Jump to content
Science Forums

Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, show me your math explaining how muons make it to earth from the upper atmosphere. I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage. I have no

Its yet another paradox in an endless series of paradoxes about Einsteins irrational ideas and conclusions.   The explanation is simply that Einsteins is wrong, Special Relativity is a fantasy, and no

Posted Images

Well, from where you all sit on your self built thrones of imaginary knowledge, having decided that you alone understand everything and that makes you members of a exclusive club, others could point to you and ask, "What is the crank obsession with Einsteins being RIGHT?"

 

Because its not about Einstein, its all about rationality and sound logic.

 

Here's the simple facts.
1. the hypothesis is not rational, contains logical errors and makes assumptions that are self contradictory.
2. the developed equations are not based on empirical observations and measurement
3. the whole hypothesis leads to any number of paradoxes. a red flag that something is not quite right somewhere
4. every single claim of supporting experimental evidence for Einstein's theories can and has been explained with nothing more than simple classical physics. (so you have no valid experimental evidence for SR)
5. relativity destroys the Physics that we know does work, by removing the fundamental "constants" that Physics relies on that allow us to do Physics! The constants called LENGTH, TIME and Mass.
6. and finally even Einstein changed his mind about SR after about 1920. He admitted that SR is only a special case, that could only work in a situation where the gravity was totally uniform, (after explaining that all of space is curved, therefore there exists no such place!) He also admitted that an Ether exists but its not movable, (its absolute!) and this was essential to allow us to do Physics), and that Light speed in a vacuum was NOT a constant!
7. the final conclusions of Special Relativity are nonsense, there is no other suitable word for it. Nonsense is nonsense. No flowery words can disguise it. Sorry.
Really?, things shrink, but only in one direction, they gain mass from nowhere whilst losing volume, (Momentum is NOT MASS!, Einstein said MASS) , and the Time warps but only for some, and as all this happens, the moving guy has no idea that its happening, but only some remote observer can see it? And the effects are totally different for every observer that's located in a different place, or also moving at a different speed?
8. I've asked Professors, Physics Teachers and Particle Physicists, this question, but not one was able to give ANY sort of answer, despite having the whole of Academic Scientific Community, the University doctrines, and all of Einsteins knowledge at their disposal, they cant answer this question.
"Einstein absolutely claims that Length contraction is a real effect, its not a matter of just an apparent measurement problem, the object actually shrinks in one direction only. so, please explain the physical process that occurs to the object that causes it to shrink, precisely in the one direction. What forces must be present to accomplish this compression? Where do these forces come from?
And how can these forces that cause physical unidirectional shrinkage "KNOW" that some remote observer who has a particular relative velocity, requires to see a particular degree of shrinkage?
And finally, how exactly can the object shrink in 100 different ratios to accommodate 100 differently moving observers, at the same time?

Its got nothing to do with one's IMAGINARY frame of Reference, which is only an invented mathematical construct to allow comparative measurements, but in this case we are not interested in measuring anything, we are just wondering how that passing space ship which was 500 feet long when it was parked up, but now its obviously only about 2 feet long as it whizzes past at almost light speed.

Meanwhile, my friend in a slower rocket can clearly see that the 500 foot long ship is really now only about half that size.

There is NOTHING about Special Relativity's conclusions that can be considered RATIONAL.
There is also no possible rationality behind the claim that Light speed must always be measured at c irrespective of the motion of the observer, and there is NO experimental evidence to suggest that this might be true.
Certainly, the M&M type experiments are NOT testing light speed in anything other than the ONE frame. and they are working with a two-way measure of light if indeed these machines are testing anything about lights VELOCITY at all!

Finally, if light has a fixed velocity in space, and its generated at a particular wavelength, then its identical to a sound wave in air, or a microwave in air, or a wave in water, in that given the wavelength, we can tell the speed we are moving by the change in wavelength. This is exactly how Doppler radar speed guns work.
If we are counting those waves at a faster rate than they were generated, then we can easily and accurately calculate the speed differential.
So the red and blue shift of light from distant galaxies, is evidence that we are moving relative the the speed of that wave, which is the speed of light.
The speed of sound is the speed of those sound waves, the speed of Doppler radar is the speed those waver are travelling, and so the speed of light is exactly the same. its the speed of the waves.
There is no rational reason to try to twist this obvious fact.
Red and Blue shift of starlight is because we are measuring light at plus and minus the speed difference. c + v and c - v.

Also, If spacetime is a real thing, which is the claim, I can follow directions for the spacial coordinates irrespective of whether they are expressed in Euclidean or non Euclidean constructs. But where exactly is the Time dimension? Where does the corner of my house exist in spacetime 24 hours ago? Give me the information I need to go there. Because apparently even though my house burned to the ground tomorrow, it is still fine in spacetime yesterday. This is the ultimate BS.
Another thing, Einstein claims that length contracts for a moving object, but only in the direction of travel, the other directions are not affected, so you should be explaining how Time must also be ONLY DILATING in the direction of travel, but not in the other directions.
Please explain.
Because there is no chance the time can shrink in all places, when all places are not moving at a relative velocity to light.
Relativity only affects the object in the one direction exclusively. so how can that place identified as spacetime, that's not involved in relative motion, also be dilated?
The whole theory is really just a fantasy story intended to be the plot of a new Sci-Fi movie, i'm sure that's what Einstein had in mind.
 

Edited by marcospolo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, show me your math explaining how muons make it to earth from the upper atmosphere. I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage. I have no math that uses time slowing or length contracting yet I can explain muons making it to earth mathematically using other less known relativistic concepts. You must be able to do the same because otherwise your opinions are not provable and are therefore just the ravings of a crank even if eventually proved true by someone else. Your beliefs don't make you a crank, your inability to back them up mathematically does.

Edited by ralfcis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, show me your math explaining how muons make it to earth from the upper atmosphere. I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage. I have no math that uses time slowing or length contracting yet I can explain muons making it to earth mathematically using other less known relativistic concepts. You must be able to do the same because otherwise your opinions are not provable and are therefore just the ravings of a crank even if eventually proved true by someone else. Your beliefs don't make you a crank, your inability to back them up mathematically does.

 

 

Ok, show me your math explaining how muons make it to earth from the upper atmosphere. I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage. I have no math that uses time slowing or length contracting yet I can explain muons making it to earth mathematically using other less known relativistic concepts. You must be able to do the same because otherwise your opinions are not provable and are therefore just the ravings of a crank even if eventually proved true by someone else. Your beliefs don't make you a crank, your inability to back them up mathematically does.

    Maths is unable to prove anything. Its got to be based on a solid hypothesis or its going to give a mathematically accurate answer that's totally and exactly UNLIKE reality.

Three professors have three theories about the exact same subject.

All three have copious amounts of Mathematical calculations to support their conclusions. The math is correct, and flawless in execution.

Yet all three conclusions are incompatible.

This is all I need to say about the importance of Math in the study of Physics.

 

So I say, " Show me your logic, your rational explanation of your Hypothesis, because if that is not reasonable, your Math is certainly not going to save the theory"

 

Here is the Physical analysis of the Muon Experiment:

A scientist saw Muons on a mountain top.

He saw Muons at Sea Level.

So he concluded that Time and spacial Dimensions for a specific collection of objects only, must have changed.

Why did he think that? Well he believed that there were way too many Muons at Sea Level than there ought to be.

Actually there allways were the correct number, at Sea Level, but the scientist did  not know that.

 

Why did he think that there were too many?

Because he decided that most should have "died" before they reached before they reached Seal Level.

Died? Died from what?  Well, Died from old age, the muon is only "supposed" to live a very, very short time.

 

Well apparently this is not the case, as they are at Sea Level in considerable numbers.

So how did the scientist figure out that the muon only lives for such a ridiculously short time?

Did he observe lot of Muons and come up with an average lifetime?

 

No, he id not.

 

What he did was collect muons by a process of trapping them in a transparent medium that  is actually slowing them down to almost stopped.

THEN when they were almost stopped DEAD, he THEN timed how much longer they "lived".

 

This is exactly like placing a gold fish on the carpet, and deciding that fish only have a life of about 2 minutes.

 

In there natural state, fish live much longer, and in their unmolested natural state, so do muons. This is evidenced by the fact that there are lots of them at sea level.

Some obviously get lost to the increasing density of the earths atmosphere on the way down, exactly like radiation.

 

This realization requires no fancy math, and it fits exactly what we observe, and does not need the magical, mystical excuse that Time and Space have selectively shrunk for specific observers but not others.

 

Your ability to twist and manipulate numbers on a blackboard does not ever make a irrational hypothesis "correct".

 

This is the deception of Numerologists, Kabbalists and other mystical religious wack jobs, who have convinced pretty well  everyone that Math is the language of god.

 

Rational thinking comes first, then if absolutely necessary, we can use the simple tool of Math to help figure out exactly how much fuel the car will need on the next trip. 

Most times we don't need the Math to plan the trip. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not wrong it's just unfinished.

People take shots at everyone at the top. 

The difference I think is knowing what to take away from a persons experience and elaborating upon it.

Its just wrong,  unfinished wrong. If it ever gets finished, its will just be more completely wrong.

 

It matters not WHO came up with a wacky idea, the idea needs to be shown up as wacky. Celebrities have nothing to do with it.

 

There is nothing at all valuable in any of the theories of relativity.  Galileo and Newton have it sorted perfectly well thank you very much.

 

Einstein's wacky theories have held up rational science from real progress.

 

Stop with the endless glorification of Einstein, you worship him like he was a god. 

You are incapable of having a critical thought about him or his theories.

Total sheep mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein developed SR without the need of Lorentz's ether.

In GR, gravitational fields would require an ether, different from that of Lorentz.

Gravitation depended on the distribution of matter, but its effect extends far beyond the boundary of a massive object M. I.e., the field contains energy from M, via an unknown process. Wherever an object m is placed in the g-field, the acceleration is directed toward the center of mass of M. The continuous redirecting of m can be interpreted AS IF moving in a curved space, vs a curved path in space.

Revisiting the train scenario, the passenger drops an object s, which falls vertically to the floor, while a person on the platform sees s fall in a curve to the floor.

How can s simultaneously have two different trajectories?

It can't, but there can be two different perceptions of the motion of s.

Perception is what the mind thinks it observes.

Trajectories, orbits, 4-vectors, all geometric forms are imaginary.

_____________________________

Length is a vector, with magnitude and direction.

Spatial distance is/must be relative to an object.

We can only measure differences. The length of an object is the difference between the location of one end and the location of the other end, relative to a reference.

Three independent directions are sufficient to assign a position of an object's center of mass, without understanding why.

From the beginning of humanity, 'time' was a measure of motion. In SR the 'time' axis is ct, a distance, thanks to Minkowski.

_____________________________

Why were people still debating Special Relativity, 100 yrs after its publishing, and years of experimental verification? After 14 yrs of various forum participation, I concluded, they don't understand it, and different forums promote different interpretations.

Yes, the ball could be percepted as moving in a curved space. This is much like how light moving vertically inside a moving spaceship will be seen from a person at rest to be moving in a zig zag pattern and so from the observer at rest says time has slowed down in the moving frame since light has further to travel. But the twin paradox also argues there is no absolute motion, observers inside the ship moving near the speed of light can argue it is in fact time slowing down outside their frame if reference. It's one of the great unsolved paradoxes that cannot be easily explained. The only evidence we have so far is that moving particles and clocks in gravitational fields appear to increase the half life or add a bit extra time on the clocks motion. I'd love to see a more comprehensive study of the paradox because usually a paradox usually means our understanding of a theory has broken down somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ball could be percepted as moving in a curved space. This is much like how light moving vertically inside a moving spaceship will be seen from a person at rest to be moving in a zig zag pattern and so from the observer at rest says time has slowed down in the moving frame since light has further to travel. But the twin paradox also argues there is no absolute motion, observers inside the ship moving near the speed of light can argue it is in fact time slowing down outside their frame if reference. It's one of the great unsolved paradoxes that cannot be easily explained. The only evidence we have so far is that moving particles and clocks in gravitational fields appear to increase the half life or add a bit extra time on the clocks motion. I'd love to see a more comprehensive study of the paradox because usually a paradox usually means our understanding of a theory has broken down somewhere.

The second you mentioned "Curved Space" you stopped discussing Physics, and are now fully in the land or fantasy make believe.  Its a great story, but its only use is material for a new fantasy movie. (or to provide reasons to keep Math nerds busy through the night)

 

I was trying to discuss actual Physics.

 

The light moving vertically inside a moving spaceship will be recognized by an outside observer as a light moving vertically inside a moving ship.

No-one in his right mind would try to pretend that the ship has disappeared, and so the isolated light spot needs to be plotted onto some invisible background that is stationary with that observer. Thus forming the imaginary zig zag)

Well, not no-one, Einstein and his followers would.

 

But worse, no physicist worth a damn would suggest that a photon (short pulse of light) is able to follow along with the ship that's moving at nearly light speed itself. What can only happen, is the photon would just get left behind, as its continues to go vertically, whilst the ship moves away sideways. Because as even Einstein agreed, "light is not affected by the motion of the source, or the observer!".

Moving the light clock ''the source and target 'observer' , sideways can not affect that pulse of light in any way, this is agreed on basic physics 101. If the photon were to move with the ship in a zig zag trajectory, then that would be exactly opposite to the statement of Einstein and all rational Physicists to this day, that light is NOT affected by the motion of the source or target."

 

And we cant only restrict that motion to mean only velocity, because light can be demonstrated to be expanding at light SPEED as a sphere. So its covering ALL possible directions.

If you claim that it only means velocity, in the one direction, then you cant explain the fact that the spherical spread of light could still stay spherical. And it MUST because light MUST always go at the same speed in every direction;. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second you mentioned "Curved Space" you stopped discussing Physics, and are now fully in the land or fantasy make believe.  Its a great story, but its only use is material for a new fantasy movie. (or to provide reasons to keep Math nerds busy through the night)

 

I was trying to discuss actual Physics.

 

The light moving vertically inside a moving spaceship will be recognized by an outside observer as a light moving vertically inside a moving ship.

No-one in his right mind would try to pretend that the ship has disappeared, and so the isolated light spot needs to be plotted onto some invisible background that is stationary with that observer. Thus forming the imaginary zig zag)

Well, not no-one, Einstein and his followers would.

 

But worse, no physicist worth a damn would suggest that a photon (short pulse of light) is able to follow along with the ship that's moving at nearly light speed itself. What can only happen, is the photon would just get left behind, as its continues to go vertically, whilst the ship moves away sideways. Because as even Einstein agreed, "light is not affected by the motion of the source, or the observer!".

Moving the light clock ''the source and target 'observer' , sideways can not affect that pulse of light in any way, this is agreed on basic physics 101. If the photon were to move with the ship in a zig zag trajectory, then that would be exactly opposite to the statement of Einstein and all rational Physicists to this day, that light is NOT affected by the motion of the source or target."

 

And we cant only restrict that motion to mean only velocity, because light can be demonstrated to be expanding at light SPEED as a sphere. So its covering ALL possible directions.

If you claim that it only means velocity, in the one direction, then you cant explain the fact that the spherical spread of light could still stay spherical. And it MUST because light MUST always go at the same speed in every direction;. 

Get this crank outta here, see you are exactly what I was talking about Macrospolo.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

ralfcis and marcospolo must have went to meme college.

I'm gonna ignore your track record of being stupid/banned though.

You say "Einstein is just wrong he's just wrong!" then say this.

". I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage."

And then we got Marcospolo 


"The second you mentioned "Curved Space" you stopped discussing Physics"

You do realize that SR GR( special and general relativity ) are "IN" physics right?

If curved space is not a variable in your line of work then the following is obvious.
 

 

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_3wQHcm_Y

Edited by Orion
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get this crank outta here, see you are exactly what I was talking about Macrospolo.

It would be less like a Communistic dictator if you simply addressed your concerns regarding my statements like a scientific minded person. 

Whats the point of a Forum if the only three people here just sit around all day and congratulate each other on how clever they are?

 

If you are really that smart, try showing where I have stated something that is wrong, and why. 

Not agreeing with the status quo is not a valid reason.

 

And  the "appeal to authority" is still a falsely of Logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ralfcis and marcospolo must have went to meme college.

 

I'm gonna ignore your track record of being stupid/banned though.

You say "Einstein is just wrong he's just wrong!" then say this.

 

". I agree, Einstein's math gives the correct answer but it is based on a foundation of illogical garbage."

 

And then we got Marcospolo 

 

"The second you mentioned "Curved Space" you stopped discussing Physics"

You do realize that SR GR( special and general relativity ) are "IN" physics right?

If curved space is not a variable in your line of work then the following is obvious.

 

 

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_3wQHcm_Y

No, YOU and your mates IMAGINE that they have some case to include Einsteins theories into Physics, but I see no opportunity to slip them in anywhere, Im satisfied that for the most part, we should be building our understanding of Natural Physics on the basis that we know is correct, that was explained by Newton.

 

What some bunch of duplicated "experts" for a big club have declared is the holy doctrines of Physics is fine for them, but if it does not constitute a rational explanation for what we observe, then I wont be joining your little deluded club.

 

Show me where the euclidean space we use on Earth, morphs into the non-euclidean curved spacetime.... what altitude do I need to attain to start noticing it?

Maybe you can explain how a purely human invented,  abstractly derived Mathematical construct of a spacial measuring system, is capable of making planets go around in circles?

 

If any of modern science along these lines made one scrap of sense, I would be all into it. But you have to leave your powers of critical thinking at the door of every lecture on Einstein, cosmology etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddy you're sixty four showing no signs of intelligence.
The second you denied the curvature of space when black holes have been documented is baffling..

What's worse then that is this one point is based on

 

"The forming of the imaginary zig zag"

Your actual words not mine

Here's what it looks like when someone knows what they're talking about.

Albert Einstein 1905 Special relativity "Relativistic Doppler Effect."

is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), 
Is there a scenario where light naturally zigzags?
It would have to bounce off waveguides at the speed of light which is a neutral too the same party 
Your "ZIGZAGGING" faster then light itself? 

186,282 miles per second 
What in your mind makes this light faster?

post-95343-0-77587100-1595315820_thumb.png

Edited by Orion
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be less like a Communistic dictator if you simply addressed your concerns regarding my statements like a scientific minded person. 

Whats the point of a Forum if the only three people here just sit around all day and congratulate each other on how clever they are?

 

If you are really that smart, try showing where I have stated something that is wrong, and why. 

Not agreeing with the status quo is not a valid reason.

 

And  the "appeal to authority" is still a falsely of Logic.

You are the type of person that goes into prison and punches the biggest dude in the mouth on  the first day aren't you?

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddy you're sixty four showing no signs of intelligence.

The second you denied the curvature of space when black holes have been documented is baffling..

What's worse then that is this one point is based on

 

"The forming of the imaginary zig zag"

Your actual words not mine

 

Here's what it looks like when someone knows what they're talking about.

 

Albert Einstein 1905 Special relativity "Relativistic Doppler Effect."

 

is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), 

Is there a scenario where light naturally zigzags?

It would have to bounce off waveguides at the speed of light which is a neutral too the same party 

Your "ZIGZAGGING" faster then light itself? 

186,282 miles per second 

What in your mind makes this light faster?

You are too far into Einstein to be able to take a step back and do revision.

That thumbnail shows exactly the reason why we need to take the speed of the wave, (Light, water, sound) and ADD or SUBTRACT our speed, meaning that we must measure incoming light at C +v or c - v.

 

This is not a difficult concept.

The light itself never changes speed, its only that we measure it as the combined velocity. 

This is where we all were before Einstein came along and said it was wrong, but neglected to explain why it was wrong, or how it could even be possible.

 

Ill stick with the rational understanding  of the addition of speeds thanks.

 

Because I've never heard a reasonable excuse to justify the acceptance of Einsteins version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...