Science Forums

# Marcospolos Obsession With Einstein Being Wrong

## Recommended Posts

Marcos;

Some one mentioned 'gap' speed.

Let's consider a simple problem in basic algebra.

You are observing from the bank.

The criminal robs a bank and speeds away in a car at 50 mph.

The police begin a chase in a car at 60 mph, after a sighting of the robber 1 mile away. How soon do they overtake the robbers car?

For the robber, x=1+50t.

For the police, x=60t.

If 60t=50t+1, then t=1/(60-50)=1/10 hr =6 min.

There are 2 objects in motion, at 50 and 60 mph.

There is NOTHING moving at 10 mph.

The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of 10 mph.

The gap is not an object, but a spatial relation relative to the cars.

Using the same scenario,

You are observing from the space station launching the device.

A mirror is fixed .3m (1 nanosec) distant from an emitter in the x direction.

The device is moving in space at .6c in the x direction.

A light pulse is emitted at t=0. How soon does the pulse overtake the mirror?

For the mirror, x=1+.6t

For the pulse, x=t

If t=1+.6t,then t=1/(.4)=2.5 ns.

There are 2 objects in motion, at .6c and 1.0c.

There is NOTHING moving at .4c.

The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of .4c.

The gap is not an object, but a spatial relation relative to the pulse and the mirror.

1905 paper, par. 1

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

In the 1900's, 'velocity' was synonymous with 'speed', and direction was an additional statement. This is evident in the writings of Einstein and Born in publications on SR.

This allows for a change in direction, without a change in speed.

In the process of 'logical thinking', a light clock on the earth changes direction continuously in its orbit. If the vertical light component within the clock didn't adjust for direction, the clock would not function, yet it does. This would also be true of mechanical clocks, since atoms are governed by em interactions.

• Replies 63
• Created

#### 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

"Classical physics was a first approximation to a general theory of physics."

No, its not, you are just making stuff up.

"Time dilation was detected for particles in accelerators vs the same particles at rest."

No, all observations in Particle accelerators are DERIVED via Math based on prior assumptions as to whats going on, no sub atomic particle can be observed, or measured, and one flying past at near light speed certainly cant be measured either.

Particle Accelerator Physics is on the fringe of real Physics, as its mostly like trying to figure out what the Universe looked like by examining cosmic dust, ans assuming that the dust must have once been a Planet.

" Length contraction is detected indirectly via the increased electric field intensity resulting from deformation. O. Heaviside predicted this in 1889 using Maxwell's equations. "

Heavyside and Lorentz were trying to make excuses for the M&M experiment INTERPRETED results, that would allow them to keep Maxwell's equations in tact. Their efforts are adhoc solutions without any physical relationship. There is no reason to ASSUME that the electromagnetic field calculations of Maxwell are directly applicable to Physical matter. Its ADHOC, and was already an EXCUSE rather than a hypothesis.

"GR explained the rotation of Mercury's orbit, where Newton could not."

Newton did not explain, but 220 years later, we have more information, more data,  and computers, so others much later than Newton HAVE EXPLAINED using the basic Physics principals of Newton.

"Inquire to NIST, their business is 'time'. They will tell you, all clocks (including atomic) lose time from the effects of motion and gravity."

Oh yes, NIST, that would be the LIARS who REFUSED to examine the 911 debris for the presence of  explosives, despite the fact that its the LEGALLY binding procedure, and they claimed that they had "no reports of explosions"  Despite all the hundreds of reports by eye witnesses and even TV news recording of explosions, who used the exact words, MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS".

If anyone mentions the words "conspiracy theorist" in a derogatory way, then they are mindless sheep, incapable of any non approved thought. How can such people imagine they can do Physics with such boxed in, 'approved by the authorities',  and sealed thought?

"I see a curved path in space vs a path in curved space,"

If you "see" that in space, then you are delusional, there's nothing there anything like that. Einstein's spacetime is ONLY a MATH construct, he even said its not representing actual Reality.

"Do more research and get up to date."

Says the guy who is still following exactly a half baked idea from 1905.

" the primitive practices of yesterday."

Yes, those primitive Newtonian practices that have successfully put men on the moon, created the computer that you are using, and the TV that you watch Bevis and Butthead on. None of which required anything from the Physics that was supposed to overturn Newton.

I've already said about a million times, that EXPERIMENTAL supportive evidence is NOT conclusive as it can always be interpreted by more than one hypothesis as to the meaning.

The ONLY way to decide if Einsteins work is worthy of a place in Physics is to CRITICALLY examine the hypothesis, a task that you ALWAYS refuse to do.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Using the same scenario,

You are observing from the space station launching the device.

A mirror is fixed .3m (1 nanosec) distant from an emitter in the x direction.

The device is moving in space at .6c in the x direction.

A light pulse is emitted at t=0. How soon does the pulse overtake the mirror?

There are 2 objects in motion, at .6c and 1.0c.

There is NOTHING moving at .4c.

The distance/gap is decreasing at a rate of .4c.

The gap is not an object, but a spatial relation relative to the pulse and the mirror."

Fine, but you are working this out using an ABSOLUTE STATIONARY FRAME OF REFERENCE.- your frame.

Einstein's theory ( i need to remind you) was that EACH of those two objects HAVE THE RIGHT to consider that that they are stationary, and the other is moving, so they WOULD RIGHTFULLY be measuring that the other object's REAL relative velocity is indeed 0.4c.  SO you are trying to convince me that Einstein is correct by using Newton's Physics alone?

"In the 1900's, 'velocity' was synonymous with 'speed', and direction was an additional statement. This is evident in the writings of Einstein and Born in publications on SR.

This allows for a change in direction, without a change in speed."

Again you are making deceptive claims here. Einstein based his theory in the realization that NEWTONS laws of motion were VALID in all inertial frames.

Newton's laws are CLEAR  that IF THERE IS DIRECTIONAL CHANGE then ACCELERATION is occurring, and so we DON'T HAVE INERTIAL FRAMES anymore.

So stop LYING and making stuff up off the cuff,  by claiming that Einsteins theory "allows for a change in direction, without a change in speed".

"In the process of 'logical thinking', a light clock on the earth changes direction continuously in its orbit. If the vertical light component within the clock didn't adjust for direction, the clock would not function, yet it does. This would also be true of mechanical clocks, since atoms are governed by em interactions."

No, you are NOT logically thinking at all.

1.  there can never be any such thing as a real light clock. Newtons Physics forbids it. And as proof, there are no light clocks in existence, even though one would be better than an atomic clock. So your statement, "the clock would not function, yet it does"  is based on pure FANTASY, not Physics.

2. even if such a clock was real, it would not have the problem I described, because the bouncing photon is NOT independent of its surroundings. Light  speed is relative to the medium its passing through. Be that medium glass, air, water, plastic, or a partial vacuum in a light clock.  What you suggest is that a fish can swim at 100,000 Kph because you don't want to think about the Ocean or the Earth. You are just considering the fish, and the Sun. And if you base your understanding of Physics on such ignorant sub sets of reality, of course you will start to think that Time can dilate, Solid objects can shrink and Mass can increase from nowhere, because you are DELUSIONAL.

3. There is no possible way to understand or explain any physical mechanism that could allow EVERY differently moving observer, to ALL get a reading of 300 million meters a second if they are all measuring that same photon whizzing past.

Especially since every observer CAN rightfully claim that he is stationary, (they all can and do assume that) so that because its central to the theory, the reverse is also VALID,:- any observer can claim that he is MOVING, and the other is the stationary one.  So I claim that I AM MOVING AT 300 million meters per second, and the PHOTON IS STATIONARY.

(don't just adhoc in the "rule" that says that I cant be moving at c, (because its just yet ANOTHER weak excuse to hid the fact that the Hypothesis is irrational) I CAN say then, that i'm moving at 299999 meters a second, and therefore the photon is moving at 1 meter per second. There, now I'm not breaking your claim that nothing can exceed the speed of light.  But you are still not happy, because you demand I always get 300million meters per second, but this CANT be correct, as all I want to do is APPLY Einsteins LAW that says that ALL motion is relative, and I'm correctly applying that law to myself and the photon. Exactly like I can apply the same law to myself and my travelling twin.

Either can correctly claim that he is either not moving or is moving. So I demand to be allowed to apply this law to myself and that moving object with a finite velocity, the Photon.

I am doing the moving and the Photon is not. This is VALID in Einstein's Relativity.

This is of course irrational thinking, but the problem is that it's based squarely and correctly on Einsteins hypothesis, showing that Einsteins hypothesis is IRRATIONAL.

Edited by marcospolo
##### Share on other sites

Marcos;

According to you, scientific experiment cannot prove any predictions of a theory.

Only your opinion decides what is correct.

Here is a simple question.

In Newton's time, light speed was thought to be instantaneous.

Today, a laser sends a signal from earth that reflects from the moon surface and returns. How would Newton or you explain the 2.5 sec transit time?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Marcos;

According to you, scientific experiment cannot prove any predictions of a theory.

Only your opinion decides what is correct.

Here is a simple question.

In Newton's time, light speed was thought to be instantaneous.

Today, a laser sends a signal from earth that reflects from the moon surface and returns. How would Newton or you explain the 2.5 sec transit time?

Almost everything you say is wrong.

First, it not ME that says that experimental results cannot ever "prove" that a theory is correct.

This is a basic tenant of Science.

The BEST that experiments can muster is to lend POSSIBLY supporting evidence.

But experimental results could prove that an hypothesis is wrong, and you only need one. but it must still be an incontestable result.

Its not my OPINION about Physics principals.

Its established methods of critical analysis, rational thought and application of well known principals of sound Logic.

These principals MUST be obvious in ANY scientific document, or the work is considered unsuitable for submission as a work with scientific merit.

EVERY hypothesis has a narrative explaining the concepts and methods and conclusions as an essential part of the Hypothesis, and if its irrational, contradictory, with poor logic then its not scientific.

No amount of Math can save such a paper.

So its NOT my OPINION.

Anymore than its Einsteins OPINION contained in his papers. Or even your OPINION that he is correct.

Your acceptance of Einstein's work is a BELIEF, based on FAITH in the authorities, and that's it!

What Newton personally understood about Light in his day is NOT RELEVANT to anything now.

Science and Physics did not stop with Newton, but surely quack ideas such as Einsteins can not replace the Physics that we already have used successfully, AND STILL USE NOW.

Its always interesting that no Relativist is able to actually address the problems with Relativity, yet they have the cheek to call others that point out the errors, "quacks".

That's why I dislike the religious, Faith  based pseudo-science of Einstein.  No answers, just deception and side stepping the issues. Personal attacks on non believers, and then just the big ignore, but never actual answers.

Edited by marcospolo
##### Share on other sites

Marcos;

Fine, but you are working this out using an ABSOLUTE STATIONARY FRAME OF REFERENCE.- your frame. Einstein's theory ( i need to remind you) was that EACH of those two objects HAVE THE RIGHT to consider that that they are stationary, and the other is moving, so they WOULD RIGHTFULLY be measuring that the other object's REAL relative velocity is indeed 0.4c.  SO you are trying to convince me that Einstein is correct by using Newton's Physics alone?

"You are observing from the space station launching the device."
There are 2 inertial ref. frames, the station and the device. The device could time the pulse to the mirror and back, and get a result of c.
The station in orbit is in freefall, and equivalent to an inertial frame.

3. There is no possible way to understand or explain any physical mechanism that could allow EVERY differently moving observer, to ALL get a reading of 300 million meters a second if they are all measuring that same photon whizzing past. Especially since every observer CAN rightfully claim that he is stationary,

Postulate 1 states, physics is the same in all inertial frames. Light propagation is physics, so why wouldn't they all conclude the same speed c for light.

We cannot do everything or know everything on our own. So we trust in the opinion of others, doctors, lawyers, scientists, or anyone with a talent that we don't have. Opinions become beliefs. In the case of scientific theory, if experience matches predictions, it's accepted as the best model to date.

My opinion/belief is, you don't understand Relativity, don't like it because it's not as simple as older ideas from Newton and before. Maybe you don't like math either.
##### Share on other sites

3. There is no possible way to understand or explain any physical mechanism that could allow EVERY differently moving observer, to ALL get a reading of 300 million meters a second if they are all measuring that same photon whizzing past. Especially since every observer CAN rightfully claim that he is stationary,

Postulate 1 states, physics is the same in all inertial frames. Light propagation is physics, so why wouldn't they all conclude the same speed c for light.

We cannot do everything or know everything on our own. So we trust in the opinion of others, doctors, lawyers, scientists, or anyone with a talent that we don't have. Opinions become beliefs. In the case of scientific theory, if experience matches predictions, it's accepted as the best model to date.

My opinion/belief is, you don't understand Relativity, don't like it because it's not as simple as older ideas from Newton and before. Maybe you don't like math either.

"Postulate 1 states, physics is the same in all inertial frames. Light propagation is physics, so why wouldn't they all conclude the same speed for light.?"

Well you are an idiot. You believe ANYTHING the authorities say, without question.Santa is real for you.

Galileo's observation ' physics is the same in all inertial frames.'  HAS TO DO WITH MOTION OF OBJECTS THAT HAVE MASS.  that would be a BRICK or a BALL or a Truck..

Newtons Laws of motion has exclusively to do with MECHANICS of moving bodies, KINEMATICS.

Light has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH MECHANICS OR KINEMATICS.

Postulate one may as well say, that "Sweet and Sour" or "Love and hate" obey Newtons Laws of Mechanical Motion of bodies.

Light is NOT, in ANY way, associated with ANY PART of MECHANICS, any more than Love or Sour are.

You are a gullible fool to accept Einsteins association of Light with Newton and Galileo's laws of PHYSICAL BODIES.

Whats wrong with your head? Cant THINK for yourself? You really are the ideal sheeple.  They stuffed up your ability to THINK from Postulate one. You were so EASY to TRICK, they are laughing.

"Its easier to fool someone, than to convince them that they have been fooled."  This is my problem now. So many fools.

And don't give me that utter BS about a photon NOT HAVING MASS if its stationary, but somehow it dose have some minuscule (calculated) mass when its moving at light speed...you have to be really stupid to accept that crock of BS.  That idea is a LIE invented from thin air, to support Einsteins crappy religious kabbalistic theory.

I don't "like" Relativity because its all garbage. Its just Nonsense.

ts just another tool of population manipulation not unlike the official narrative of WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Middle East, 911, Climate change by co2, Gay marriage, BLM, White supremacy, and now Covid.   All nonsense.  All social engineering, Propaganda.

You need to slap yourself out of your stupor and WAKE UP.

##### Share on other sites

You think there is a conspiracy?

##### Share on other sites

You think there is a conspiracy?

I think you are an idiot.

You think that "conspiracy theorist" is an insulting derogatory term?

Of course there are conspiracies. They are going on all around in all walks of life in some form or other.

People conspire to obtain a result they want. Always have, always will.

The term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA and used by mass media as a psychological tool to silence and discredit people who were trying to expose corruption in government.

They mixed "little green aliens", and "backward masking mind control in music" and the like, in with the actual true conspiracies, to try to paint every conspiracy as just silly nonsense.  And idiot people like you bought it without any question.

So, is there a conspiracy?  Is the Pope Catholic?

##### Share on other sites
• 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

The explanation is simply that Einsteins is wrong, Special Relativity is a fantasy, and nothing weird goes on with objects that move, also any ad-hoc pretend "frame of reference" is likewise not going to cause any changes in Physical reality. Because they are imaginary constructs.

You Relativists need to grow up and smell the roses, Einsteins is wrong, his theories are wrong, and there is a better, simpler and more elegant approach to  Physics (classical)  to study than Einstein's tripe.

Classical Physics can and has explained Muons, Mercury, Starlight behind the Sun and GPS.  But you prefer to pretend that only weird nonsense of Einsteins is able to uncover or explain these things.

Modern Physics is squarely based on the idea that the weirder and more mysterious the hypothesis, the more attractive it is to students.

But as no one here cares for Scientific Honesty or Truth, please go on with your stupidity. Not everyone is buying it however.

Edited by marcospolo
##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Modern Physics is squarely based on the idea that the weirder and more mysterious the hypothesis, the more attractive it is to students.

Very true. I would only add:

the more complicated a theory, i.e., the less they understand from it, the more they say "WOW, what a great thought!"

Unbelievable, but true.

Also, the believers often say that the theory is proved. They don't know how it is proved, they have never seen the experiments by which it is "proved", but they "know" for sure that it is proved. They take everything as gospel.

I am sure that the religious people are far more critical to their religions than the science orthodox believers towards science.

Edited by MitkoGorgiev
##### Share on other sites

But as no one here cares for Scientific Honesty or Truth, please go on with your stupidity. Not everyone is buying it however.

Marcospolo, you have to admit that for one thing Einstein was right. There is a quote from him which says that the human's stupidity is endless.

Primarily he was talking about himself, I suppose.

Original quote:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe”

##### Share on other sites

Marcospolo, you have to admit that for one thing Einstein was right. There is a quote from him which says that the human's stupidity is endless.

Primarily he was talking about himself, I suppose.

Original quote:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and the human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe”

I have to wonder if that "quote" and similar words of wisdom, were also "borrowed" by Einstein from someone wiser.

All Einstein's wise quotes are used to boost Einstein's fame, by people who have built an industry around it all. The industry of Higher Education, and manipulation.

## Join the conversation

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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