Conventional Physicists espouse: Einstein's theory cannot, at this point, be shown wrong by anything but experiment. It is based on the simple principle of relativity and everything else flows mathematically from that. That being the case, only an experiment showing an incorrect prediction will disprove the theory. There are now more than 100 years of ever more accurate experiments confirming the theory over a wide range of parameters.
Yes, 100 years of experiments all biased by the belief in Einstein's story. All pertinent experiments produce data buried within the ambient noise level of random motion of molecules and atoms. Further biased by the circular logic of designing the experiments based upon the theory.
His logic falls out of bed right at the start of his Gedankin, and has sucked relativist and "anti relativist" alike, into his fantasy. The idea that the observer's motion combines with the sources motion, and then must proceed at the speed of light in the observer frame is just silly. There are infinite observers who may, in relative motion at an infinite number of speeds, pass by the source's radiation, which is radiating from the source, undistorted, at the speed of light relative to that source.
Einstein's logic is that this observed radiation must slow down to the speed of light in the observer's frame of reference.
Before going further with this refutation, I must explain that we are speaking of absolute relative motion here. Yes, CPs, (Conventional Physicists) there is most assuredly absolute relative motion! Absolute relative motion is the longitudinal motion of the observer, [on any track parallel to the track that passes through the source, itself] regardless of his offset to the source of the radiation.
Einstein is saying that the Absolute relative motion of the observer must be added to the source's speed of light; and the Pythagorean sum must still equal the speed of light in the observer's frame.
Can't you see the silliness of this proposition? We have three known measurements: The velocity of light in the source's frame, the Absolute relative motion of the observer, and the absolute distance between the source and observer (this distance is the offset of the observer's longitudinal motion.)
Einstein simplifies this necessity [vector addition requires the Pythagorean sum,] and out of the blue, stipulates that the sum of these two vectors is c, the speed of light, in the observer frame. He then "back engineers" his stipulated c in the observer's frame; which requires him to distort the three measurements we already know.
The truth is that the vector sum of c in the sources frame, taken from the transverse distance in the source frame, (which is the same absolute distance for any observer moving at any relative absolute velocity relative to the source) and the relative absolute velocity of the observer must add up to a speed faster than c, in the observer frame.
The Michelson-Morley experiment had nothing to do with the speed of light in a source frame being measured in an observer's frame. All objects in the experiment were in the source frame, the purpose of the experiment was to see if the interferometer was moving or stationary in the postulated aether. There is nothing in Albert's STR that can be extrapolated from the MM experiment regarding relative velocity of source and observer.
The mirrors in Einstein's Gedankin are similar to detectors, in that the light pulse that bounces off each one do not bounce the light until the pulse gets to each one. By the same token, the detectors do not detect the light pulse until it gets to each one. In the source frame only two detectors are needed, one at each mirror.
In the relatively moving observer frame multiple detectors are needed. Thus the simultaneity of detecting the event of the light pulse at each mirror is preserved. Consequently, the observer frame does not experience the mirrors to be separated any further apart than they are in the source frame. It is merely the detectors in the observer frame that are further separated, compared to the source frame mirrors, which remain directly opposite each other as seen in either frame.
Any sentient being in the observer frame will realize that the moving detectors are a part of the observer frame and the pulse of light and its expanding radiation are part of the source frame. The longitudinal motion of the observer's detectors must be applied in the Pythagorean manner to the motion of the light pulse traveling at c in the source frame. This simply means that the observer sees the compound vector of the light pulse travel faster than c, and understands that the additional speed is just the motion of the observer in his frame.
Both the source frame and the observer frame measure the pulse of light traveling between the mirrors (which are perpendicular to the observer's motion) at c. There is no simultaneity problem and no need to fuss with lengths, and the passage of time, between frames.
In Einstein's world the mirrors are further apart in the moving frame than they are in the source frame. He formulated all his silliness from this belief. Everyone for 110 years has not stopped to see the silliness. The truth is that only the moving frame detectors are further apart. There is no silliness. The time the detectors in the moving frame take to move into place to detect the light pulse at each mirror equals the time for the light pulse to move from one mirror to the other. There are not two durations of time; T=t.
I am not the first to conclude that his first premises are the result of mottled and ambiguous thinking. CPs cannot be serious with "Nobody has shown a 'fatal' or any other kind of flaw" in the theory to date!" I rephrase their statement here to read: "Nobody has shown a 'fatal" or any other kind of flaw' in Einstein's theory to date; that any devoted Einsteinian would ever acknowledge!"
Probably his [Einstein's] most egregious transgression is the "light clock" Gedankin, wherein he describes the mirrors which are normal to the motion of his "observer" become progressively more skewed as the observer's speed increases. Very subtle, this slight of mind. Even Tom Van Flandern,[RIP] one of the great alternate Physics professors was caught off guard on this one.
When detectors in the observer's ("moving" frame) are placed at the same locations that source frame detectors detect the sources wave fronts, all simultaneity problems disappear. It is merely the moving frame's detectors that are skewed, not the mirrors. The need for the "relativistic triangle" disappears, along with all of Einstein's irrational view of reality. Sorry to burst your bubble, most learned Conventional Physicist.
Silly Einstein
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:59 pm
Yes, Singlestone has received more credit than is due:
Albert in Relativityland
A critical introduction to Einsteins theory of relativity, written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and 140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/amesbury.pdf
Albert in Relativityland
A critical introduction to Einsteins theory of relativity, written by a non-scientist for other non-scientists who have some intellectual curiosity about this famous theory, with pictures in it and 140 references and citations to authority. 30 pages
http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/amesbury.pdf
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:31 am
http://www.av8n.com/physics/spacetime-a ... etime-trig
John Dinker said:
"We cannot easily find the components of "a" in Moe's frame by differentiating equation 6, because the definition of what we mean by 'Moe's frame' is changing as a function of time."
Sherlock says: That is true, Moe's distance is changing in relation to Joe, at a changing rate. Thus the time delay latency of light between them is changing, too.
John Dinker said:
"So we see that people have at least three different notions of 'the' relativistic mass. Sometimes they try to wriggle out of this mess by defining a 'transverse mass' different from the 'longitudinal mass'. Lets not go there."
Sherlock says: Yes, we better not go there, it blows the hell out of the logic in STR, GTR. The reason is that the lateral distance is identical in all longitudinal traveling observer frames passing Joe and his mass, and the lateral distance is identical in Joe's frame, too.
In link:http://www.av8n.com/physics/spacetime-trig.pdf
John Dinker said:
Quote:
[Throughout most of history, i.e. before relativity, this contribution was assumed to be zero. Everybody tacitly assumed that timekeeping was independent of location and independent of velocity. Indeed it is very nearly independent, unless you have a combination of large distances, multiple reference frames with high relative velocity, and highly accurate time-keeping as you can see from the structure of equation (6). It was not until the end of the 19th century that Michelson and Morley did experiments that disproved the pre-relativity assumptions.
Michelson and Morley observed that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames.]
Sherlock says: Actually what Michelson and Morley observed is that light in the local frame is unaffected by the imagined properties of an Aether flowing through the interferometer. They exactly did not prove that "the speed of light was the same in all reference frames."
That little ditty was dreamed up by our magician, Albert the Great.
John Dinker said:
"We cannot easily find the components of "a" in Moe's frame by differentiating equation 6, because the definition of what we mean by 'Moe's frame' is changing as a function of time."
Sherlock says: That is true, Moe's distance is changing in relation to Joe, at a changing rate. Thus the time delay latency of light between them is changing, too.
John Dinker said:
"So we see that people have at least three different notions of 'the' relativistic mass. Sometimes they try to wriggle out of this mess by defining a 'transverse mass' different from the 'longitudinal mass'. Lets not go there."
Sherlock says: Yes, we better not go there, it blows the hell out of the logic in STR, GTR. The reason is that the lateral distance is identical in all longitudinal traveling observer frames passing Joe and his mass, and the lateral distance is identical in Joe's frame, too.
In link:http://www.av8n.com/physics/spacetime-trig.pdf
John Dinker said:
Quote:
[Throughout most of history, i.e. before relativity, this contribution was assumed to be zero. Everybody tacitly assumed that timekeeping was independent of location and independent of velocity. Indeed it is very nearly independent, unless you have a combination of large distances, multiple reference frames with high relative velocity, and highly accurate time-keeping as you can see from the structure of equation (6). It was not until the end of the 19th century that Michelson and Morley did experiments that disproved the pre-relativity assumptions.
Michelson and Morley observed that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames.]
Sherlock says: Actually what Michelson and Morley observed is that light in the local frame is unaffected by the imagined properties of an Aether flowing through the interferometer. They exactly did not prove that "the speed of light was the same in all reference frames."
That little ditty was dreamed up by our magician, Albert the Great.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:53 pm
All the formulae for "transforming" various points in one coordinate system to another are just make work, and obscure reality.
The subject of investigation is a pulse of light emitted by a source. Most folks agree that a detector placed at a distance from this source, at rest with this source, by various means, find the delay in detection over the distance between the source and detector to indicate a velocity for the pulse to be about one foot per nanosecond.
The above scenario describes two events: the emission of the light pulse and the detection of it, and two objects: the source and the detector. Nothing too hard to understand so far!
To this scenario we add another detector, moving at one foot every two nanoseconds, and arriving at the source at exactly the instant the source emits the light pulse. This detector detects the pulse and keeps on moving on. The path of this detector is perpendicular to the path of the pulse to the above mentioned detector at rest with the source. Incidentally, there is no simultaneity problem yet!
Let's stipulate that this detector, at rest with the source, is ten feet from the source. Thus we expect 10 nanoseconds to pass before the pulse is detected. The moving detector will be five feet passed the source when the detector at rest with the source detects the pulse of light.
Secretly, unbeknownst to Einstein, we surreptitiously [too much redundancy there my boy!] placed another detector at rest; this time at rest with the moving detector. At the time the moving detector detected the source emitting the pulse of light, this detector was five feet from the "at rest detector," and approaching it.
And now for the Folie à deux: Just as the pulse of light reaches the "at rest" detector, so does this additional detector. Simultaneously!
It should be obvious to all that the mysterious light pulse that Einstein created does not travel between the two detectors moving at one half foot per nanosecond. Albert, you mischievous lad, you tricked us all!
Thus there is no need to stipulate a diagonal path for the pulse as detected by the moving detectors, and definitely no need to postulate that the pulse travels at one foot per nanosecond along this diagonal.
My critics: Naw, it's just not that simple. You are going to make us rewrite all the physics books. We can't afford that in a recession.
The subject of investigation is a pulse of light emitted by a source. Most folks agree that a detector placed at a distance from this source, at rest with this source, by various means, find the delay in detection over the distance between the source and detector to indicate a velocity for the pulse to be about one foot per nanosecond.
The above scenario describes two events: the emission of the light pulse and the detection of it, and two objects: the source and the detector. Nothing too hard to understand so far!
To this scenario we add another detector, moving at one foot every two nanoseconds, and arriving at the source at exactly the instant the source emits the light pulse. This detector detects the pulse and keeps on moving on. The path of this detector is perpendicular to the path of the pulse to the above mentioned detector at rest with the source. Incidentally, there is no simultaneity problem yet!
Let's stipulate that this detector, at rest with the source, is ten feet from the source. Thus we expect 10 nanoseconds to pass before the pulse is detected. The moving detector will be five feet passed the source when the detector at rest with the source detects the pulse of light.
Secretly, unbeknownst to Einstein, we surreptitiously [too much redundancy there my boy!] placed another detector at rest; this time at rest with the moving detector. At the time the moving detector detected the source emitting the pulse of light, this detector was five feet from the "at rest detector," and approaching it.
And now for the Folie à deux: Just as the pulse of light reaches the "at rest" detector, so does this additional detector. Simultaneously!
It should be obvious to all that the mysterious light pulse that Einstein created does not travel between the two detectors moving at one half foot per nanosecond. Albert, you mischievous lad, you tricked us all!
Thus there is no need to stipulate a diagonal path for the pulse as detected by the moving detectors, and definitely no need to postulate that the pulse travels at one foot per nanosecond along this diagonal.
My critics: Naw, it's just not that simple. You are going to make us rewrite all the physics books. We can't afford that in a recession.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:23 pm
Quote:
"This is a Galilean transformation: If a reference frame K' moves with constant velocity v relative to K, then x' = x - vt, and, of course, t' = t"
So why is the source “transformed” into the observer frame? It shouldn't. If it is, then the radiation from it is also “transformed,” and the observers there only detect what observers in the source frame detect of the radiation from the source while at rest with the source.
In high school algebra, one is taught to precisely define the terms. What do we want to discover? How about we discover what observers in a moving frame, at rest with each other, will detect from radiation in the form of a light pulse radiating from a source; where the source and observers are at continuously changing distance? (that is: approaching or receding)
Consider the “(K)” coordinate system:
The source is fixed at the origin. There it will stay.
Since a light pulse travels at about one foot per nanosecond, we let each integer on the x and y axis equal one nanosecond and simultaneously, one foot.
Now, two parameters about the light pulse's position are determined by distances between coordinate pairs, simply by observing the "x" and "y" coordinates, namely:
The time delay of the light pulse and the distance it has traveled,
Or the time delay and distance from the source to the observer/detector.:
Thus: x+d is also x+t, or we might say x+d=x+t, and y+d=y+t.
Consider the “(K')” coordinate system:
The source/emitter is not allowed in this “(K')” system, to avoid confusion.
The origin of this “(K')” system is occupied by a detector/observer. [no source]
This “(K')” detector/observer momentarily occupies [passes over] the source/emitter in the “K” at the very instant the pulse is radiated by said source. This common/simultaneous event associates the “(K')” system to/with the “(K)” system.
All additional observer/detectors in this “(K')” system remain at fixed distances to the origin/observer/detector of the “(K')” system. [Not to the source, in “(K)”]
Assume the “(K')” system origin approaches the source from the right: therefore it is moving to the left.
Do not picture more than the one source, the one pulse of light, and one expanding wave front or you will become confused.
Consider that as the radiated wave front expands in the “(K)” system, the entire “(K')“ system (with all its observer/detectors fixed in relation to its origin) moves parallel to the path of the “(K')” origin as it moves relative to the “(K)” origin/source.
Each detector/observer in the “(K')“ system only has one instance to detect the “light pulse wave front” expanding in the “(K)“ system. [This is because the coordinate systems are changing distance slower than the expansion of the radiation of the light pulse.]
To avoid considering the positions of too many detectors/observers in the “(K')” system, we will, in this discussion, only consider detection of the light pulse wave front as it expands along the x and y axis of the “(K)” system,
At each “foot/nanosecond” along the positive y axis in the “(K)” system, [representing the expansion of the light pulse there,] we place a detector/observer in the “(K')” system, keeping in mind that the whole “(K')” system is moving relative to the “(K)” system axis.
Thus, if we choose an arbitrary change in distance between the two systems of half the speed of light, the x coordinate of each “(K')” detector/observer will increase by .5, and the "y" coordinate will increase by 1, with respect to the “(K')” origin.
These detector/observers will appear as a diagonal line extending up from the origin in this system, as the wave front advances up the "y" axis in the “(K)” system.
Now, considering the observer/detectors along the "x" axis in the “(K')” system, as it approaches the source/origin in the “(K)” system, the “y” coordinate will not change value. The "x" coordinate will increase by one half in relation to the “(K')” origin. Each of these detectors must face the origin, since the wave fronts are approaching the detectors as they approach the source.
You see, so far we have in the “(K')” system, a series of detectors slanting up and to the right from the origin, and a series of closely spaced detectors along the "x" axis, placed in the “(K')” system as each foot/second of the expanding wave front was reached in the “(K)” system. This series of approaching detectors start detecting when the origin passes over the source.
This next step is where I believe Einstein and his followers miss the application/ or perform another slight of hand, regarding their “transform:”
As the origin of the “(K')” system passes over the “(K)” source, the other side of the wave front will not be detected, because it has already expanded before the “(K')” origin arrived.
Thus, to detect this oppositely expanding wave front pulse, additional detectors must be added to the “(K')” system to the left of the origin detector, spaced out relative to the origin of their [the “(K')”] system, by one and one half feet apart. Silly Einsteinians call these “future” detectors. They are simply part of the “(K')” system. There is no future or past involved since all the detection is simultaneous with the conjunction of the wave front pulse. There is only one pulse/wave front, we are just detecting it at various time/distances, as the “(K')” system passes over the “(K)” system.
You should comprehend that a continuous source of light radiating in the "(K)" system by one detector approaching along the “x” axis in the “(K')” system will detect a Doppler blue shifted light, by the close spacing of the detectors in the approach phase of the above scenario. Likewise a red shifted light results from the receding detector by the increased spacing of the "future" detectors to the left of the "(K')" origin in that system.
"This is a Galilean transformation: If a reference frame K' moves with constant velocity v relative to K, then x' = x - vt, and, of course, t' = t"
So why is the source “transformed” into the observer frame? It shouldn't. If it is, then the radiation from it is also “transformed,” and the observers there only detect what observers in the source frame detect of the radiation from the source while at rest with the source.
In high school algebra, one is taught to precisely define the terms. What do we want to discover? How about we discover what observers in a moving frame, at rest with each other, will detect from radiation in the form of a light pulse radiating from a source; where the source and observers are at continuously changing distance? (that is: approaching or receding)
Consider the “(K)” coordinate system:
The source is fixed at the origin. There it will stay.
Since a light pulse travels at about one foot per nanosecond, we let each integer on the x and y axis equal one nanosecond and simultaneously, one foot.
Now, two parameters about the light pulse's position are determined by distances between coordinate pairs, simply by observing the "x" and "y" coordinates, namely:
The time delay of the light pulse and the distance it has traveled,
Or the time delay and distance from the source to the observer/detector.:
Thus: x+d is also x+t, or we might say x+d=x+t, and y+d=y+t.
Consider the “(K')” coordinate system:
The source/emitter is not allowed in this “(K')” system, to avoid confusion.
The origin of this “(K')” system is occupied by a detector/observer. [no source]
This “(K')” detector/observer momentarily occupies [passes over] the source/emitter in the “K” at the very instant the pulse is radiated by said source. This common/simultaneous event associates the “(K')” system to/with the “(K)” system.
All additional observer/detectors in this “(K')” system remain at fixed distances to the origin/observer/detector of the “(K')” system. [Not to the source, in “(K)”]
Assume the “(K')” system origin approaches the source from the right: therefore it is moving to the left.
Do not picture more than the one source, the one pulse of light, and one expanding wave front or you will become confused.
Consider that as the radiated wave front expands in the “(K)” system, the entire “(K')“ system (with all its observer/detectors fixed in relation to its origin) moves parallel to the path of the “(K')” origin as it moves relative to the “(K)” origin/source.
Each detector/observer in the “(K')“ system only has one instance to detect the “light pulse wave front” expanding in the “(K)“ system. [This is because the coordinate systems are changing distance slower than the expansion of the radiation of the light pulse.]
To avoid considering the positions of too many detectors/observers in the “(K')” system, we will, in this discussion, only consider detection of the light pulse wave front as it expands along the x and y axis of the “(K)” system,
At each “foot/nanosecond” along the positive y axis in the “(K)” system, [representing the expansion of the light pulse there,] we place a detector/observer in the “(K')” system, keeping in mind that the whole “(K')” system is moving relative to the “(K)” system axis.
Thus, if we choose an arbitrary change in distance between the two systems of half the speed of light, the x coordinate of each “(K')” detector/observer will increase by .5, and the "y" coordinate will increase by 1, with respect to the “(K')” origin.
These detector/observers will appear as a diagonal line extending up from the origin in this system, as the wave front advances up the "y" axis in the “(K)” system.
Now, considering the observer/detectors along the "x" axis in the “(K')” system, as it approaches the source/origin in the “(K)” system, the “y” coordinate will not change value. The "x" coordinate will increase by one half in relation to the “(K')” origin. Each of these detectors must face the origin, since the wave fronts are approaching the detectors as they approach the source.
You see, so far we have in the “(K')” system, a series of detectors slanting up and to the right from the origin, and a series of closely spaced detectors along the "x" axis, placed in the “(K')” system as each foot/second of the expanding wave front was reached in the “(K)” system. This series of approaching detectors start detecting when the origin passes over the source.
This next step is where I believe Einstein and his followers miss the application/ or perform another slight of hand, regarding their “transform:”
As the origin of the “(K')” system passes over the “(K)” source, the other side of the wave front will not be detected, because it has already expanded before the “(K')” origin arrived.
Thus, to detect this oppositely expanding wave front pulse, additional detectors must be added to the “(K')” system to the left of the origin detector, spaced out relative to the origin of their [the “(K')”] system, by one and one half feet apart. Silly Einsteinians call these “future” detectors. They are simply part of the “(K')” system. There is no future or past involved since all the detection is simultaneous with the conjunction of the wave front pulse. There is only one pulse/wave front, we are just detecting it at various time/distances, as the “(K')” system passes over the “(K)” system.
You should comprehend that a continuous source of light radiating in the "(K)" system by one detector approaching along the “x” axis in the “(K')” system will detect a Doppler blue shifted light, by the close spacing of the detectors in the approach phase of the above scenario. Likewise a red shifted light results from the receding detector by the increased spacing of the "future" detectors to the left of the "(K')" origin in that system.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Wed Dec 15, 2010 10:07 am
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime/index.html
I hope this fellow can take a little criticism!
First off under "proper terminology" is this:
Quote:
"Past and future light cones All the lightlike curves through an event form the light cone at that event. The part of the cone to the future of that event is the future light cone. The part to the past is the past light cone."
Isn't this silly? Johnny [John Norton] claims that the junction of the two cones in his lovely diagram is where the emission event happens [for instance; where the pulse of light started.] The lower cone is the "past" of the light cone.
I dunno, I must be confused. Before a light pulse is emitted, what sort of past can it have? Maybe it went to Home Town Buffet for dinner?
Somehow, Johnny seems to think that light makes its way back to its source. I've heard of people going back to their birth place; but not for real! Oh yes, I remember once; I put the batteries into my flashlight backwards. It sucked all the light back into the flashlight!
Johnny doesn't realize that when we view an event from a distance, exactly what we are viewing is the past [history] of the event!
Notice that he has the "event" pictured off to the left and up a little. Then he has the "hyper surface of simultaneity" drawn as a parallelogram below that. What the hell? Is he unaware that simultaneity of an event and its observation only happen at the event?
The observation of several events, when known to be at equal distance [and therefore are past events] from an observer, are assumed to be simultaneous, however if they are not equal distance how does the observer know?
I hope this fellow can take a little criticism!
First off under "proper terminology" is this:
Quote:
"Past and future light cones All the lightlike curves through an event form the light cone at that event. The part of the cone to the future of that event is the future light cone. The part to the past is the past light cone."
Isn't this silly? Johnny [John Norton] claims that the junction of the two cones in his lovely diagram is where the emission event happens [for instance; where the pulse of light started.] The lower cone is the "past" of the light cone.
I dunno, I must be confused. Before a light pulse is emitted, what sort of past can it have? Maybe it went to Home Town Buffet for dinner?
Somehow, Johnny seems to think that light makes its way back to its source. I've heard of people going back to their birth place; but not for real! Oh yes, I remember once; I put the batteries into my flashlight backwards. It sucked all the light back into the flashlight!
Johnny doesn't realize that when we view an event from a distance, exactly what we are viewing is the past [history] of the event!
Notice that he has the "event" pictured off to the left and up a little. Then he has the "hyper surface of simultaneity" drawn as a parallelogram below that. What the hell? Is he unaware that simultaneity of an event and its observation only happen at the event?
The observation of several events, when known to be at equal distance [and therefore are past events] from an observer, are assumed to be simultaneous, however if they are not equal distance how does the observer know?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by JaJa » Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:21 pm
Hi Goldminer
Very provocative to a relativist...
JJ
Very provocative to a relativist...
JJ
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
-
JaJa - Posts: 344
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Fri Dec 17, 2010 9:37 pm
Did I provoke you? Sarcasm is one of my many services, I just can't believe people think a wave front has a life before it was emitted! I try not to get into the smarmy smugness of the "true believers," but equity must do equity! Do ya think Johnny will spill his eggnog?
Seriously, I m looking for some criticism. Can you follow the logic in my posts?
Seriously, I m looking for some criticism. Can you follow the logic in my posts?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:53 pm
What is wrong with this picture:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(Time dilation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromag ... e_equation)
?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(Time dilation from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromag ... e_equation)
?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:41 am
Well . . . for one thing, the zigzag lines are equal for either frame. So, in which frame is the "speed of light" slowed down, compared "relatively" with the other? How come they just "pop up" after the frames finish "moving?" Perhaps to hide the fact that no reason is shown for one of the little clocks to run faster than the other?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Tue Dec 28, 2010 1:56 pm
A little direction change in the thread: A major dictum of "Modern Physics" is: "Nothing can exceed the speed of light."
Consider a spherical pulse of light emitted from a source. The wave front opposite any one wave front being considered is separating from it at twice the speed of light, even when the whole system is considered at rest. The oblique wave front is separating from the first at the √2 (square root of two) light speed, which also exceeds the so called speed limit. Any observer in motion has to contend with these three situations: Either approaching the source, receding from it or traveling oblique to it. Any one observer can only observe one wave front exactly once and only once. [of course the event can be recorded and viewed over and over, not really the same thing.] At any rate, light itself violates Einstein's "law."
With regard to the EPR paradox, there is no way to paint a "photon" or two, to distinguish them from cagillions [my word for a lot] of others exactly identical, especially when they are separating at faster than light speeds. The whole EPR gambit seems contrived.
Consider a spherical pulse of light emitted from a source. The wave front opposite any one wave front being considered is separating from it at twice the speed of light, even when the whole system is considered at rest. The oblique wave front is separating from the first at the √2 (square root of two) light speed, which also exceeds the so called speed limit. Any observer in motion has to contend with these three situations: Either approaching the source, receding from it or traveling oblique to it. Any one observer can only observe one wave front exactly once and only once. [of course the event can be recorded and viewed over and over, not really the same thing.] At any rate, light itself violates Einstein's "law."
With regard to the EPR paradox, there is no way to paint a "photon" or two, to distinguish them from cagillions [my word for a lot] of others exactly identical, especially when they are separating at faster than light speeds. The whole EPR gambit seems contrived.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:14 pm
Here are the postulates of Einstein's Special Theory:
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
My comments:
First postulate:
Einstein's implication with the first postulate is interpreted as: Suppose we have several invisible [clear? glass like?] walled, hermetically sealed, identical laboratories distributed in space and the linear distances between them changes at an unchanging rate of change and unchanging direction. Nothing would measure differently in any of the laboratories, as measured within the laboratories,.
What this postulate really says is this: The coordinate systems used to diagram the relationships of a physical system do not affect the system itself. This is quite trivial, since a coordinate system is an imaginary construct. There are many different coordinate systems designed for various purposes. This is the same as saying that one's opinion does not affect the state of any physical system.
Second postulate:
His second postulate was purportedly (Deducted? Inducted? Made up?) discovered from the Michelson Morley interferometer experiments, which he supposedly didn't know about until later. This postulate says that no matter how fast one's distance is changing from some reference point in space, any light pulse one encounters will be measured as traveling at the same speed as any other, regardless of the direction or speed of the object that emits the light. His implication here is that something mysterious happens to the observer/detector, causing Doppler shift and aberration of the detected light in some instances.
How would you interpret, or paraphrase said postulates?
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
My comments:
First postulate:
Einstein's implication with the first postulate is interpreted as: Suppose we have several invisible [clear? glass like?] walled, hermetically sealed, identical laboratories distributed in space and the linear distances between them changes at an unchanging rate of change and unchanging direction. Nothing would measure differently in any of the laboratories, as measured within the laboratories,.
What this postulate really says is this: The coordinate systems used to diagram the relationships of a physical system do not affect the system itself. This is quite trivial, since a coordinate system is an imaginary construct. There are many different coordinate systems designed for various purposes. This is the same as saying that one's opinion does not affect the state of any physical system.
Second postulate:
His second postulate was purportedly (Deducted? Inducted? Made up?) discovered from the Michelson Morley interferometer experiments, which he supposedly didn't know about until later. This postulate says that no matter how fast one's distance is changing from some reference point in space, any light pulse one encounters will be measured as traveling at the same speed as any other, regardless of the direction or speed of the object that emits the light. His implication here is that something mysterious happens to the observer/detector, causing Doppler shift and aberration of the detected light in some instances.
How would you interpret, or paraphrase said postulates?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:43 pm
People with "in-depth knowledge," i.e. consensus scientists, have a hard time thinking outside the conventional consensus. Their presumptions are so <moderator edit> that they cannot think in terms that do not use those presumptions. This makes conversations with them frustrating and practically impossible. Below is an article describing the situation, and a possible enhancement to gaining insight:
I am surprised that almost no one has chosen to comment on this thread. I am seeking comments/criticism, no matter for or against the theme. I am pretty sure others, as I, have felt uneasy with Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity. Are my comments completely unfathomable?
Richard P. Chi and Allan W. Snyder wrote: Here Thinking outside the box is difficult. And counter-intuitively, those with the most in-depth knowledge do not have an advantage in this pursuit [1]. In fact, as Kuhn [2] noted, “almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change.” One possible explanation for this paradox is that our mind is hypothesis driven [3], [4]. In other words, our observations of the world are strongly shaped by our preconceptions. For example, information consistent with our expectations or mental templates is often accepted at face value, whereas inconsistent evidence is discounted or hidden from conscious awareness [5]. While this hypothesis driven mechanism helps us in efficiently dealing with the familiar, it can prevent us from seeing better solutions in a different and/or unfamiliar context [6].
Presumably, it would be beneficial in certain situations if we could temporarily induce a state of mind that is less top-down, in other words, less influenced by mental templates or preconceptions. Interestingly, a clue for achieving this comes from people with brain dysfunctions [7], [8]. For example, Miller et al. [9] found that artistic talent, due to a different way of perceiving the world, can sometimes emerge spontaneously in those with dominant (usually left) anterior temporal lobe dementia. They argued that damage to this area may interrupt certain inhibitory mechanisms in the left hemisphere and disinhibit contralateral areas in the right. As an oversimplified caricature, brain dysfunctions, induced or caused by inhibiting and disinhibiting certain neural networks, may make our cognitive style less hypothesis driven, thereby enabling access to a level of perception normally hidden from conscious awareness [7], [8].
This raises a provocative possibility: Can we facilitate insight problem solving in healthy people by temporarily inhibiting or disinhibiting certain areas of the brain? To explore this possibility, we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (see Methods), a safe, non-invasive technique that can increase or decrease cortical excitability and spontaneous neuronal firing in the stimulated region depending on current polarity [10], [11].
I am surprised that almost no one has chosen to comment on this thread. I am seeking comments/criticism, no matter for or against the theme. I am pretty sure others, as I, have felt uneasy with Einstein's Special Theory Of Relativity. Are my comments completely unfathomable?
Last edited by nick c on Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: inappropriate remarks removed
Reason: inappropriate remarks removed
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Silly Einstein
by GaryN » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:55 pm
This raises a provocative possibility: Can we facilitate insight problem solving in healthy people by temporarily inhibiting or disinhibiting certain areas of the brain? To explore this possibility, we used transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (see Methods), a safe, non-invasive technique that can increase or decrease cortical excitability and spontaneous neuronal firing in the stimulated region depending on current polarity
I'll stick with a "fattie", thanks.
I'll stick with a "fattie", thanks.
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller
-
GaryN - Posts: 1573
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
- Location: Sooke, BC, Canada
Re: Silly Einstein
by Goldminer » Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:59 pm
I wouldn't suggest using it [The technique in the article, not the fattie!] on folks like us, we're already out of the box. <moderator edit> My point in the post is "Their presumptions are so <moderator edit> that they cannot think in terms that do not use those presumptions," with regard to our friendly "consensus Universe" promoters who keep building on with their fantasies completely oblivious to the fact that their foundation is demolished. For instance: Nereid and "her" failure to answer the Robtaille challenge: here
.
.
Last edited by nick c on Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: inappropriate remarks removed
Reason: inappropriate remarks removed
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Goldminer
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Return to The Future of Science
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest