Relativity Linear Thread

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by webolife » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:13 pm

No matter how you try to extinguish, bend, spindle, mutilate, or fold it, or otherwise interfere with it, the only light that that can be seen is the light at your retinal interface or other photochemical/photoelectric detection medium. No light "along the way" has ever been nor can be detected. The line of sight between your photosensory cell and the light source is just that, a rectilinear ray, albeit filtered by a dye or diverted by lensing or reflection.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:23 pm

webolife wrote:No matter how you try to extinguish, bend, spindle, mutilate, or fold it, or otherwise interfere with it, the only light that that can be seen is the light at your retinal interface or other photochemical/photoelectric detection medium. No light "along the way" has ever been nor can be detected. The line of sight between your photosensory cell and the light source is just that, a rectilinear ray, albeit filtered by a dye or diverted by lensing or reflection.
Sorry, Webo, you are wrong. (link)

Once the "along the way light" enters your retina, it is no longer "along the way." Repeating your mantra over and over will never make it become reality.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Xantos
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:11 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Xantos » Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:13 pm

If anybody has access to NewScientist articles...there is a very interesting one, but I missed the free period.

Sacrificing Einstein: Relativity's keystone has to go

Soon, soon enough will we join the stars :)

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:35 am

Here is another post by "Jose Rodriguez" in the ongoing discussion with diehard cre at the GSJ forum
Captain Cre, Space Cadet; Re: The Spaceman Emulator, March 6, 2013, 1:53 AM: wrote: "Go back to your tables and light triangle; as bad as it was it makes more sense than this. Max Planck once said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Apparently relativity is still in the convincing stage with some folks. But I'm getting older and I'm not sure I'll live long enough for you to see it."
Yes, I doubt that you will ever see the fact that there is no diagonal going pulse of light in any "moving reference frame" for the light pulse traveling perpendicularly between the mirrors. You may as well die now. That "light triangle" is the fantasy that Einstein's whole house of cards is built upon. The longitude going reference frames show that there is no shortened length or slowing time in these "moving frames." You can postulate three (or any number of) "moving reference frames," all of them with their origins centered upon the source reference frame's origin at t=0, each of these reference frames in relative motion at different fractions of the speed of light, simultaneously. In each of these reference frames, the slowing of time and the contraction of distance is different for the primary reference frame's parameters, according to your hero's fantasy.
Captain Cre, Space Cadet wrote:"It is well known now that the philosophical basis for the Fizeau experiment is flawed. If you don't know that or don't know what that philosophy was, I'm not interested in teaching you."
If it is flawed, then why are you using it to show how STR is "true?" It's fine with me if you don't bother teaching me your fantasies. I understand what you and Einstein think. I just see the fallacy in your logic. BTW, Fizeau's philosophy is not proven wrong, it just doesn't conform to Einstein's fractured philosophy. Fizeau's philosophy is not "proven" wrong, just because you think Einstein's philosophy is right. This is another demonstration of your lack of logic.
Captain Cre, Space Cadet wrote:"Same goes for relativity, if you don't know the philosophy behind it I'm not interested in teaching you that either."
That is fine with me too, because I already understand Einstein's philosophy, and it does not correspond to reality.
Captain Cre, Space Cadet wrote:"As for Einstein's composition of velocities, W = (w + v)/(1 + vw/c2) everybody knows it's more important than the Lorentz's equations, because it guarantees, in relativity nothing can travel faster than light. Try it. Insert many big numbers into it, and when you get one sum greater than c, show it to me and convince me to become an anti-relativist like you. I promise."
What you and your relativists, and anti-relativists alike do not comprehend is that the source reference frame is primary. Light leaves the source at a foot per nanosecond. No detectors, having relative motion with the source, can change the fact that light leaves the source at a foot per nanosecond. I pointed out, above, in the first paragraph of this post, that detectors moving at three different fractions of the speed of light can intercept the source's out going expanding light sphere. For each detector, (c±v) is the effective one way speed of light at the interception. It is not the speed of light over the distance from the source to the point of interception. When two cars crash, each having been traveling at 60 mph relative the road, their impact velocity was 120 mph. Does anyone think that 120 mph is the speed either car was traveling, relative the point of departure of either car?

So why do you and your relativists, and anti-relativists alike, think that the "impact of the light sphere and the detector" while being (c±v), represents the new speed of light from the source to the point of impact? It is just the "impact velocity." The speed of the detector does not change the duration of time a pulse of light spent reaching the point of detection. Don't you see how silly the whole crowd of you are?

BTW, in any of the "moving reference frames," individual detectors can be approaching or receding the source's expanding light sphere; necessitating, according to you and Einstein, opposite space and time adjustments to keep c constant, within the same "moving reference frame".
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by tayga » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:30 am

Goldminer wrote:
webolife wrote:No matter how you try to extinguish, bend, spindle, mutilate, or fold it, or otherwise interfere with it, the only light that that can be seen is the light at your retinal interface or other photochemical/photoelectric detection medium. No light "along the way" has ever been nor can be detected. The line of sight between your photosensory cell and the light source is just that, a rectilinear ray, albeit filtered by a dye or diverted by lensing or reflection.
Sorry, Webo, you are wrong. (link)

Once the "along the way light" enters your retina, it is no longer "along the way." Repeating your mantra over and over will never make it become reality.
Can explain how the video falsifies Webolife's notion? As Raskar says, what we see is the scattered light, i.e light that has been diverted towards the observer's eye. You can't see a laser travel through a vacuum so they used water to scatter it.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:35 pm

tayga wrote:Can yuo explain how the video falsifies Webolife's notion? As Raskar says, what we see is the scattered light, i.e light that has been diverted towards the observer's eye. You can't see a laser travel through a vacuum so they used water to scatter it.
I may be putting words into Webo's mouth, but he seems to think that there is no delay between transmission and reception of light waves. The video clearly shows the approach of the laser beam via the scattered light picked up by the camera. The video does not show the delay between the creation of the scattered light and it's reception, but it does show the original laser light waves sweeping over the coke bottle as time passes.

Do you have any comments on my reasoning questioning the de Sitter "proof?"
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by tayga » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:35 am

Goldminer wrote:
tayga wrote:Can yuo explain how the video falsifies Webolife's notion? As Raskar says, what we see is the scattered light, i.e light that has been diverted towards the observer's eye. You can't see a laser travel through a vacuum so they used water to scatter it.
I may be putting words into Webo's mouth, but he seems to think that there is no delay between transmission and reception of light waves.
I see, I wasn't aware of the implicit assumption. The video certainly would disprove that.
Do you have any comments on my reasoning questioning the de Sitter "proof?"
Sorry, I'm not aware of what that is; I haven't always followed this thread.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

User avatar
D_Archer
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by D_Archer » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:59 am

tayga wrote:Sorry, I'm not aware of what that is; I haven't always followed this thread.
Basically light is something real and not some spooky stuff.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:22 am

D_Archer wrote:
tayga wrote:Sorry, I'm not aware of what that is; I haven't always followed this thread.
Basically light is something real and not some spooky stuff.

Regards,
Daniel
I am looking for comments on this post.

Here is Wikipedia's explanation. I believe it to be faulty. There are plenty other discussions if you search around the 'net. Do you follow my reasoning? Feel free to criticize.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by tayga » Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:50 pm

Goldminer wrote:I am looking for comments on this post.

Here is Wikipedia's explanation. I believe it to be faulty. There are plenty other discussions if you search around the 'net. Do you follow my reasoning? Feel free to criticize.
I don’t know whether my response will be any use to you as I find any notion of varying space and time won’t fit into my mind and I had given up trying to deal with relativity until I read The Orb by Gerald Lebau. Maybe I’m not equipped to deal with the non-physical.

I’m not sure whether you are familiar with Lebau’s critique of Einstein’s thought experiments. In the Orb, he reintroduces the ether as a compressible superfluid.

A concept that stayed with me was that the speed of light is only constant with respect to the amount of ether through which it travels. As a result it varies with the density of the ether. An object in motion compresses the ether at its leading edge so that light emitted in the forward direction travels more slowly in absolute terms. As the compression reduces further away from the moving body, the density of the ether reduces and the speed of light increases. The reverse applies to light emitted in the reverse direction.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:53 am

tayga wrote:
Goldminer wrote:I am looking for comments on this post.

Here is Wikipedia's explanation. I believe it to be faulty. There are plenty other discussions if you search around the 'net. Do you follow my reasoning? Feel free to criticize.
I don’t know whether my response will be any use to you as I find any notion of varying space and time won’t fit into my mind and I had given up trying to deal with relativity until I read The Orb by Gerald Lebau. Maybe I’m not equipped to deal with the non-physical.

I’m not sure whether you are familiar with Lebau’s critique of Einstein’s thought experiments. In the Orb, he reintroduces the ether as a compressible superfluid.

A concept that stayed with me was that the speed of light is only constant with respect to the amount of ether through which it travels. As a result it varies with the density of the ether. An object in motion compresses the ether at its leading edge so that light emitted in the forward direction travels more slowly in absolute terms. As the compression reduces further away from the moving body, the density of the ether reduces and the speed of light increases. The reverse applies to light emitted in the reverse direction.
Tyga,

I initiated this thread about two years ago. At that time I had accumulated about ten years of active study on the subject of Einstein's Special Relativity. I am indebted to many authorities on both sides of the argument about the validity of Einstein's theory, over those ten years, for the knowledge I gained from them. I was surprised that several very prominent and knowledgeable people took the time to engage me in direct discussions on the subject. During that time I experimented with all sorts of ideas trying to make sense of Albert E's theory. So yes, one of the scenarios I considered was very similar to Lebau’s, as you describe it, although I don't recall Lebeau as being among those I consulted. The problem I see, and found with my consideration of "compressible aether," is that it would cause all sorts of distortions in the scene, as our point of view changes, as the Earth moves through the Cosmos (with us making observations from its surface;) distortions which do not materialize.

Over the last two years, this "Silly Einstein" thread, and those forum members who have responded, have helped me clarify my logic concerning this subject ever mo' better. I appreciate all of you. By the way, I don't regard this as "my thread," I am just the main antagonist. (I have reviewed the thread several times, and there are posts that I should have clarified, and some that just don't make any sense at all. Unfortunately, the forum doesn't allow going back in time to change those, just like in real life.)

De Sitter's argument (He endorses Einstein's theory) has been a thorn in my confidence in my logic against A.E's theory for quite some time. I think this post (I am "Jose Rodriguez" on the GSJ forum ) makes a good case as to why de Sitter's logic breaks down. So, please analyze it and come back with your AK47s.

I agree wholeheartedly with your response that "I find any notion of varying space and time won’t fit into my mind." I agree with you, and in my opinion, you, Tyga, are very well equipped to deal with the "nonphysical." I just think your lack of faith in yourself on this subject can be corrected by realizing that the so called "nonphysical" is just nonsense.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by tayga » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:59 am

Goldminer wrote:in my opinion, you, Tyga, are very well equipped to deal with the "nonphysical." I just think your lack of faith in yourself on this subject can be corrected by realizing that the so called "nonphysical" is just nonsense.
Shucks. Thanks, coach :D
The problem I see, and found with my consideration of "compressible aether," is that it would cause all sorts of distortions in the scene, as our point of view changes, as the Earth moves through the Cosmos (with us making observations from its surface;) distortions which do not materialize.
I don't see where the distortions would arise but I probably have a different impression of Lebau's ether than you do. I'm no expert on relativity or ether theories but, for me Lebau's knowledge and treatment of the historical context and his forensic examination of assumptions on all sides of the argument is compelling.

It took me a while to digest Jose Rodriguez’s post but I think I have it. I can understand the later part regarding impact velocity and the analogy to colliding cars is fine but it doesn’t make any sense to distinguish impact velocity from relative velocity. Prior to the impact of the cars each is still travelling at a greater velocity relative to the other.

I think the problem you experience arguing with relativists is that if you make c constant and vary time and distance you get consistency exactly as you would if you fixed time and distance but varied c. I’ve no doubt you could do the same by fixing any one or two of the 3 variables and allowing the other(s) to vary. Lebau is good at arguing this stuff and points out frequent inconsistencies that I can’t recall. I’d recommend reading The Orb if you’re keen to gain more ammunition.

For me, it comes down to testing the initial assumption that c is invariant and therefore the interpretation of real physical experiments is all that can determine whether relativity is entirely true or entirely false. I can’t see all the assumptions in de Sitter’s assertion but I would be surprised if there were no redshift associated with the motion of binary stars. Is this a fact? (Red shift itself is something I find interesting in relation to relativity).

Following a link from the de Sitter wikipedia page, it’s interesting to note the page “Tests of special relativity” contains absolutely no mention of Dayton Miller’s 5,200,000 measurements supporting ether drift. If the page were called “Proofs of special relativity” I could understand it. On a separate page dedicated to Dayton Miller himself history shows that the measurements were dismissed as a “statistical anomaly” even though they were consistently non-null.

IMO it's only wilfully ignoring inconvenient experimental results that allowed relativity to get off the ground. Very intelligent, deep thinkers must also have an appetite for being deluded, it seems.

From early last century, with the ether nonsense out of the way, Physics was free to move onto show that particles can be described as wave functions made of nothing existing in nothing and communicating with each other by emitting more particles, also made of nothing, which are so short-lived that they will never have to submit to the scrutiny of experiment. William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.

For me, it’s a relief to be able to recognise in an instant that any attempt to understand the universe based on the existence of solid, incompressible particles existing in a void is doomed to travel down a path of ever-increasing complexity before hitting a dead end.

Although I am full of respect for your endeavour and dedication, I expect the death of relativity will come not from reasoned argument but when someone applying a different approach to physics actually produces something real and worthwhile - something relativists are never in danger of achieving.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:25 am

tayga wrote:It took me a while to digest Jose Rodriguez’s post but I think I have it. I can understand the later part regarding impact velocity and the analogy to colliding cars is fine but it doesn’t make any sense to distinguish impact velocity from relative velocity. Prior to the impact of the cars each is still traveling at a greater velocity relative to the other.
(I'm still reading your "spinbits" link. That's going to take me a while.) Meanwhile, let me throw some mud on your "theory," so to speak: You said "Prior to the impact of the cars, each is still traveling at a greater velocity relative to the other." What you need to contemplate, IMHO, is that as far as we can imagine, all inertial motion is relative. Neither car has a greater velocity "relative the other," regardless of prior or post impact. Relative the road, one car can have greater velocity than the other. Relative each other, there is only one velocity. Each car can regard itself as being at rest! IMHO, again, this is a primary reason for all the confusion when trying to understand "relativity."

P.S. Goldminer and Jose are alter-egos of the same crazy guy. But don't tell anybody.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

Goldminer
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by Goldminer » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:56 am

Einsteinians are always quick to claim that "By definition, c is the speed of light in any inertial frame of reference."

Which statement is nonsense when logically analyzed.

By definition, speed is elapsed distance traveled divided by elapsed time.

By definition, a reference frame only contains entities that are moving at the same speed and direction. In other words, only those at rest with one another are "in" a particular reference frame.

Therefore, a light pulse is not a member of any reference frame referencing a source and observers that are members of said reference frame. A light pulse always has a source. That source is the primary initial reference point with which to determine distance traveled. The "observer/detector" is the end point which to determine distance traveled. Obviously, the speed of light is easily determined in the source reference frame, because the "observer/detector" is at rest with the source.

If, however, the "observer/detector" is continuously changing distance with the source, said "observer/detector" is not part of the source reference frame. Obviously, since the distance is changing between source and observer, and a pulse of light has a duration, the elapsed distance between source and "moving" "observer/detector" is not a single point. During the elapsed time the "observer/detector" is detecting the light pulse, the "observer/detector" has moved "vt" distance. The elapsed time "t" in "vt" is determined by the duration of the light pulse.

Consequently, all you Einsteinians are fantasizing about the speed of light "in any inertial frame of reference." You are using an elapsed distance as an end point in determining the "speed" of light" between reference frames. (A "point" is not the distance between two points!) No wonder you think "space" warps, and "time" dilates!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Relativity Linear Thread

Unread post by saul » Mon May 20, 2013 11:23 am

Goldminer wrote: Consequently, all you Einsteinians are fantasizing about the speed of light "in any inertial frame of reference." You are using an elapsed distance as an end point in determining the "speed" of light" between reference frames.
Not quite the way I see it. I am using the light as an end point in determining the elapsed distance. Distance is defined by the speed of light, not the other way around.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests