if the "math works out."

Moronium, did you not see my challenge to you regarding the Lorentz transformations? You insist they are correct and are real physics. I say you are wrong in this regard. There is a simple challenge that offers a cash prize for anyone who can prove mathematically that the Lorentz transform does NOT contradict the Law of the Conservation of Momentum.

https://sites.google.com/view/physics-news/home/challenge

 

Either admit that Lorentz is wrong, or show why this particular negation of the LT is itself wrong. Pick up the prize, Share your success here so we can appreciate your abilities.

[Sherwood]

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.

It has nothing to do with an observer.  In a reference frame moving by sideways, the path of the light you describe moving in straight lines between the two mirrors would be going in a zig zag fashion.  If the non-mirror reference frame were going in circles, the pattern of the light in that frame would be different than zig zag.

[marcospolo]

It has nothing to do with an observer.  In a reference frame moving by sideways, the path of the light you describe moving in straight lines between the two mirrors would be going in a zig zag fashion.  If the non-mirror reference frame were going in circles, the pattern of the light in that frame would be different than zig zag.

my video and simple logic proves that it cant go in a zig zag, ever. Did you leave the building earlier and miss this?

Provide an illustration and post in your next comment so we can see exactly what you mean. one illustration is worth exactly 1000 words apparently.

[marcospolo]

my video and simple logic proves that it cant go in a zig zag, ever. Did you leave the building earlier and miss this?

Provide an illustration and post in your next comment so we can see exactly what you mean. one illustration is worth exactly 1000 words apparently.

here is a simple way to know if your own inertial frame is moving compared to another frame. Watch a light clock in that other frame, if the path SEEMS to be going in any pattern that is NOT just straight up and down, then YOU ARE MOVING relative to that other frame, thereby proving that you CAN tell if your inertial frame is moving or not. (Contrary to Einsteins postulate)

Keep in mind that the APPARENT zig zag motion of the photon is not a real motion of the photon, its just an illusion.

But all this talk about light clocks is mere rhetorical mumbo, as the light clock is just a myth. It cant ever function in any frame of reference.

But the real truth would be if you fire a light pulse vertically, and then step the target mirror away to one side, before the light arrives, then that light MUST and will miss the mirror totally, It will never decide to change course to carry on hitting that top mirror, in a zig zag fashion.

A ball on an airplane going up and down, DOES NOT move in any reference frame, in a series of parabolic arc trajectories between London and New York!

The ball ONLY moves up and down as the person tosses it!  The Plane is what is moving to New York, and its carrying everything inside it.

Do you really think you will get totally physically worn out because you personally moves yourself from London to NY? No, you sat on your arse the whole time, the plane went to New York, you did nothing,and the ball just went up and down. Trying to make up some real physics on this illusion is stupid, thanks Einstein.

[Sherwood]

But according to SR, you can never have a preferred frame, all inertial frames are equal. You can NOT start saying that this or that frame is the stationary one.

Try to stay consistent with the theory of SR, until you simply cant get a sensible result.

So there can be no differences according to Einstein between the two inertial frames, no need to try to claim one is moving any the other is stationary, in an attempt to get around this question.

 

Your statement  "So, it MUST be true that when the observer is at rest and the clock is in motion, the same zig zag is seen, settling the issue." is contrary to SR, so cant be considered.

 

You say it MUST be true because if it were not, then the consequences would be that SR is not a valid theory. Ive been trying to point this out for ages, using this example and a bunch of other examples.

 

Your next sentence, "Otherwise, a lightclock can be used to detect absolute motion among inertial frames!"  is logical, and this is exactly the first bit of evidence to demonstrate that at least one of the Postulates of Einsteins 1905 paper is invalid.

 

As far as light speed being a constant goes, always c in any and all inertial frames, I ask you if we just consider one frame, the frame that light is moving in, "what is the speed of the light relative to in this frame?"  The only possible answer is that if light is doing a set speed then there must be a convenient if not imaginary stationary origin from which to measure the speed of c. That is the absolute stationary frame itself, which can be defined mathematically as light speed MINUS that speed = zero speed.

 

So unless you can overcome this issue, that if we actually could construct a light clock ignoring the problem that such a device is impossible, and accelerated it up to near light speed, in the process, we would find that the photon would bash into the walls of the light clock, never reaching the top mirror.

 

UNLESS, light can gain inertia from its surroundings, in which case it would have a velocity of c plus a proportion of the velocity of the spaceship. c =v, thus exceeding its own max velocity.

 

No matter which way you go, SR will fail.

 

There are many other ways to show that SR fails as an hypothesis, if you are interested. Don't laugh, think.

 

The simplest is to recognize that Special Relativity (SR) derives from the assumption that something (light) always moves the same speed in both of two arbitrary reference frames that are moving with respect to each other.  If this fallacious assumption is put into mathematical form, all the equations and concepts of SR result.  Anything at any speed assumed, postulated, etc. to do this will result in the SR equations and concepts.  Post #96 is about this and goes into the math.

[marcospolo]

The simplest is to recognize that Special Relativity (SR) derives from the assumption that something (light) always moves the same speed in both of two arbitrary reference frames that are moving with respect to each other.  If this fallacious assumption is put into mathematical form, all the equations and concepts of SR result.  Anything at any speed assumed, postulated, etc. to do this will result in the SR equations and concepts.  Post #96 is about this and goes into the math.

and therefore Einstein is totally wrong with his hypothesis on SR.

 

If you use anything that moves with a known and reliable velocity, say sound, or a well trained racing snail, as your benchmark velocity, then as you say, one can still derive the equations of SR exactly, using the exact same logic the Einstein used. Ive written about his very thing in an unpublished document.

 

But when you plug in to the equations, the actual value of the velocity in place of the velocity of light, then Einsteins time dilation results in a time shrinkage of hours for a flight from London to New York on a commercial jet.

 

There is no REASON to believe that light speed could possibly stay the same regardless of the velocity of any observer.  In fact its totally UN-reason-able to even suggest it! Einsteins claim about light speed's consistency of measurement regardless of other circumstances, (the velocity of the one doing the measuring)  is directly contrary to all rationality and logic.

Edited May 3, 2019 by marcospolo

[OceanBreeze]

It is obviously beyond YOUR rationality and logic, but SR has been thoroughly tested and the results conform to the theory.

[marcospolo]

It is obviously beyond YOUR rationality and logic, but SR has been thoroughly tested and the results conform to the theory.

You are probably an idiot.

 

We just saw that the theory of Einsteins and the light clocks DOES NOT and CAN NOT work!

 

So ANY observation that you IMAGINE us supporting SR MUST be a flaw in your interpretation of that observation.

I thought you said you were smart?

(you certainly intimated it)

The ONLY possible move on your behalf now is to explain how the issues with the light clock I explained, are themselves wrong.

 

Please go on from here, and lets not drag up some concocted results as if they were somehow sufficient to overcome the SR light clocks problem.

[OceanBreeze]

Only "probably" an idiot? I will consider that a compliment!

 

Maybe you saw that the LC won't work; that's not what I saw. As I explained, IF the LC behaved as it does in your cartoon video, it could be used as an absolute motion detector; able to tell which of two inertial frames in relative motion is "really" moving. That is not possible, so the LC does NOT behave as depicted in your cartoon. It may not be possible to build a working LC, but the concept seems sound.

 

I don't recall saying anything about being "smart". I advise you to back up your claims. That is one of the few rules we have here. So, I am requesting you to provide a link to support your allegation. Thanks in advance.

 

I have already explained how and why your objections to the LC are wrong. Obviously, you did not understand anything so I will  not waste any more of my time on you.

[LightStorm]

Interesting, Ill take some time to go over your information carefully but very interesting just reading the comments.

I always said that the M&M x gave a nul result, meaning that it did not demonstrate anything, especially the postulate that light always goes at c for any observer. The M&M x did NOT demonstrate that claim.

But no matter which way you go from here, SR hypothesis collapses. And this is just one way of showing that the theory is a big error.

 

Sure take your time. Quotes in the animation are from Michelson's 1887 paper and the relevant bit is below: 

 

"Suppose now, the ether being at rest, that the whole apparatus moves in the direction sc, with the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the directions and distances traversed by the rays will be altered thus:— The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab, being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba_/, (aba_/ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca_/, and is reflected at a_/, making ca_/e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba_/ and ca_/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a_/, though the difference is of the second order;"

 

In the sun's frame, the telescope in the MMX must be tilted by an angle of 20.5 arcseconds due to aberration of light. That's what the animation shows and that's what Michelson is talking about in the above quote. At the top mirror the aberration angle (aba_/ =2a) is roughly 41 arcseconds. 

[marcospolo]

Only "probably" an idiot? I will consider that a compliment!

 

Maybe you saw that the LC won't work; that's not what I saw. As I explained, IF the LC behaved as it does in your cartoon video, it could be used as an absolute motion detector; able to tell which of two inertial frames in relative motion is "really" moving. That is not possible, so the LC does NOT behave as depicted in your cartoon. It may not be possible to build a working LC, but the concept seems sound.

 

I don't recall saying anything about being "smart". I advise you to back up your claims. That is one of the few rules we have here. So, I am requesting you to provide a link to support your allegation. Thanks in advance.

 

I have already explained how and why your objections to the LC are wrong. Obviously, you did not understand anything so I will  not waste any more of my time on you.

You insinuated that I was not smart enough to understand what you clearly were able to grasp, therefore you are claiming superior smarts than I.

But I dont believe that this is the case.

 

For example you logic is flawed even in the first paragraph of your last reply.

 

You are using circular reasoning.

You are saying that LC's MUST behave the way that Relativity says they should BECAUSE Relativity says that this is what they do. Therefore Its IMPOSSIBLE that they don't do what relativity claims.

 

This is not up tho the standard expected of a Staff Moderator of a Physics forum.

 

So I'm claiming that yes indeed the light clocks failure when moving at speed, WOULD be a great way to determine if the frame was moving or not.

 

Your job now should have been to show me why I'm wrong, Circular reasoning is not making the necessary grade.

[marcospolo]

Sure take your time. Quotes in the animation are from Michelson's 1887 paper and the relevant bit is below: 

 

"Suppose now, the ether being at rest, that the whole apparatus moves in the direction sc, with the velocity of the earth in its orbit, the directions and distances traversed by the rays will be altered thus:— The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab, being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba_/, (aba_/ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca_/, and is reflected at a_/, making ca_/e equal 90—a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba_/ and ca_/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a_/, though the difference is of the second order;"

 

In the sun's frame, the telescope in the MMX must be tilted by an angle of 20.5 arcseconds due to aberration of light. That's what the animation shows and that's what Michelson is talking about in the above quote. At the top mirror the aberration angle (aba_/ =2a) is roughly 41 arcseconds. 

So now what are your personal conclusions about the value of Einsteins Hypothesis of Special Relativity? In a nutshell, probably a great place for Einstein's clerical ramblings.

I have , lets say, "issues" with SR, GR, Quantum, and Einstein's Photoelectric effect hypothesis too.

As far as I can see, he got nothing correct. Not even E=mc2

What can you expect from a third class clerk? (this is to try to create a little balance to the constant claims that he was the greatest Physicist and a Genius.

I cant see it. He was not even a great clerk, or husband, or father... but lets not get personal, even though forums usually specialize in character assassinations.

[LightStorm]

So now what are your personal conclusions about the value of Einsteins Hypothesis of Special Relativity? In a nutshell, probably a great place for Einstein's clerical ramblings.

I have , lets say, "issues" with SR, GR, Quantum, and Einstein's Photoelectric effect hypothesis too.

As far as I can see, he got nothing correct. Not even E=mc2

What can you expect from a third class clerk? (this is to try to create a little balance to the constant claims that he was the greatest Physicist and a Genius.

I cant see it. He was not even a great clerk, or husband, or father... but lets not get personal, even though forums usually specialize in character assassinations.

 

My personal conclusion is that SR has problems many of which lead to paradoxes. Paradoxes are usually not addressed by Relativists. If they do address them they resort to strawman arguments or circular arguments. I have seen this over and over again. Because of this I usually don't argue with Relativists. I decided to come up with an alternative, instead. That's how I stumbled on "screw physics" which I posted in the alternative forum. E = mc2 is wrong and leads to paradoxes. Time dilation however is a pre-relativity effect and does occur. Length contraction does not, imo. There is no direct evidence for length contraction, only indirect inferences. Quantum has more problems than SR. As a standalone mathematical theory, GR has less problems than SR. Its equivalence principle is quite wrong. The redefinition of "inertia" or "centrifugal force" is quite wrong. There is no need for gravity or centrifugal force to be redefined as a curvature of spacetime. Why is Einstein redefining "inertia" or centrifugal force? Because he doesn't understand them. imo. See Mach's principle for eg. 

[marcospolo]

My personal conclusion is that SR has problems many of which lead to paradoxes. Paradoxes are usually not addressed by Relativists. If they do address them they resort to strawman arguments or circular arguments. I have seen this over and over again. Because of this I usually don't argue with Relativists. I decided to come up with an alternative, instead. That's how I stumbled on "screw physics" which I posted in the alternative forum. E = mc2 is wrong and leads to paradoxes. Time dilation however is a pre-relativity effect and does occur. Length contraction does not, imo. There is no direct evidence for length contraction, only indirect inferences. Quantum has more problems than SR. As a standalone mathematical theory, GR has less problems than SR. Its equivalence principle is quite wrong. The redefinition of "inertia" or "centrifugal force" is quite wrong. There is no need for gravity or centrifugal force to be redefined as a curvature of spacetime. Why is Einstein redefining "inertia" or centrifugal force? Because he doesn't understand them. imo. See Mach's principle for eg. 

Ok, great.  I generally fully agree.  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? and What is backing up this belief? To me it's part and parcel of SR and is just as ridiculous and nonsensical as the rest of the theory. I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

[LightStorm]

Ok, great.  I generally fully agree.  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? and What is backing up this belief? To me it's part and parcel of SR and is just as ridiculous and nonsensical as the rest of the theory. I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

 

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.

Edited May 4, 2019 by LightStorm