Philosophical Problems with Einstein's SRT and GRT

[crawler]

Roshi:

Time does not exist, the Universe is in constant change, that is true, but "time", is just humans counting various periodic processes.

Yes.Time is not a thing.
Jack

Yes, what we have is ticking, & ticking dilation. There is no such thing as time. Time is a stupid Einsteinian factoid.

[Sithri]

Roshi:

Time does not exist, the Universe is in constant change, that is true, but "time", is just humans counting various periodic processes.

Yes.Time is not a thing.
Jack

It's pulling a rabbit out of a hat to say that time changed due to distance light travels, but yet claim that light speed is invariant. Why not say that the speed of light changed but with the distance it travels which would give a constant time? Wouldn't that be equivalent?

This is heresy. The speed of light can't change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1/299 792 458 of a second.

It's one of those things we know for certain about the Universe.

And what is a "second"?

1 second is defined to be exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K)

Question: Does nothing else, except temperature affect the caesium atom? Things like the pull gravity, the magnetic field of the Earth, acceleration, EM radiation? If we keep it at 0 K, it will keep oscillating exactly at the number above, no matter where? And how do we know if it starts to go faster or slower?

See the definition above. It says "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods". And what do we use to measure "the duration"? Another clock Time does not exist, the Universe is in constant change, that is true, but "time", is just humans counting various periodic processes.

I hate to go a little off-track, but the only time we have that is true time, yet isn't even constant, is our thoughts and their preceding and proceeding thoughts. I can count to 10 as fast or slow as I want to with my thoughts. But that's about as close to a 'clock' that has a true time as we can get.

[seasmith]

Perhaps since they scuttled the Mythology Forum a while back in a fit of pique, T'bolts could now make amends by initiating an EU Philosophy sub-forum,
or not ?

Perhaps the last great philosopher of the current age, F. Schopenhauer, stated,
"Time is a faculty of the human mind".

(Teuton is not my native language, so the translation may be a bit off ...
but the concept is near in irrefutable.)

viewforum.php

[seasmith]

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=269

[Sithri]

Perhaps since they scuttled the Mythology Forum a while back in a fit of pique, T'bolts could now make amends by initiating an EU Philosophy sub-forum,
or not ?

Perhaps the last great philosopher of the current age, F. Schopenhauer, stated,
"Time is a faculty of the human mind".

(Teuton is not my native language, so the translation may be a bit off ...
but the concept is near in irrefutable.)

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewforum.php

I don't understand why they would get rid of a Mythology sub-forum! That seems to be something with much fruitful discussion of archetypes and such and how they either confirm or deny the idea that all (or at least some) of mythology points toward a celestial origin. Much of science is inseparable from philosophy, and mythology is a sort of philosophy of origins and metaphor and ritual if not culture and literally held miraculous beliefs.

Interestingly, according to the Abhidharma of the Pali Canon, Time itself may be real, as there may be quantums of time that are not further impermanent for more 'time' to be delved into and are so limited in duration there is no shorter duration.

[crawler]

SRT and GRT has many philosophical problems that I am aware of. Please tell me if I'm wrong about these philosophical problems, or my understanding of SRT and GRT in these problems. Here's a list of problems with SRT and GRT in philosophy:.................................

Proving General Relativity Wrong with privileged law Why does the General Theory of Relativity work for gravity, instead of being a force it rather is the curving of space-time, but not for magnetism or electrostatic charge? In other words, why is gravity the only thing that curves space-time but not electrostatic charge or magnetism? Why is it given this privileged position?

I think that Einstein said that em fields & energy have a mass equivalence or rest mass or something that adds to ordinary mass & hencely helps to curve spacetime. And i think that Einstein said that a gravitational field too had its own mass equivalence & too curved spacetime. Go figure. U cant make this stuff up.

Proving General Relativity Wrong with Energy-Mass density Also, if the energy-mass density is what makes the curvature of space-time, then we must include the energy of the electrostatic and magnetic fields, which would make the energy-mass density higher than the sole mass-density, which would render the gravitational curvature more than it is supposed to be to be equivalent to Newton’s Law.

Yes, thats what Einstein said.

Proving SRT wrong through consciousness bias Einstein used observers that looked at clocks in trains and on embankments in order for his Special Relativity theory to work. However, would nature itself observe the same discrepancy that humans or any consciousness do or will do? If there weren’t an observer, would SRT still be valid? For instance, the observer in the train sees two lightning strikes at different times, but the observer on the embankment sees them at the same time. Is this not a consciousness bias instead of a natural bias?

Its a maths bias, a maths trick. Stephen Crothers has shown that, whereas Relativists reckon that STR requires that any 2 simultaneous events in one frame will not be simultaneous in any other frame, Stephen has shown that according to Einstein's STR logic & postulates that any 2 events can be seen to be simultaneous in any frame if suitable coordinates are chosen (my paraphrasing). In other words its the opposite of what Einstein said. Engels & someone else i cant remember also came to the same conclusion as Stephen.

[Sithri]

Thanks for the reply crawler. I don't understand the math tricks, but I do understand the underlying philosophy. I can't possibly see why Einstein's SRT and GRT are held as cornerstones of thought when so easily philosophically deconstructed. Is it true that GRT depends upon SRT?

[crawler]

Thanks for the reply crawler. I don't understand the math tricks, but I do understand the underlying philosophy. I can't possibly see why Einstein's SRT and GRT are held as cornerstones of thought when so easily philosophically deconstructed. Is it true that GRT depends upon SRT?

I aint no scientist, but. There aint no such thing as STR. Or, there is, about 100 ovem. Koz even Einstein changed his mind re STR say 25 times, stopping only when he died. And u could say the same re GTR.

And i doubt that any of 1000 Einsteinians believe the same things re STR & GTR. If they had to tick boxes re aspects of STR & GTR u would find that none agreed.

And all ovem would be wrong re every box anyhow, praps not wrong re the silly historic Einsteinian answer, but wrong re the true real actual answer. Hell, STR sits in a class of its own, a theory that was proven wrong before it was theorized.

So does GTR depend on STR? Yes, but GTR changed STR. All a sudden STR only worked if not accelerating & if not near mass.

Einstein didnt need STR to help any aspect of his equivalence of gravity & inertia stuff (which arose from his observer in an accelerating spacious chest thortX). But then he used STR to help formulate his spacetime.

And Einstein didnt need any aspect of STR in his bending of a light ray crossing his spacious chest thortX. But then he used STR to help formulate his false 1.75 arcsec of bending of light passing the Sun (i say false because here he ignored the thortX, the spacious chest only gave only 0.87 arcsec).

Einstein was lucky. Lucky that he accidentally predicted 1.75 arcsec of bending, when his chest thortX gave only 0.87 arcsec. The only thing that Einstein contributed to this physics is that he correctly predicted the slowing of light near mass, albeit due to the wrong reasons (which is called equivalence)(having zero to do with that other equivalence of gravity & inertia). Anyhow the accidental prediction of 1.75 arcsec is the reason we are stuck with Einsteinology today.

I dont include the 43 arcsec per century swing of Mercury. That wasnt a prediction, Einstein merely worked backwards creating a wordsalad equation to give the desired result, its called fraud.

I should add. Hipparcos showed that the bending is indeed 1.75 arcsec. I know that 0.87 arcsec is due to gravity, ie a kind of ballistic bending (but different)(i can explain).
And therefore another 0.87 arcsec must be due to another cause, & this cause is the nearness of mass. Einstein was correct. But the cause is what i call photaeno-drag (i can explain), not gravity.

[crawler]

I might add E=mcc.
Einstein i think didnt ever push this equation, but he did push the similar E=delta-m cc. This sits tween STR & GTR.
Anyhow both equations are i think wrong. E=mcc is certainly wrong, because photons have proper mass. I lean towards E=mcc/2.

Anyhow the reason i mention this is that your thread has a philosophical lean. Now, philosophically it is not possible to derive an equation like E=mcc without using a circular logic. U cant legitimately come up with E=mcc using a pencil & paper & math & geometry. U need an empirical approach, plus pencil etc. There is no empirical justification for E=mcc.
Popper probly missed this.