Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 111
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Thought Experiment to Refute the Relativity of Simultaneity

  1. #1 Thought Experiment to Refute the Relativity of Simultaneity 
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Einstein illustrates the principle of the relativity of simultaneity in a thought experiment involving trains. You'll remember that to a stationary observer standing outside the train, the two ends are struck simultaneously because the light from both ends reaches him at the same time; on the other hand, the observer on the moving train observes the two ends being struck at different times because he is moving towards the light from the front and away from the light from the back. According to Einstein, both perspectives are equally valid.

    Ok, how about this. You have a moving train that runs over a long parallel oriented pole the same length as the train with giant hammers at each end, and as soon as the train's front and back ends are in line with the hammers, the pole rotates swiftly and smashes both ends of the train.

    To the observer on the train, the front end "appears" to be struck first and the rear end "appears" to be struck second; however, in absolute fact both ends are struck at the same time because the hammers are connected to the rotating pole.

    In this case you can't say both perspectives are equally valid. Perspective A is an illusion based on ignorance of the underlying mechanism (the rotating pole with hammers fastened to each end). Perspective B, say, a stationary observer seeing the impacts as simultaneous, is correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    I thought you said you understood the claims of Special and General Relativity. In which case, I have to ask in which frame of reference is the pole the same length as the train?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    In the static frame of reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    The pole rotates perpendicular to the train. In order for it to hit the front and the back at different times, the pole would have to be twisted. In the moving frame, it doesn't become twisted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Contraction of the pole would result in the train being struck in different locations, which is impossible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Also, SpeedFreek, focus on physics and not on cheap insults like "I thought you said you understood." If you want my address, I'll give it to you and we settle things like men with my fist in your face.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    I came here to learn, you jerk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    The contraption with the hammers is like a giant football goal post or fork. Because the two hammers are connected to a base, it is impossible for the moving train to be struck by one hammer before the other. That's the crux.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    29
    You are trying to refute the Relativity of Simultaneity by insisting on the Absoluteness of Simultaneity.

    e.g. Demanding that the hammers must strike at the same time. Same time according to whom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    The hammers cannot not strike at the same time because they are fastened to a pole. Consider the contraption carefully.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Having the hammers strike at different times "relative to the moving observer" would require that hammer 1 moves on it's own regardless of being connected by a pole to hammer 2. See the logic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    100
    The pole rotates perpendicular to the train. In order for it to hit the front and the back at different times, the pole would have to be twisted. In the moving frame, it doesn't become twisted.
    The problem here is twofold:

    1. You have neglected to provide the mechanism by which the pole is rotated or how it determines when it should rotate.
    2. You are also assuming a perfectly rigid pole, which in itself cannot exist and is a violation of Relativity (you are introducing something that Relativity forbids in an attempt to disprove Relativity).

    Any real pole will twist. If you apply a torque to any part of the pole to turn it, that torque has to propagate through the pole at the speed of sound of the pole, so different parts of the pole will start to rotate at different times even in the rest frame of the pole.

    If you want both ends with the Hammers to rotate at the same time in the rest frame, you have to come up with some way to accomplish this. You could for instance place the rotating device at the mid point of the pole, so that the torque traveling at the speed of sound reaches the ends at the same time( but at sometime later than when the rotating device starts). Thus when some point of the train passes the midpoint of the rod, the device activates and some time latter the hammers come down simultaneously in the Embankment frame. However, in the train frame the torque traveling down the pole is subject to the relativistic addition of velocities and thus, in the train frame will arrive at the ends of the pole at different times. The amount of twist in the pole will be the same in both frames, the two twists just will not travel down the pole at the same speeds in both frames.

    The hammers real will fall at different times in the train frame. (they have to, distance between the hammers and the length of the pole is length contracted in the train frame, so in order for the hammers to hit the same points of the train in both frames, the hammer have to come down at different times in the train frame.

    No matter what scheme you try to come up with to time the fall of the hammers, the result will be the same: the hammers fall simultaneously in the embankment frame and not so in the train frame and both are equally valid viewpoints.

    Here's the thing: You can't disprove Relativity by thought experiment. The only chance that a thought experiment ever has in disproving a theory is by uncovering an internal logical or mathematical contradiction in the theory , but Relativity has already be proven to be internally self-consistent. IOW, as long as you adhere to its postulates, you cannot make it contradict itself.

    The only way to attack Relativity would to to provide real life evidence that is in disagreement with it. (For instance if you could provide a real life perfectly rigid pole). Any thought experiment that purports to overturn Relativity will suffer from one of two flaws: It will either introduce something that is not allowed by the theory or it will misapply the theory to the scenario.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The only way to attack Relativity would to to provide real life evidence that is in disagreement with it. (For instance if you could provide a real life perfectly rigid pole). Any thought experiment that purports to overturn Relativity will suffer from one of two flaws: It will either introduce something that is not allowed by the theory or it will misapply the theory to the scenario
    Absolutely correct. Now, we can ignore this fringe thread and leave on an interesting note: the agreement within the physics community appears to be that RoS is not testable in first place. The explanation why is it so pertains more to philosophy of science rather than to experimental physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Why should hammer A strike first? Why should the pole twist? What causes this strange warping?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    I'm starting to wonder whether the host of ideas not permitted by the theory of relativity are in service of a self-certifying circularity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Actually, they're in 'service' to reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    100
    Why should hammer A strike first? Why should the pole twist? What causes this strange warping?
    Because, as I already stated, the rod cannot not be perfectly rigid. Perfectly rigid objects do not exist in reality. Any action applied at one point has to propagate through the rod. It is no different than if you were to push one end of the rod, the other end will not move until the compression wave started at the first end travels through the rod at the speed of sound for the rod. This is true even in the embankment frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear MarkMason
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    Why should hammer A strike first? Why should the pole twist? What causes this strange warping?
    What you have experienced above is the typical reply of Einsteinians. Since your thought-experiment always requires additional apparatus e.g. two hammers connected by a rigid pole, they will immediately begin to deny that such a perfect mechanism can exist, even though they permit trains to work, while similar drophammer & camshaft apparatuses worked effectively in the 19th century.

    The reason they serve up such self-serving nonsense is that they wish to defend special relativity (SR) at all costs, since it is the argumentation leading to SR which is the basis of the relativity perversion.

    Issues of space & time cannot be investigated by science in the same way as one investigates material phenomena (e.g. chemistry, geology, mechanics etc.). This is because space & time are actually questions of philosophy which deals with the underpinnings of science & the meaning of language (with which we communicate science).

    Even for non-scientists space & time are vital. When you are a witness in court & a barrister asks you where you were at the time of a murder, neither he, the judge not the jury expect Einstein-type sophistries in reply! That is, space & time are NOT matter, they are ontologically separate, different types of being to matter. It is this fact which Einstein dedicated himself to obscuring in the name of a perverted science (= modern science).

    Hence the arguments of the relativists above are just so much schlock. The world can only make sense - i.e. be free of logical paradoxes - if we accept, with Galileo & Newton, absolute simultaneity.

    With space we need only accept that lengths in all three dimensions are constant for all observers no matter what their state of motion (otherwise we wind up in parallel universes where A contracts relative to B (one parallel universe) and B contracts relative to A (the other parallel universe).

    The SR mess arises from claiming that the lightning bolts strike the track simultaneously for the platform observer but non-simultaneously for the train observer. In this way Einstein has already concocted parallel universes - one in which the lightning bolts are simultaneous, the other in which they are not.

    This mess arises because Einstein does not factor the Doppler Effect into the situation. You however can do so and get the correct answer!

    Accordingly we can already summarize the intellectual content that the two faced Janus-faced ones will reply with i.e.: "Exterminate! Exterminate!"


    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 07-30-2014 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Corrections (in purple)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Indeed, MarkMason...
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    I'm starting to wonder whether the host of ideas not permitted by the theory of relativity are in service of a self-certifying circularity.
    ...that is the Einsteinians' ideal: to have all NON-Einsteinian ideas harnessed in service of Einstein's self-certifying circularity!

    But by admitting the objectivity, the ontological separateness, of space & time - hence avoiding logical paradoxes - Einstein's relativity pops like a pricked balloon!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    That's interesting TFOLZO. Relativity does seem to lead to a splitting of reality into innumerable parallel universes. I suppose the cornerstone of the entire edifice is the constancy of the speed of light. If there were a way to disprove this constancy, the whole theory would collapse.

    In response to Janus, I recall that Einstein's train analogy was supposed to illustrate the relativity of simultaneity based on information CARRIED BY LIGHT that reaches different observers at different times. Your critique of the rigidity of the rotating contraption has nothing to do with the point of the experiment, which is that the two observers depend on light to inform them of the time of the impacts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    Now we have to introduce mysteriously twisting rods because perfect rigidity doesn't exist. Even if it doesn't, what causes the rod to twist just because the train is moving over it??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    63
    The implication of the rod contraption is that reality is not dictated solely by when LIGHT reaches an observer. The hammers are fastened to a rod, and the light reaches the two observers at different times, but the rod strikes both ends at the SAME time in both reference frames: the only difference is when the observer sees the light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    That's interesting TFOLZO. Relativity does seem to lead to a splitting of reality into innumerable parallel universes. I suppose the cornerstone of the entire edifice is the constancy of the speed of light. If there were a way to disprove this constancy, the whole theory would collapse.
    Very good, MarkMason, you are on the right track! The major apparent obstacle is the CONSTANT OBSERVED speed of light - the observer may change velocity relative to the light source and objects around him, but the velocity of light will remain the same, - as every Dalek on this website will tell you (in between cries of "Exterminate!").

    This is because the observed speed of light IS CONSTANT as they say. But why? When the observer and source change their mutual velocity, the speed of light does not change but the wavelength does!

    I will now put forward a scenario for you MarkMason and let you work out the answers and implications.

    You have a source of yellow light (L), the wavelength of this light being in a very narrow spectral band (laser light is ideal here but any sort of narrow spectrum-band light source will do).

    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> yellow light beam traveling rightward.

    .................................A<<<<<A...........................S...................... .............R>>>>>>R

    The light is being emitted from the source rightward along the page. You now have three observers of this yellow light, one approaching the light source (A), one stationary (S) and one receding from the light source (R).

    From your own basic knowledge of light you can plug in the answers as to what the three different observers will see concerning the light from the source! What spectral (color) change will the observers notice with the light source? What speed will each of the observers find for the respective colors of the light source?

    Meanwhile Janus can reply in a 'relativistic way' by asking Marcus H to "exterminate" us!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 07-30-2014 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Colorizing experiment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    Relativity does seem to lead to a splitting of reality into innumerable parallel universes.
    Where does this idea emerge from?

    :EDIT:

    This thread going really weird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The answer, BWS...
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Where does this idea (Relativity does seem to lead to a splitting of reality into innumerable parallel universes.)emerge from?

    :EDIT:

    This thread going really weird.
    ...is from Fitzgerald, Poincare & Lorentz, the three stooges upon whose nonsense Einstein constructed his own! I.e. time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC).

    If there is such a thing as length contraction between moving observers then:

    Frame A contracts relative to frame B (one parallel universe).
    Frame B contracts relative to frame A (other parallel universe).

    You have to put them in parallel universes because the claimed 'facts' are mutually exclusive, mutually impossible.

    Alternatively you might respond in a Fok way - i.e. along the lines of Soviet theorist Vladimir Fok.

    Fok claimed that one observer would be truly stationary i.e. an absolute reference frame (ARF), therefore only the absolutely moving observer's frame would contract. This would be observed by BOTH observers hence it might seem no parallel universes needed. However this answer is Lorentzian relativity and would imply that other experiments e.g. sending clocks in different directions in space, should establish the existence of this ARF and the earth's velocity relative to it. We find however no such thing, and in Fok's universe, were both observers undergoing absolute motion as well as relative motion, the absurd (parallel-universe-generating) notion of mutual length contraction would arise once more.

    As I think is obvious BWS - unless you've had too many Beers, Wines & Spirits - the situation is even more paradoxical when you deal with mutual time dilation over and above time dilation supposedly undergone by observers moving relative to an ARF.

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 07-30-2014 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Need for editing pointed out to me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Maybe I'm too ignorant to gather what you are saying.
    TFOLZO likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Maybe so, but ignorance is only ever partial...
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe I'm too ignorant to gather what you are saying.
    ...so you can always query the bits you cannot follow.

    For example, some DALEK* above wrote:

    The only way to attack Relativity would to provide real life evidence that is in disagreement with it. (For instance if you could provide a real life perfectly rigid pole). Any thought experiment that purports to overturn Relativity will suffer from one of two flaws: It will either introduce something that is not allowed by the theory or it will misapply the theory to the scenario.

    The three observers in different states of motion relative to the light source in my reply to MarkMason above will no doubt be disallowed by SR (special relativity) because they don't conform to OEMBS (Einstein's first paper) - which only shows that SR 'works' by disallowing experimental & deductive inferences that demonstrate its untenable explanations for physical reality.

    So instead of following the paradox-generating procedures of that Einstein article (OEMBS), we can carry out thought experiments dealing with situations actually found in nature - and so deduce from them the nature of the physical world, without any pollution or presumption introduced by SR or its three-stooges predecessors with their stagnant aether ARF.

    In this case the nature of light itself, specifically the nature of each & every photon. So perhaps you could beat MarkMason to the answer, BWS?

    And guess what! The answer is NOT what SR preaches!

    TFOLZO

    *Acronym for Dedicated Apparatchik Lecturing for the Einsteinian Kinematocracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    I came here to learn, you jerk.
    That earned you three days off. Please rethink your attitude and usage of language before you return. Oh, and I have seen your articles elsewhere on the web, so I know you are being more than a little disingenuous with your above claim.

    If you understood the claims of Special and General Relativity, you would have understood the need to define which frame you are referring to, whenever a statement is made about a result. So, it was NOT an insult on my part question your understanding seeing as I had to ask you which frame you were talking about.
    Jilan and x0x like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The three observers in different states of motion relative to the light source in my reply to MarkMason above will no doubt be disallowed by SR (special relativity) because they don't conform to OEMBS (Einstein's first paper) - which only shows that SR 'works' by disallowing experimental & deductive inferences that demonstrate its untenable explanations for physical reality.
    You are free to produce a single observation inconsistent with SR. Good luck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post

    If there is such a thing as length contraction between moving observers then:

    Frame A contracts relative to frame B (one parallel universe).
    Frame A contracts relative to frame A (other parallel universe).

    You have to put them in parallel universes because the claimed 'facts' are mutually exclusive, mutually impossible.
    Surely the second line should read "Frame B contracts relative to frame A. This is only "mutually exclusive" if you believe there is an "absolute" view of the universe, one that is the same and correct in all frames of reference. Which is kind of the whole point of relativity in the first place - space and time are not absolute.

    You have taken an "absolute" stance and this is the reason you have problems with SR and GR. Relativity claims that space and time are not absolute, but you want to stick to a view where space and time are absolute, so you disagree with relativity.

    Now you need to provide us with a physical experiment that disagrees with the predictions of relativity.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; 07-30-2014 at 06:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Thank you for noticing the error SpeedFreek.

    I have therefore corrected that line which now reads "Frame B contracts relative to frame A."
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Surely the second line should read "Frame B contracts relative to frame. This is only "mutually exclusive" if you believe there is an "absolute" view of the universe, one that is the same and correct in all frames of reference. Which is kind of the whole point of relativity in the first place - space and time are not absolute.

    You have taken an "absolute" stance and this is the reason you have problems with SR and GR. Relativity claims that space and time are not absolute, but you want to stick to a view where space and time are absolute, so you disagree with relativity.

    Now you need to provide us with a physical experiment that disagrees with the predictions of relativity.
    Your further observations are all quite correct and indeed excellently worded, SpeedFreek. I do hold to an 'absolute' view of the universe, in which facts are objectively true i.e. they do NOT vary with observer motion - i.e. the "really big" problem with SR & GR.

    The physical experiment that disagrees with - indeed refutes - SR is seen by the outline I gave to MarkM above. You have three observers, mutually in motion, observing a yellow light. One is stationary relative to the light source, another is moving away from, yet another towards the light source. Just factor in what the three observers find for the speed of the light and for the observed Doppler changes and you will soon work out the objectively true answer.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    One is stationary relative to the light source, another is moving away from, yet another towards the light source. Just factor in what the three observers find for the speed of the light and for the observed Doppler changes
    1. All three observers measure the speed of light to be the SAME, "c".
    2. The observers measure the frequency to be :


    (receding observer)
    (approaching observer)

    I sense that you have a problem with the above. Tough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings xOx
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    1. All three observers measure the speed of light to be the SAME, "c".
    2. The observers measure the frequency to be :


    (receding observer)
    (approaching observer)

    I sense that you have a problem with the above. Tough.
    What a clever xOx you are - putting the answer into mathematical terms (in order to evade the physical, I might suspect!).

    Yes indeedy, the light seen by the receding observer is redshifted (the frequency decreases, hence 1-v/c as numerator term).

    Conversely, light seen by the approaching observer is blueshifted (frequency increasing, hence 1+v/c as numerator term).

    Now I think you will agree with me, xOx, that each of the three observers will observe the light beam (at whatever frequency it is observed) as traveling at speed c.

    So are we agreed so far? Or is it already too tough?

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 07-30-2014 at 02:21 PM. Reason: Closing brackets
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    So what's your problem , TFOLZO? How are you "refuting" SR? Eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    What a clever xOx you are - putting the answer into mathematical terms (in order to evade the physical, I might suspect!).
    So this statement is good evidence that TFOLZO is not reasonable. All of physics is about how accurately we can describe a physical scenario, and this requires the mathematics to set up the relationships of the descriptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The problem is, xOx
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    So what's your problem , TFOLZO?
    that observers at different speeds see light beams each traveling at c relative to the respective observer but each observer seeing a different wavelength, these wavelengths traveling mutually at different speeds, a speed directly dependent on the wavelength (or inversely dependent upon the frequency).

    Let me illustrate this, L is our light source traveling to the right: each of the various observers A, S & R see a different colored beam, each beam traveling at c. Putting this together objectively we find:

    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S (observer stationary relative to source).
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> R (our receding observer)>>>.
    L>>>>>>>>>>> A (our approaching observer)<<<.

    Now what does this tell us about the nature of light?

    (Note of course, in case you have forgotten, that I am NOT introducing SR or its implications at any point in the interpretation).

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #37  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    that observers at different speeds see light beams each traveling at c relative to the respective observer but each different wavelength traveling mutually at a different speed, a speed directly dependent on the wavelength (or inversely dependent upon the frequency).
    Err, wrong.



    You see, BOTH the frequencies AND the wavelengths VARY while the speed REMAINS CONSTANT. Tough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #38  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    This is also the "Personal Theories and Alternative Hypothesis" section.

    I don't want this forum to become wacky, but reading some of the posts in this section makes me wonder...

    :EDIT:

    I'm not trying to insult anyone. Only saying that if there is a wacky section, please moderators, shove all of it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #39  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Your equation is irrelevant because its misrepresents the physical situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Err, wrong.



    You see, BOTH the frequencies AND the wavelengths VARY while the speed REMAINS CONSTANT. Tough.

    The three observers are in mutual motion. Hence the three speeds of light (each measured relatively at c by the respective observer) observed by the three observers in mutual motion (as we agreed) ARE MOVING AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER.

    That fact is obvious just from considering my colourful diagram above. Different wavelengths within this light beam are moving at different speeds.


    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #40  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    Different wavelengths within this light beam are moving at different speeds.
    Need more colored crayons, TFOLZO? Repeating the same errors , even underlined and bolded in different colors, doesn't make it right.
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #41  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well now that you understand that the longer the wavelength the faster the wavelength moves (explained in non-quantum theory terms which will have to be refined later on)...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Need more colored crayons, TFOLZO? Repeating the same errors , even underlined and bolded in different colors, doesn't make it right.

    So what's your problem , TFOLZO? How are you "refuting" SR? Eh?
    ...you can see that the receding & approaching observers' question has a direct bearing on the procedure leading to the "proof" of SR.

    Big Al Einstein presumes simultaneous separated light sources being observed by a stationary observer at the midpoint between the light sources. The train observer, rushing past the midpoint, supposedly sees the forward light-flash first and the rearward light-flash afterwards. From the alleged non-simultaneity of the two flashes seen by the train observer, the Theory of (Special) Relativity is concocted.

    The point is: that thought-experiment of Einstein's is bogus because that is not what happens.

    The train-observer sees the forward light-flash as blueshifted (& traveling at c) but sees the rearward light-flash as redshifted (also traveling at c). The two light-flashes however are seen by him simultaneously, refuting the scenario used to construct SR!

    Thus Einstein's fundamental claim as to the need to reconceptualise space & time as subjective (e.g. 'spacetime') is false. Rather, the alternative that Einstein rejected - "a more complicated theory of light" - is the correct answer, this answer being implicit in the last writings of Walter Ritz before he died (once he abandoned his initial crude emission theory).

    In order for readers to get a clearer understanding of what it means in that longer wavelengths travel faster, we now have to think once more of that yellow light-source and the photons emitted from it.

    The most important QUANTUM implication to be understood here is that a photon does NOT have an intrinsic wavelength or frequency (i.e. color). Rather, the wavelength (or frequency) is ONLY an extrinsic property of the photon, revealed only when the photon is absorbed/observed. IOW we have to understand that each & every photon has a complicated internal structure involving all possible wavelengths - and that this situation evolves over time for each & every photon!

    That shocked your xOx off?

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #42  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    Well now that you understand that the longer the wavelength the faster the wavelength moves

    Mainstream physics says that you are wrong. I bought you a nice box of colored crayons. Enjoy!

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    <irrelevant rambling about trains and platforms and gross misunderstandings about relativity of simultaneity snipped>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #43  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Your equation is irrelevant because its misrepresents the physical situation.
    The three observers are in mutual motion. Hence the three speeds of light (each measured relatively at c by the respective observer) observed by the three observers in mutual motion (as we agreed) ARE MOVING AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER.

    That fact is obvious just from considering my colourful diagram above. Different wavelengths within this light beam are moving at different speeds.


    TFOLZO
    You seem to be attempting to use some sort of UNPHYSICAL frame of reference, in which light is measured to be travelling at three different speeds.

    Please define a frame of reference in which those three different speeds of light would be measured. You need to do this in order to make your assertion PHYSICAL.

    There is nothing physical about adopting an "absolute" view of the situation, unless you can define that absolute frame in which these measurements can take place.

    If no single observer can measure light to be travelling at three different speeds, then no absolute view of the situation physically exists in this universe. Your "absolute" view is in fact exactly what you are claiming of the relativity of simultaneity - an absolute view is an unphysical situation.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #44  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Mainstream i.e. pro-Einstein physics...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Mainstream physics says that you are wrong. I bought you a nice box of colored crayons. Enjoy!
    ...is 100% BS. That is why you cannot solve the energy crisis. And today it is having major political implications!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #45  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Mainstream i.e. pro-Einstein physics...
    ...is 100% BS.
    And yet it works. Unless you can provide us with an example of a physical situation in which it doesn't...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #46  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The claims you make are misleading & false, SpeedFreek.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    You seem to be attempting to use some sort of UNPHYSICAL frame of reference, in which light is measured to be travelling at three different speeds.
    Your claim of "unphysical frame of reference" is merely Einsteinian prejudice. I am merely presenting an objective, even everyday situation since looking into outer space we find multitudes of receding galaxies and a few approaching galaxies & many approaching stars. The three different speeds of light are those seen by the three mutually moving observers each of which found the light moving at c relative to himself. Hence my inference is perfectly valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Please define a frame of reference in which those three different speeds of light would be measured. You need to do this in order to make your assertion PHYSICAL.
    The term "frame of reference" has been mongrelized by its use by Einsteinians into a covert reference to "parallel universe-generating perspective". The 'frame of reference' is the physical world itself. The materials I use are physical, as are space and time. Acceptance of BS like SR is NOT required for something to be PHYSICAL; your claim to the contrary is merely SR-based prejudice.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    There is nothing physical about adopting an "absolute" view of the situation, unless you can define that absolute frame in which these measurements can take place.
    By "absolute" view, you really mean 'objective view' which is perfectly legitimate - until Einstein delegitimized it in favour of logical-paradox generating nonsense. Objectivity is the very basis of genuine physics. Galileo used mathematics but he did NOT let it lure him into logical paradox-generating nonsense - unlike Einstein who seemed to think that mathematics must rule everything, even to tolerating and propagating logical paradoxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    If no single observer can measure light to be travelling at three different speeds, then no absolute view of the situation physically exists in this universe.
    False, this single observer can change velocity and observe the light speeds (relative to himself) remain constant while the wavelength varies - so long as the source of the light is maintained for an appropriate time, which it is with stars for example. Hence your claim that "no absolute view of the situation physically exists in the universe" is merely prejudicial nonsense designed only to hide from the clear facts & inferences to the contrary. You can't refute the facts so have to hide behind pretentious jargon which tries to redefine terms like 'physical' in a limited crippled 'Einstein-friendly' way!

    Had Walter Ritz survived a few more years, Einstein's SR would have been revealed for the hoax that it is - rather than having it hang around for a century polluting the minds of four generations of physicists (so-called). This is because we have now uncovered major & exciting facts about light - and about individual photons in particular - which has been obscured (by SR) for a century or more!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #47  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    Mainstream i.e. pro-Einstein physics...
    Quote Originally Posted by xox
    Mainstream physics says that you are wrong. I bought you a nice box of colored crayons. Enjoy!
    ...is 100% BS. That is why you cannot solve the energy crisis. And today it is having major political implications!

    TFOLZO
    Now your train went totally off the rails and hit the platform.

    Had Walter Ritz survived a few more years, Einstein's SR would have been revealed for the hoax that it is - rather than having it hang around for a century polluting the minds of four generations of physicists (so-called).
    You sure need those colored crayons. But, be careful that you don't hurt yourself with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #48  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    I have already done so above, a physical situation revealing new facts about light & the wavelength-distribution within individual photons.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    And yet it works. Unless you can provide us with an example of a physical situation in which it doesn't...
    You however are merely playing with words - defining 'physical' according to a crippled (i.e. Einsteinian) perspective.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #49  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    If that's all you can come up with OxO...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Now your train went totally off the rails and hit the platform.

    You sure need those colored crayons.
    ...then you have abandoned genuine physical understanding for Einstein-manufactured fantasies - ones that prevent mankind from solving the energy crisis for example. No wonder we have the wars building up today!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #50  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The claims you make are misleading & false, SpeedFreek.
    Your claim of "unphysical frame of reference" is merely Einsteinian prejudice. I am merely presenting an objective, even everyday situation since looking into outer space we find multitudes of receding galaxies and a few approaching galaxies & many approaching stars. The three different speeds of light are those seen by the three mutually moving observers each of which found the light moving at c relative to himself. Hence my inference is perfectly valid.
    Only if you believe in some sort of unphysical "God's eye view" of the situation, a view that does not physically exist anywhere.

    The three different speeds of light are NOT those seen by the three mutually moving observers. Each of them, as you said, found the light to be travelling at the same speed - c, relative to themselves. A fourth observer, standing outside and looking at the situation would also find the light to be travelling at c. All observers in the universe would find the light to be travelling at c. Nobody, anywhere, measures the light to be travelling at anything other than c.

    Therefore, your inference is completely unphysical. You are NOT, as you claim, describing a physical situation at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The term "frame of reference" has been mongrelized by its use by Einsteinians into a covert reference to "parallel universe-generating perspective".
    Complete and utter nonsense, based on your own personal and unphysical view of the universe. Oh, and there is no such thing as an "Einsteinian". There are people who understand physical models based on the results of empirical experiments, and people who object to these models on the grounds of personal incredulity, but their objections are baseless. Your usage of "Einsteinian" implies two camps with an equal validity when there is no physical validity to any arguments against relativity. This usage of the term "Einsteinian", in an obvious pejorative sense, is akin to the creationists who don't believe in evolution and call anyone who accepts the scientific findings for evolution an "evolutionist". You should instead use the term "realist".

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The 'frame of reference' is the physical world itself.
    So find a situation in the physical world where anyone measures light to be travelling at three different speeds. There is no situation like that - it is an unphysical view.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The materials I use are physical, as are space and time. Acceptance of BS like SR is NOT required for something to be PHYSICAL; your claim to the contrary is merely SR-based prejudice.
    Experimental evidence says you are wrong to claim SR is BS. All experiments performed to test SR have had results consistent with SR. That's PHYSICAL experiments, not unphysical thought experiments like trying to adopt the view of God on the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    By "absolute" view, you really mean 'objective view' which is perfectly legitimate - until Einstein delegitimized it in favour of logical-paradox generating nonsense. Objectivity is the very basis of genuine physics. Galileo used mathematics but he did NOT let it lure him into logical paradox-generating nonsense - unlike Einstein who seemed to think that mathematics must rule everything, even to tolerating and propagating logical paradoxes.
    There are no logical paradoxes in SR, it is totally logically consistent, internally. Unless you believe in an unphysical "God's eye view" of the situation, that is.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    False, this single observer can change velocity and observe the light speeds (relative to himself) remain constant while the wavelength varies - so long as the source of the light is maintained for an appropriate time, which it is with stars for example. Hence you claim that "no absolute view of the situation physically exists in the universe" is merely prejudicial nonsense designed only to hide from the clear facts & inferences to the contrary.
    Clear facts come from measurements, not metaphysical viewpoints.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    You can't refute the facts so have to hide behind pretentious jargon which tries to redefine terms like 'physical' in a limited crippled 'Einstein-friendly' way!
    You haven't presented any facts, you have only presented some unphysical view that cannot be measured in the real world. It is you who meeds to refute the facts of relativity, by coming up with a physical experiment which would falsify it. So far, you have failed, and all you have is is your unphysical "God's eye view" to support you. Go on, make it REAL.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Had Walter Ritz survived a few more years, Einstein's SR would have been revealed for the hoax that it is - rather than having it hang around for a century polluting the minds of four generations of physicists (so-called).
    You seem to be ignoring the fact that relativity WORKS! All experiments in particle accelerators confirm it, the GPS system confirms it, and many many more physically REAL situations and experiments confirm it. This is the reason that physicists are called so, because they actually perform physics.

    You will need more than arguments from incredulity to overturn it, and whatever you come up with to replace it also needs to give the same answers as relativity in the myriad situations that it has already been tested and used.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #51  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    hen you have abandoned genuine physical understanding for Einstein-manufactured fantasies - ones that prevent mankind from solving the energy crisis for example. No wonder we have the wars building up today!

    TFOLZO
    Nope, nuclear energy powers 13% of the electric network.
    You keep doing that and they'll take away the colored crayons from you. The one hour computer privileges, as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #52  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFLOZO, re: the context of your posts.

    Hello and Cheers! ....and now, let's rock!

    (1) "c" is regarded as constant because it is CONSTANT..."wave-length" of color-spectra mean nothing! IT IS "how" our minds "make sense" of light, NOT the actual "physicality" of light as

    it may be..."we" never see "light" as it actually is. All we perceive are "past-tense" states of EVERYTHING and this includes light as well as "motion". (you are not aware of this?)

    (2) A "single-photon" has never been established as a "true state", and likely never will be...whereas "wave-functions" are readily verifiable. (the real question is more "what is light as energy"

    rather than arguing quaint "particle-packets of energy" descriptors...particle-theory belongs to the "age of steam!")

    (3) "Einstein" stands alone, of himself, by himself...and many, many people simply cannot abide that any one person could be "that smart" as well as "he stole ideas from this one and that

    one and cobbled together his Jew semantics of Relativity!" (Yes, he was and still is "that smart", and no, he needed help from no one to arrive at "Relativity", which has no trace of

    semantics whatsoever) Poincare', Lorentz, Shwarzchild, were all "contemporaries" and "fellow travelers" of Einstein...NONE of these people EVER stated "he could not done this without my

    help, or the help of giants of the past"...to declare otherwise is completely laughable. THERE WAS NO "RELATIVITY" THEORY PRIOR TO THE TIME EINSTEIN WROTE IT!!! PERIOD.

    If you can establish there was...you will be famous in short order, and make a lot of money very quickly! (many people have tried for the last century to discredit A.E., and all have failed.

    Perhaps you will get lucky...as Philipp Lenard was not. (Yes, he too promulgated the "Jew semantics" view...despite the fact that A.E. gave "credit" to Lenard for "his work in theory" as it

    pertained to "light emission" when Einstein could have easily left Lenard out of the "equation" altogether and no one would have objected) Lenard felt he had been "screwed" by Albert w/regard

    to the 1905 "white papers" and subsequent works, when in fact Einstein ALWAYS gave credit where credit was due.

    (4) The amendments to GR by Einstein were in response to relentless pressure to "say something!" in regard to the "expanding Universe" models that popped up like mushrooms in the 1930s.

    He NEVER wanted to write such a response to a basically "unprovable" scenario of "universal expansion" based on visual (then) observations...STR came about as a "bastard child of poor

    circumstance"<(A.E. quote) He never had faith in a "special amendment of Relativity" and said himself that it was "ultimately unworkable" less than ten years after he first published it!

    "The equations work...the basic premise does not" was his own take of "Special" modifications to Relativity.

    (5) The idea of science and the works of Einstein being responsible for discordancy and strife are completely without merit...this is a case of relentless greed on the part of the "haves" vs. the

    "have nots". You can thank any religion for helping to make life MISERY, as well as corporate and political (same thing) leaders for "World Wars".

    (You need to go back and study MUCH MORE history...and will begin to understand how "lies become truth" and that given opportunity, we WILL slaughter each other for no other reason

    that it "seemed good to me at the time".)

    .....

    I actually "like" some of your challenges to physics dogma and rhetoric...but you should NOT include A.E. and his work in this critique. (If he were alive, and you said some of the things

    you have written about him to him personally...I can almost guarantee you he would spend however much time it took to explain GR to you in a way which is comprehensible to

    anyone of moderate intellect! Einstein himself had no "faith" in what he called "incomprehensible extracts of theory"..."if one cannot explain it in 5 minutes, it means something is wrong!")


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #53  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Your debased understanding of physics, SpeedFreek, reducing it to the level of Einstein's drivel, Einstein's way of thinking...
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    TFOLZO:The term "frame of reference" has been mongrelized by its use by Einsteinians into a covert reference to "parallel universe-generating perspective".
    Complete and utter nonsense, based on your own personal and unphysical view of the universe. Oh, and there is no such thing as an "Einsteinian". There are people who understand physical models based on the results of empirical experiments, and people who object to these models on the grounds of personal incredulity, but their objections are baseless. Your usage of "Einsteinian" implies two camps with an equal validity when there is no physical validity to any arguments against relativity. This usage of the term "Einsteinian", in an obvious pejorative sense, is akin to the creationists who don't believe in evolution and call anyone who accepts the scientific findings for evolution an "evolutionist". You should instead use the term "realist".
    ...is the very reason modern physics has failed in its primary task: discovering practical new energy sources.

    The 1960s promise of "energy too cheap to meter" from controlled nuclear fusion was to be in 20 years time! Today it's 30 years away, revealing that physicists after the Einstein debacle don't understand physics at all. Meanwhile the failure to find new energy sources has created the energy crisis, global warming, and coming war with Russia in order to seize her remaining oil & gas. Hence WW3 can & will be directed sheeted home upon Einstein & his bungling perverted supporters.

    What you call "personal incredulity" is merely the realization of so many of us anti-Einsteinians that SR etc. is all drivel because it leads to unresolvable logical paradoxes. The view I have given above, whereby each and every photon comprises a Doppler Ensemble where longer wavelengths move faster than shorter wavelengths, is the ONLY way to conceive the nature of light's motion in space without creating logical paradoxes. Thus the Doppler Ensemble Theory is correct & Einstein's SR is wrong!

    There is no "equal validity" for Einstein's relativity. It is BS pure & simple, along with its unresolvable deductive complexities; you merely dismiss all opposition to SR out of prejudice, merely claiming that genuine experimental situations (e.g. three mutually moving observers observing a light source) cannot exist. Your & Einstein's universe is a sick fantasy world.

    However an Einsteinian is indeed a 'realist' - i.e. one who believes that the world is reduced to an individual perspective i.e. realism, whereby subjective & objective are confused & muddled together. That is exactly Einstein's & your view, failed conceptions of modern physics, which genuine physicists such as Galileo, Philip Lenard, Walter Ritz, Hantaro Nagaoka etc. already saw was leading the world to disaster. And this disaster - critical energy shortages - is just around the corner, and YOU Einsteinians - Big Bang creationists into the bargain - are the primary cause of it.

    You cannot debate the issue of differential wavespeeds within light, within individual photons, because you are too ideologically blinkered to understand its implications!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #54  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    SpeedFreek claims that the three different mutually moving observers cannot combine their findings into a greater understanding of the nature of light, implying one observer only is permitted.
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    TFOLZO: False, this single observer can change velocity and observe the light speeds (relative to himself) remain constant while the wavelength varies - so long as the source of the light is maintained for an appropriate time, which it is with stars for example. Hence you claim that "no absolute view of the situation physically exists in the universe" is merely prejudicial nonsense designed only to hide from the clear facts & inferences to the contrary.

    Clear facts come from measurements, not metaphysical viewpoints.

    You haven't presented any facts...
    These measurements & facts exist and I have put them together properly. The Doppler Effect for light is fully experimentally demonstrated. While you try to trivialize it as a "metaphysical viewpoint" it is this viewpoint of differential wave speeds proportional to wavelength that understands light without creating the fatal logical paradoxes of SR & its derivatives.

    Clearly humanity will never either solve the energy crisis or travel meaningfully in outer space without understanding the quantum nature of the photon as a Quantum Doppler Ensemble where the longer the wavelength the faster the wave within any & every photon.

    SR is obsolete, a dead-end and a fraud. And YOU cannot prove otherwise because the experimental setup I have used puts in all the facts - it does not exclude the Doppler Effect as Einstein did in OEMBS, concocting SR then dealing with the Doppler Effect only mathematically towards the end of his original paper.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #55  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The nuclear power we have today, Bobby x0x...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Nope, nuclear energy powers 13% of the electric network.
    You keep doing that and they'll take away the colored crayons from you. The one hour computer privileges, as well.
    ...is all uranium-based nuclear fission.

    Nuclear fission is dangerous you know e.g. Fukushima! Even you would like a better form of nuclear energy than that - but boy, believing in SR ensures that we will NEVER get beyond that highly polluting method EVER. So once again the Doppler Ensemble nature of light!

    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>R - receding observer
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S - stationary observer
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A - approaching observer.

    The Doppler Ensemble Theory of Light is obvious when you just contemplate the simple situation shown above - and it applies to each & every photon - radio waves & gamma rays, not just visible light. It also applies to people sitting in fast trains observing lightning bolts striking the track forward & behind oneself!

    But you seem very afraid of the coloreds eh, Mr X. 0. Xlansman of the KKK (i.e. the Klueless Kinematocrat Klan)!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 07-31-2014 at 01:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #56  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings, Gerry Nightingale! I'll place any commentary I might make in color between what you have written.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFLOZO, re: the context of your posts.

    Hello and Cheers! ....and now, let's rock!

    (1) "c" is regarded as constant because it is CONSTANT..."wave-length" of color-spectra mean nothing! IT IS "how" our minds "make sense" of light, NOT the actual "physicality" of light as

    it may be..."we" never see "light" as it actually is. All we perceive are "past-tense" states of EVERYTHING and this includes light as well as "motion". (you are not aware of this?)Light takes time to reach us, thus everything we see in indeed "past-tense" especially astronomical objects, but color-spectra do represent something objective: the wavelengths absorbed by objects traveling at c relative to the specific wavelength. The idea of color as a "secondary quanlity", as asserted by Democritus etc. is a misconception.

    (2) A "single-photon" has never been established as a "true state", and likely never will be...whereas "wave-functions" are readily verifiable. (the real question is more "what is light as energy"

    rather than arguing quaint "particle-packets of energy" descriptors...particle-theory belongs to the "age of steam!")
    Correct, because every photon is infinitely divisible, but in order to explain Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET), it has to be applied to individual photons too. It is not a mere collective property.

    (3) "Einstein" stands alone, of himself, by himself...and many, many people simply cannot abide that any one person could be "that smart" as well as "he stole ideas from this one and that

    one and cobbled together his Jew semantics of Relativity!" (Yes, he was and still is "that smart", and no, he needed help from no one to arrive at "Relativity", which has no trace of

    semantics whatsoever) Poincare', Lorentz, Shwarzchild, were all "contemporaries" and "fellow travelers" of Einstein...NONE of these people EVER stated "he could not done this without my

    help, or the help of giants of the past"...to declare otherwise is completely laughable. THERE WAS NO "RELATIVITY" THEORY PRIOR TO THE TIME EINSTEIN WROTE IT!!! PERIOD.

    Time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC) were the crackpot inventions of others, the three stooges (Fitzgerald, Poincare & Lorentz primarily). Einstein put this crackpot theory onto an individualistic solipsistic basis. Einstein was indeed a genius - I do not deny this - but a genius in philosophy and manipulation, rather like Joseph Goebbels was a genius in psychological manipulation.

    If you can establish there was...you will be famous in short order, and make a lot of money very quickly! (many people have tried for the last century to discredit A.E., and all have failed.

    Perhaps you will get lucky...as Philipp Lenard was not. (Yes, he too promulgated the "Jew semantics" view...despite the fact that A.E. gave "credit" to Lenard for "his work in theory" as it

    pertained to "light emission" when Einstein could have easily left Lenard out of the "equation" altogether and no one would have objected) Lenard felt he had been "screwed" by Albert w/regard

    to the 1905 "white papers" and subsequent works, when in fact Einstein ALWAYS gave credit where credit was due.
    False! Einstein plagiarized whenever it suited him. Lenard quantified the photoelectric effect, and Einstein used his results to prove Planck's quantum theory. Lenard did not object to Einstein over that (see Wikipedia) but specifically objected to Einstein's BS theorizing i.e. the Theory of Relativity.

    (4) The amendments to GR by Einstein were in response to relentless pressure to "say something!" in regard to the "expanding Universe" models that popped up like mushrooms in the 1930s.

    He NEVER wanted to write such a response to a basically "unprovable" scenario of "universal expansion" based on visual (then) observations...STR came about as a "bastard child of poor

    circumstance"<(A.E. quote) He never had faith in a "special amendment of Relativity" and said himself that it was "ultimately unworkable" less than ten years after he first published it!

    "The equations work...the basic premise does not" was his own take of "Special" modifications to Relativity.

    (5) The idea of science and the works of Einstein being responsible for discordancy and strife are completely without merit...this is a case of relentless greed on the part of the "haves" vs. the

    "have nots". You can thank any religion for helping to make life MISERY, as well as corporate and political (same thing) leaders for "World Wars".
    Wrong. Einstein has deliberately created confusion in science by denying the fundamental 3-D theory of electromagnetism, the foolish physicists of today crediting SR and GR for what is actually the effect of electromagnetism e.g. the structure of galaxies. Read Eric Lerner's 'The Big Bang Never Happened'. Indeed, Einstein's relativity is a modern religion, a religion for agnostics and atheists, creating strife & confusion everywhere. Einstein was also a bigoted Zionist despite his socialist pretensions, referring in a letter called 'Our Debt to Zionism' to Palestinian as 'bandits' & 'outlaws.'

    (You need to go back and study MUCH MORE history...and will begin to understand how "lies become truth" and that given opportunity, we WILL slaughter each other for no other reason

    that it "seemed good to me at the time".)
    You, Gerry N., need to stop reading the biased hagiographies of Big Al Einstein. You are the victim of modern propaganda, shared by West & Soviet alike.

    .....

    I actually "like" some of your challenges to physics dogma and rhetoric...but you should NOT include A.E. and his work in this critique. (If he were alive, and you said some of the things you have written about him to him personally...I can almost guarantee you he would spend however much time it took to explain GR to you in a way which is comprehensible to anyone of moderate intellect! Einstein himself had no "faith" in what he called "incomprehensible extracts of theory"..."if one cannot explain it in 5 minutes, it means something is wrong!")


    (Thanks for reading!)
    The only way one could accept SR is to misunderstand it - because in 5 minutes one CANNOT yet see the logical paradoxical implications. Einstein is deliberately propagandizing for his nonsense, hoping that you won't spot the logical paradoxes implicit in his way of thinking. Your own words outlining the way Einstein thinks seem to represent Einstein correctly in my opinion. I.e. Einstein was merely a con-man, trying to reduce scientists to jabbering idiots. Unfortunately he has clearly succeeded.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #57  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to tfolzo, re: your #56 post.

    I never advocated that the "special" addendum to the General Theory of Relativity was "right" or "wrong". I DID indicate that Albert himself had little faith in it!!! (did you not see this?)

    As for "Relativity" itself, I see no ambiguities nor built-in fallacies...it is simple, and works in any "frame of reference" no matter the conditions of the frame.

    .....

    I DO see "logical paradoxes" in modern QM theory! (at sixty, anyone, including Albert, would have a VERY difficult time convincing me of "semantics as true values of reality" a'la Heisenberg)

    FYI...A.E. privately thought the idea of "Israel" as separate nation as being "unworkable" unless a consortium of religious and political leaders were formed, each having an equal say with

    regard to the operations of the "State" (he knew this never happen...he turned down being the first "Prime Minister" for this reason, among others) As for being a "Socialist"...if you mean

    this in the context of being a "Social Democrat" you would be close to the mark.

    .....

    As for A.E.'s "self-promoting, self-aggrandizing charlatan" I see no evidence this contention...other than "liking being popular" (a natural human characteristic) I cannot fathom your source

    to verify such an assessment...Einstein was reported to have said to Chaplin at a movie premiere of "City Lights"..."I understand why you are so popular, buy why so for myself?" Chaplin

    said..."I'm popular because everyone understands my characters, they "understand" me...you are popular because you are a mystery, and no one understands you!"<(verified by Chaplin and

    others who were present) Did A.E. "use" his popularity and fame to achieve personal goals? Yes! And why not? His only true ambition was to "know" all that can be known of the Universe.

    (he knew this would never happen...but still, it is a worthy goal)

    ......

    You seem to be under the impression that "everyone but you" is being "brainwashed with idiot theories!" I assure you...no one is "brainwashing" me with perverted ideas of "what Relativity

    REALLY means" or that "blackholes" are real and I should accept what the "real scientists" have proven! Or that "time-travel" is possible because "Einstein's own hypothesis' say so" is utter

    crapola! (A.E. NEVER advocated any such possibilities as "time travel" in any respect)

    .......

    As for a "conspiracy among scientists to withhold the truth" from the lay public, it would never work! The real "conspiracy" in modern physics is belief in "Unicorn Theories" of theoretical

    particle-states being induced by the application of tremendous electromagnetic fields...the "Frankenstein" approach to making theory into reality. (It won't work...it will NEVER come to

    fruition because there is no "Free Lunch" in the real Universe and further, you cannot "bypass" the rules of "energy and matter")

    .....

    The "best thing" ever in physics theory is Einstein...the worst thing ever in physics theory is that the "bomb went boom". Everything since '45 is fantastic concoctions of mathematical

    theory to support completely fantastic theories of "what we think is true"...and everyone is forced to believe them all, because "scientists" themselves BELIEVE IT.

    Because the "bomb went boom".

    .....

    FYI...all the power we could ever want or need is right above our heads...the radiant heat of the Sun. Store the heat energy in underground vaults...flash liquid water to steam, and a

    virtually endless supply of electricity is available. Edison knew this, as well as Tesla and Westinghouse...any competent scientist knows this.

    The "status quo" of energy production wants nothing to do with it...because of the money factor, the potential of profit.

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #58  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Gerry N, I have removed the quote mark and will comment in blue print (it seems somewhat more legible than using italics as I did before)

    In reply to tfolzo, re: your #56 post.

    I never advocated that the "special" addendum to the General Theory of Relativity was "right" or "wrong". I DID indicate that Albert himself had little faith in it!!! (did you not see this?)

    As for "Relativity" itself, I see no ambiguities nor built-in fallacies...it is simple, and works in any "frame of reference" no matter the conditions of the frame.

    .....'Special addenda' to GR are obligatory because this SR-based theory has to try to deal with actual observations. Einstein originally claimed the universe was spherical & 26,000,000 lightyears in circumference - an absurdity.

    I DO see "logical paradoxes" in modern QM theory! (at sixty, anyone, including Albert, would have a VERY difficult time convincing me of "semantics as true values of reality" a'la Heisenberg)

    The logical paradoxes in QM derive from SR and from NO other source. They only appear to arise from QM because SR is unthinkingly applied to QM. Remove SR and the confusion of logical paradoxes disappear.

    FYI...A.E. privately thought the idea of "Israel" as separate nation as being "unworkable" unless a consortium of religious and political leaders were formed, each having an equal say with

    regard to the operations of the "State" (he knew this never happen...he turned down being the first "Prime Minister" for this reason, among others) As for being a "Socialist"...if you mean

    this in the context of being a "Social Democrat" you would be close to the mark.

    .....Yes I'd agree Einstein was a 'Social Democrat' i.e. a scheming manipulative reformist 'left-winger' type as you find in the Democrat Party (USA) and in my country's Australian Labor Party - basically an association of swindlers (but don't presume from this that I place Republican or Liberal Party members on a pedestal). Einstein also wanted friendly relations with Arabs - but such relations would only be of master to an order of human beings LOWER than slaves e.g. the Palestinian Authority today which finds it hard to condemn the massacre in Gaza!

    As for A.E.'s "self-promoting, self-aggrandizing charlatan" I see no evidence this contention...other than "liking being popular" (a natural human characteristic) I cannot fathom your source

    to verify such an assessment...Einstein was reported to have said to Chaplin at a movie premiere of "City Lights"..."I understand why you are so popular, buy why so for myself?" Chaplin

    said..."I'm popular because everyone understands my characters, they "understand" me...you are popular because you are a mystery, and no one understands you!"<(verified by Chaplin and

    others who were present) Did A.E. "use" his popularity and fame to achieve personal goals? Yes! And why not? His only true ambition was to "know" all that can be known of the Universe.

    (he knew this would never happen...but still, it is a worthy goal)

    ......Einstein did not need to propagandize for himself, except by manipulation in his formal articles (e.g. the Naturwissenschaft article by using GR to 'explain away' the paradoxes created by SR). For the rabble, his adoring physics groupies & the mass media did it for him. Eric Lerner explains why in The Big Bang Never Happened.

    You seem to be under the impression that "everyone but you" is being "brainwashed with idiot theories!" I assure you...no one is "brainwashing" me with perverted ideas of "what Relativity

    REALLY means" or that "blackholes" are real and I should accept what the "real scientists" have proven! Or that "time-travel" is possible because "Einstein's own hypothesis' say so" is utter

    crapola! (A.E. NEVER advocated any such possibilities as "time travel" in any respect)

    .......If you accept Einstein's SR then you are brainwashed - unless you are consistent and accept the generation of parallel & daughter universes everytime something moves relative to anything else.

    As for a "conspiracy among scientists to withhold the truth" from the lay public, it would never work! The real "conspiracy" in modern physics is belief in "Unicorn Theories" of theoretical

    particle-states being induced by the application of tremendous electromagnetic fields...the "Frankenstein" approach to making theory into reality. (It won't work...it will NEVER come to

    fruition because there is no "Free Lunch" in the real Universe and further, you cannot "bypass" the rules of "energy and matter")

    .....The conspiracy theory exists in the perverted minds of modern physicists. The maltreatment of Einstein's critics - Ritz, Lenard, Dingle to name but a few is proof positive of this conspiracy. The conspiracy today is embodied intellectually in teachings of Karl Popper who, with Einstein's approval, called Einstein 'Parmenides' - but how much Greek philosophy do you know. Einstein knew it all very thoroughly - unlike e.g. cincirob ******** on this website. Before WW1 the conspiracy was disorganized, embodied inconsistently in certain philosophers e.g. Richard Avenarius & Ernst Mach's Empiriocriticism & supporters like Joseph Petzoldt. Einstein's SR automatically organized their drivel into the modern philosophy embodied by Popper e.g. falsificationism, whereby GR must be genuine since it can be falsified whereas the Periodic Table cannot be genuine science since it is soundly based, independently upon both physics & chemistry studies.

    That is, modern science is back to front, favouring speculative drivel like SR & GR over soundly based experimentally-derived results like the Periodic Table, implicitly ridiculing the latter as pseudoscience, though preferring to attack Darwinian evolution which Einstein was very definitely hostile to.


    The "best thing" ever in physics theory is Einstein...the worst thing ever in physics theory is that the "bomb went boom". Everything since '45 is fantastic concoctions of mathematical

    theory to support completely fantastic theories of "what we think is true"...and everyone is forced to believe them all, because "scientists" themselves BELIEVE IT.

    Because the "bomb went boom".

    .....Utter nonsense. The worst thing that has ever happened to physics was Einstein. Galileo got us out of the Middle Ages - but Einstein has thrown us back into the pre-medievalist nonsense embodied in the teachings of the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. The energy crisis is the direct result of Einstein's egotistical, stunted & crippled thinking.

    FYI...all the power we could ever want or need is right above our heads...the radiant heat of the Sun. Store the heat energy in underground vaults...flash liquid water to steam, and a

    virtually endless supply of electricity is available. Edison knew this, as well as Tesla and Westinghouse...any competent scientist knows this.

    The "status quo" of energy production wants nothing to do with it...because of the money factor, the potential of profit.

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Solar panels etc. require a lot of input & maintenance compared to coal-fired power stations, & even nuclear - otherwise people would have rushed ahead with solar, as the money factor would NOT be insurmountable (hence big biz is not interested as you have stated above). Australia could do it - the USA could do it with renewables with major difficulties. Japan cannot do it as her land area is not large enough. This is why renewables are simply inadequate - and why the USA & Europe are greedily eyeing Russian oil & gas - just as they did with Iraq's in 2003!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #59  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    I don't know if Markus posted this here, but maybe he should.

    Modern Tests of Relativity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #60  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    So one again the Doppler Ensemble nature of light!
    Repeating your misunderstandings (even using multiple colored crayons) doesn't make it right. You are as wrong as you have ever been. You have been doing this since 1966, 48 years! Time to give it a rest, you are getting nowhere.

    The maltreatment of Einstein's critics - Ritz, Lenard, Dingle to name but a few is proof positive of this conspiracy. The conspiracy today is embodied intellectually in teachings of Karl Popper who, with Einstein's approval, called Einstein 'Parmenides' - but how much Greek philosophy do you know. Einstein knew it all very thoroughly - unlike e.g. cincirob ******** on this website. Before WW1 the conspiracy was disorganized, embodied inconsistently in certain philosophers e.g. Richard Avenarius & Ernst Mach's Empiriocriticism & supporters like Joseph Petzoldt. Einstein's SR automatically organized their drivel into the modern philosophy embodied by Popper e.g. falsificationism, whereby GR must be genuine since it can be falsified whereas the Periodic Table cannot be genuine science since it is soundly based, independently upon both physics & chemistry studies. That is, modern science is back to front, favouring speculative drivel like SR & GR over soundly based experimentally-derived results like the Periodic Table, implicitly ridiculing the latter as pseudoscience, though preferring to attack Darwinian evolution which Einstein was very definitely hostile to.

    The "best thing" ever in physics theory is Einstein...the worst thing ever in physics theory is that the "bomb went boom". Everything since '45 is fantastic concoctions of mathematical

    theory to support completely fantastic theories of "what we think is true"...and everyone is forced to believe them all, because "scientists" themselves BELIEVE IT.

    Because the "bomb went boom".

    .....Utter nonsense. The worst thing that has ever happened to physics was Einstein. Galileo got us out of the Middle Ages - but Einstein has thrown us back into the pre-medievalist nonsense embodied in the teachings of the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. The energy crisis is the direct result of Einstein's egotistical, stunted & crippled thinking.
    Wooo-wooo. Your condition is worsening, time to take your meds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #61  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well the highlighted statement is correct...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Repeating your misunderstandings (even using multiple colored crayons) doesn't make it right. You are as wrong as you have ever been. You have been doing this since 1966, 48 years! Time to give it a rest, you are getting nowhere. Wooo-wooo. Your condition is worsening, time to take your meds.
    ...and that's something. But had I revealed this fact on this website?

    Time now to present the implications of the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) and its implications beyond merely destroying SR once & for all!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #62  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    But had I revealed this fact on this website?
    Yep, you sure did. You no longer know what you are doing.


    Time now to present the implications of the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) and its implications beyond merely destroying SR once & for all!
    Delusions, delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #63  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Your debased understanding of physics, SpeedFreek, reducing it to the level of Einstein's drivel, Einstein's way of thinking...
    ...is the very reason modern physics has failed in its primary task: discovering practical new energy sources.
    Ummm... no. The primary task of modern physics is to build models of how the universe works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #64  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your posts.

    Where did I mention solar panels? I assume you mean the "photo-voltaic" type that directly converts light energy into electricity? These are good, but not what I meant!

    I meant the use of reflected and focused light energy to heat a media (such as liquid sodium) and storing the media underground...this can and does work very well, and all of the necessary

    technology has existed for years now.

    No, huge amounts of above or below surface land are completely unnecessary. A single "focus tower" would take no more room than a 2000sq.ft. house and would look much like

    an ordinary "high-voltage" transmission tower. The storage bunker of heated media would present no problems either...it's underground and safe (really, just think of a thermos-bottle that

    has a very hot semi-liquid in it) The steam turbines and generators would be as per usual...except there would no longer be a need for dam to act as a "force" reservoir of water head pressure.

    ......

    I cannot argue your "logic?" regarding your assertions concerning Einstein...I have read his works for many years now, and I don't understand the rationales behind your assertions.

    As far as "logic and equations" go (regarding GR) I find nothing wrong. As I wrote before, SR was and is a "special" circumstance which he DID NOT want to "force" upon GR. Do

    really think he was unaware of the problems involved? Everything you mention as rebuttals...he thought of first!

    ......

    Do you really think that "jumping" from one very complex assertion to another and another and another is going to form a basis of "you're right?" No...you must address each issue FIRST

    and EXPLAIN "what is wrong" and then move to another posit...throwing a "bucket of paint" on everything proves nothing except you like to throw paint!

    (Your explanations of "frame differences" are COMPLETELY flawed...and surely you must see this at some point! It does NOT matter I think or you think or what Albert thought...the GR factor

    of "frames" holds true FOR EACH FRAME, not for a melange' of "frames")

    .....

    You have, for instance, COMPLETELY misunderstood "wavelengths" in regard to "c"..."red" is NOT "moving" at a lesser "c" value than "green" or "blue"!!! THEY ALL MOVE AT "C".

    You can easily prove this to yourself! Just think it thru using logic and I promise you...you will "see" this must be so.

    Just saying "all things are wrong, I see it and you don't" will not advance a position. You must establish the "why" something is "wrong" first, and then defend the position w/ logic.

    Telling me "Einstein was a charlatan" is a conjectural opinion...you must support this opinion with provable facts, not mere assertions!

    (repetition of a "mantra" will convince me of nothing...I WANT PROOF!)

    .....

    "Doppler" is a mechanical effect that involves matter...it is not applicable to quantum-energy states, as they have no "matter" to influence with a wave-function from another source.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #65  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to xOx, re: your #60 post.

    Why are you "quoting" my reply to tfolzo as if it were "part and parcel" of his own post? YOUR #60? If you want to reply to me than reply to me!

    (taking what I wrote and then implying that it's part of someone else's post is a NO-NO)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #66  
    Junior Member pzkpfw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    29
    Part of the problem is people inventing their own way of quoting, instead of just using the Quote tags. It gets confusing and confused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #67  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    IOW according to you...
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Ummm... no. The primary task of modern physics is to build models of how the universe works.
    ...this amounts to empty speculation since once you meld space, time & matter together into 'stuff' (what Philipp Lenard called Stoffwahn), you can only get confusion, a deterministic muddle with speculation as to the deterministic course of events that created the universe & its contents.

    So no, physics is about discoveries that can have practical implications (thus logical paradoxes like the twin paradox are intolerable in genuine physics), otherwise physics degenerates (as with Einstein) into empty scholasticism e.g. how many black holes can sit on the edge of a pin."

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #68  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    what Philipp Lenard called Stoffwahn
    Being a little antisemitic like your Nazi idol, TFOLZO? Foaming at the mouth against the "Jewish science" again?

    So no, physics is about discoveries that can have practical implications (thus logical paradoxes like the twin paradox are intolerable in genuine physics), otherwise physics degenerates (as with Einstein) into empty scholasticism e.g. how many black holes can sit on the edge of a pin."
    I have news for you, TFOLZO, the fact that you can sit in front of a computer and spout the garbage you are spouting for the whole internet to see is due to applications of....relativity. Chew on this for a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #69  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Some good replies there Gerry N.
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your posts.

    Where did I mention solar panels? I assume you mean the "photo-voltaic" type that directly converts light energy into electricity? These are good, but not what I meant!

    I meant the use of reflected and focused light energy to heat a media (such as liquid sodium) and storing the media underground...this can and does work very well, and all of the necessary

    technology has existed for years now.
    Yes that is undoubtedly a better method since photovoltaic can convert only about 20% of the solar energy at best.

    No, huge amounts of above or below surface land are completely unnecessary. A single "focus tower" would take no more room than a 2000sq.ft. house and would look much like

    an ordinary "high-voltage" transmission tower. The storage bunker of heated media would present no problems either...it's underground and safe (really, just think of a thermos-bottle that

    has a very hot semi-liquid in it) The steam turbines and generators would be as per usual...except there would no longer be a need for dam to act as a "force" reservoir of water head pressure.

    ......The technology is not yet fully developed & requires large investment. Northerly countries like Japan still cannot produce their energy by such methods since all their land is valuable (forest & agriculture) or very mountainous & earthquake-prone, hence less suitable. Winter heating will NEVER be produced by such means therefore radical new technology is still required - so I stand by my comments that nuclear power of some sort for Japan remains mandatory.

    I cannot argue your "logic?" regarding your assertions concerning Einstein...I have read his works for many years now, and I don't understand the rationales behind your assertions.

    As far as "logic and equations" go (regarding GR) I find nothing wrong. As I wrote before, SR was and is a "special" circumstance which he DID NOT want to "force" upon GR. Do

    really think he was unaware of the problems involved? Everything you mention as rebuttals...he thought of first!

    ......Einstein's logic & equations are OK in themselves as far as I can see, but they do NOT describe physical reality correctly. Rather, they 'inhabit' an abstract fantasy world. And no, he did not rebut critics honestly. Rather than frankly admitting that SR leads to logical paradoxes he only tried to muddy the waters further by introducing GR in a contrived way to make it seem that GR resolves the paradoxes rather than deepening the paradoxical confusion. Read the Naturwissenschaften article again & you'll see how.

    Do you really think that "jumping" from one very complex assertion to another and another and another is going to form a basis of "you're right?" No...you must address each issue FIRST

    and EXPLAIN "what is wrong" and then move to another posit...throwing a "bucket of paint" on everything proves nothing except you like to throw paint!

    (Your explanations of "frame differences" are COMPLETELY flawed...and surely you must see this at some point! It does NOT matter I think or you think or what Albert thought...the GR factor

    of "frames" holds true FOR EACH FRAME, not for a melange' of "frames")

    .....Stuff about 'frame differences' are contrived nonsense. Einstein uses 'reference frames' as a cover up for the 'stationary system', the latter term hiding an ARF. Einstein then pretentiously abandons the ARF to claim SR, but cannot honestly do so since he needs the stationary system to concoct SR in the first place. You haven't understood what you've read. You've accepted Einstein uncritically.

    You have, for instance, COMPLETELY misunderstood "wavelengths" in regard to "c"..."red" is NOT "moving" at a lesser "c" value than "green" or "blue"!!! THEY ALL MOVE AT "C".

    We are speaking here of 3 mutually moving observers, each observing light from a given source moving at c. The colors observed are different, the red color - the longer wavelength - moves faster than the yellow & blue wavelength relative to the source. This is what these observations prove.

    The inane comment 'they all move at C' is merely a brainless denial of the fact that observers can move relative to each other and thus observe the Doppler Effect. You are merely avoiding any implications that will indict SR as BS. The logic you invoke below is mere abstraction designed to avoid considering the issue physically.



    You can easily prove this to yourself! Just think it thru using logic and I promise you...you will "see" this must be so.

    Just saying "all things are wrong, I see it and you don't" will not advance a position. You must establish the "why" something is "wrong" first, and then defend the position w/ logic.

    Telling me "Einstein was a charlatan" is a conjectural opinion...you must support this opinion with provable facts, not mere assertions!

    (repetition of a "mantra" will convince me of nothing...I WANT PROOF!)

    .....I have already established this by invoking a thought experiment with moving observers & common light source. Your complaints about this are trivial & fail to grasp the underlying issues. You just wanna believe Einstein's BS and deny all criticism, prejudiciously declaring all negative criticism of SR invalid without bothering to look at the underlying presumptions - a big task as I found, but an essential one.

    You've got the proof. SR leads to insolvable logical paradoxes e.g. the twin paradox, 'solved' only by hiding the resulting further logical paradoxes from the reader. If you look at the 'solutions' to the logical paradoxes you will see more logical paradoxes hidden beneath.


    "Doppler" is a mechanical effect that involves matter...it is not applicable to quantum-energy states, as they have no "matter" to influence with a wave-function from another source.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Your last claim is absolutely false. Doppler Effect is not some mere 'mechanical effect that involves matter' but is an integral part of quantum theory itself. Even Einstein would have refuted that stupid claim since he based the explanation of the photoelectric effect on the FACT that only shorter wavelengths had enough quantum-energy to cause the photoelectric effects - there was a cut-off point for the effect proportional to the light's frequency/wavelength. And Doppler Effect means change in wavelength with mutual motion - hence it too is a quantum effect. You must have read some 19th century textbook or deduced your BS from Einstein's OEMBS which only treats Doppler mathematically at the end of the text, subordinating it to the SR-BS.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #70  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well with USA's energy shortage & murderous war in both Ukraine & Palestine - the former a cover for the US seizing Russian oil & gas* the way it did Iraq's a decade ago, any resulting nuclear war...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Being a little antisemitic like your Nazi idol, TFOLZO? Foaming at the mouth against the "Jewish science" again?
    ...will very likely see you too (& me but less likely since I live in the Southern Hemisphere**) foaming at the mouth as the nuclear fallout pollutes your food so that you cannot help but retch & foam as your immune system collapses from the radiation damage.

    After all, Philipp Lenard after WW2 (died 1947) predicted that the world was headed for utter disaster under the scientific rulership of Einstein & relativity - this was masked only by the post-WW2 recovery when they all liked to laugh at Lenard. Those who were laughing then are not laughing now! & so...

    TFOLZO

    *A joint-stock energy company set up in Ukraine has as one of its board members, Hunter Biden, son of the Vice President!

    **The global atmosphere largely circulates as two independent cells, any interchange of air occurring mainly with monsoons, hence Northern Hemisphere's fallout will always be heavier given the expected protagonists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #71  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    After all, Philipp Lenard after WW2 (died 1947) predicted that the world was headed for utter disaster under the scientific rulership of Einstein & relativity - this was masked only by the post-WW2 recovery when they all liked to laugh at Lenard.
    Of course he did, he was a good old antisemite, just like you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #72  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Really????
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    I have news for you, TFOLZO, the fact that you can sit in front of a computer and spout the garbage you are spouting for the whole internet to see is due to applications of....relativity. Chew on this for a while.
    The internet is due to the applications of electromagnetism which latter Einstein tried to destroy with SR. Electromagnetism is fundamentally a 3-D theory, whereas SR-BS is fundamentally a 2-D fantasy (i.e. Minkowski diagrams) that generates logical paradoxes & tries to obscure them under nonsense comprised of line drawings.

    If you read White's biography of Einstein coupled with Pais's and especially Highfield & Carter's The Private Lives of Albert Einstein you will see that Einstein absolutely hated electromagnetism! Why?

    Because Einstein's paternal uncle, Jakob Einstein, had invented an electric motor with which he hoped to power the world electrically. It flopped - but Einstein's mother's family had staked their whole fortune on it, reducing the family to destitution, and Einstein himself (age 19) to near suicide. I.e. Einstein felt humiliated by electromagnetism.

    The successful discoverer of this electric motor was instead Nikola Tesla, hence Einstein's initial feeling of inferiority towards Serbs (his wife Mileva & Tesla both being of Serbian origin). Once he got the chumps to believe in relativity, his sense of superiority was restored, his arrogance today reflected in Judeo-Christianity & the Zionist State.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #73  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by OZLOFT
    The internet is due to the applications of electromagnetism which latter Einstein tried to destroy with SR.
    Err, the computer chips are made from transistors. The transistor theory is Quantum Electro-Dynamics, i.e. relativistic electromagnetism. You fail again.

    Once he got the chumps to believe in relativity, his sense of superiority was restored, his arrogance today reflected in Judeo-Christianity & the Zionist State.
    I thought that they did not allow Nazis in Australia. How did you slip through, Goebbels?

    his wife Mileva & Tesla both being of Serbian origin
    Tesla was Croatian. You obviously don't know jackshit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #74  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quantum theory stands alone...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Err, the computer chips are made from transistors. The transistor theory is Quantum Electro-Dynamics, i.e. relativistic electromagnetism. You fail again.


    Tesla was Croatian. You obviously don't know jackshit.
    ...without requiring rubbish like SR. QED is merely a degenerate mathematical form. Transistors did not require SR to be discovered, but rather practical experimental discoveries led to it. Einstein's SR is like a parasitic vine on a tree that claimed that it was holding up the tree.

    Furthermore, as Wikipedia states, although Tesla happened to grow up in what is now Croatia...

    Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia).[14][15] His father, Milutin Tesla, was an Orthodox priest.
    You have a lot to learn x0x e.g. Croatians are Catholics. Preaching falsehoods without checking the evidence is only a symptom of your ignorance. (Even cincirob never fell into a gaping hole of stupidity like that!)

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #75  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozloft
    Transistors did not require SR to be discovered,
    ...but they require QED in order to be designed. Take your Zoloft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #76  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #60 post.

    You keep bringing up the SR addendums to GR...I never mentioned anything that relates to SR at all.

    I don't know the sources of your information regarding Einstein, but the overwhelming evidence that he was a "scheming Jew" has no merit, they are your opinions gathered from

    the school of "gutter journalism" presented as facts.

    If, as you say, A.E. "stole" ideas from others...then from what "source" came his first "white paper" published when he was all of 16 years old!!! Just "who" did he steal it from?

    You are completely "out of your depth" with your assertions that Albert "stole/acquired/misrepresented" his theories regarding the "photoelectric effect". Just "who" could he

    have stolen it from? Lenard? (Lenard HIMSELF DENIED THAT HE CONTRIBUTED ANY "THEORY" IN REGARD TO THIS "PAPER"...He stated "I would never write such a theory...it is far from

    complete regarding the emission process!) <<<<(this appears in print in 1905! and 1906! and each year of his life thereafter)

    Soooo....ummm, you might want to re-think a few of your assertions, at least with comparisons of A.E. and Lenard.

    .....

    A "frame" can be anything you like, they have NOTHING TO DO with A.E. Pythagoras used frames, as well as Newton...draw a square or circle in the sand, throw in three rocks, draw a

    line to each rock...and now you have algebra!!! THAT IS A FRAME!

    .....

    Just exactly WHAT are you trying to prove anyway? If Einstein was completely wrong, and had an agenda to spread a "false doctrine"...then WTF is the "true doctrine?"

    You mean there is no one "smart enough" to figure GR is lies and suppositions??? Hey...guess what? I AM THAT SMART...and the "General Theory of Relativity" (as written by A.E.) is not

    a false doctrine! It IS correct, like it or not!

    (Many, MANY people secretly wish they could disprove it...and after a century, it has yet to happen)

    .....

    Your "interpretations" of the meanings of light-wavelengths is WRONG. Period.

    There is NO DOPPLER EFFECT/AFFECT in regard to light. Period. You are mistaking the limits of human perceptions as a "true condition"...we NEVER SEE LIGHT AS IT REALLY IS!!!

    This is because no chemical is "fast" enough to register "light as it truly is"...in fact it is a strong possibility that "color" is NOT a real attribute of light at all.

    .....

    You look around outside...the grass is green, the leaves on the trees are green, and the sky is blue, and the clouds white, the Sun is yellow.<<<(all of these observations are false/positives)

    ^^^all of these colors only exist in our minds^^^^it is "how we see".

    If the Sun is truly yellow...then why is it "blinding white" after a hard rain? And the sky seems "featureless and faint" as well? Why? Because the rainfall removed much of the particulates

    from the atmosphere, which are almost always present...that is the reason. (our ability to see evolved with "particulates" present in the air, which is readily proved by our perceptions

    of a "red or orange" setting sun or rising sun...the Sun itself has NO COLOR AT ALL! Anyone who has been in space will tell you this)

    .....

    Your knowledge of "Light" needs a lot of work, TFOLZO...you have NO "real knowledge" beyond what you have read! That is NOT enough for someone to be able to tell me "this is how

    it works". (think about this...convert "speed" to a "frequency" with regard to "c" and then tell me "what it could mean". The answer may shock YOU for change!


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #77  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Einstein's SR is like a parasitic vine on a tree that claimed that it was holding up the tree.
    Before you purchase your aeroplane tickets to Stockholm to pick up your Nobel, you really need to study the theory you propose to displace. A gram of data trumps kilotonnes of "thought experiments." And kilotonnes of data crush, kill and reduce your ill-formed notions to sub-Planck-length bits: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

    I find it quite amusing that so many would-be revolutionaries display such an emotional reaction to Einstein. Part of it, I suspect, is pure ego: "If I overturn Einstein, I'll be crowned the greatest physicist of all time!" Of course, these people ignore the century of dedicated effort by many researchers to find weaknesses in relativity, to look for where new theories might take over. It takes ignorance of these experiments to sustain the illusion that a simple thought experiment is going to overturn it all. Blind dedication to the aether, or a "God frame" of reference helps the general effort, too.

    There is frequently a less amusing aspect of the displayed emotion, as has also been mentioned: Plain old anti-semitism. It has motivated many a scientist to decide that relativity must be wrong, from Lenard to the present day. Again, willful ignorance helps; one must be able to disregard with a wave of the hand the incredible mountain of experimental evidence that tells us that SR is correct within its stated domain of applicability.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #78  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    I too wanted to overturn Einstein before.

    But then Maxwell got me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #79  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #60 post.

    You keep bringing up the SR addendums to GR...I never mentioned anything that relates to SR at all.

    I don't know the sources of your information regarding Einstein, but the overwhelming evidence that he was a "scheming Jew" has no merit, they are your opinions gathered from

    the school of "gutter journalism" presented as facts.

    It is not "SR addendums to GR" but GR being joined to SR by Einstein to evade SR's logical paradoxes in the Naturwissenschaften article. The phrase "scheming Jew" is your phrase, Gerry N. You like getting things back to front?

    If, as you say, A.E. "stole" ideas from others...then from what "source" came his first "white paper" published when he was all of 16 years old!!! Just "who" did he steal it from?

    You are completely "out of your depth" with your assertions that Albert "stole/acquired/misrepresented" his theories regarding the "photoelectric effect". Just "who" could he

    have stolen it from? Lenard? (Lenard HIMSELF DENIED THAT HE CONTRIBUTED ANY "THEORY" IN REGARD TO THIS "PAPER"...He stated "I would never write such a theory...it is far from

    complete regarding the emission process!) <<<<(this appears in print in 1905! and 1906! and each year of his life thereafter)

    Soooo....ummm, you might want to re-think a few of your assertions, at least with comparisons of A.E. and Lenard.

    .....Not at all, Lenard's assessment of Einstein science was correct: the explanation of the photoelectric effect is correct. SR is BS. I did not claim that Einstein stole the explanation of the photoelectric effect - you are merely misrepresenting me.

    Rather, Einstein particularly stole the perihelion shift equation from the Gerber-Gehrcke Theory. This theory - as lunatic as Einstein's since it claimed that gravity was propagated only at the speed of light rather than instantaneously - predated Einstein's perihelion claim, along with the perihelion formula, but Einstein did not credit them for it. The question is academic however since their theory, based on SR as forbidding motion faster than light, is as flawed as Einstein's own. I.e. two savage dogs fighting over a bone.


    A "frame" can be anything you like, they have NOTHING TO DO with A.E. Pythagoras used frames, as well as Newton...draw a square or circle in the sand, throw in three rocks, draw a

    line to each rock...and now you have algebra!!! THAT IS A FRAME!

    .....Einstein, like the 3 stooges (Fitzgerald, Lorentz & Poincare) uses reference frames. But Einstein also identifies these with the "stationary system" in OEMBS.

    Just exactly WHAT are you trying to prove anyway? If Einstein was completely wrong, and had an agenda to spread a "false doctrine"...then WTF is the "true doctrine?"

    No, WTF is not the correct doctrine either. The correct teaching to replace SR is the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) whose beginnings are laid out above. It does NOT lead to logical paradoxes like Big Al Einstein's hokey humbug.

    You mean there is no one "smart enough" to figure GR is lies and suppositions??? Hey...guess what? I AM THAT SMART...and the "General Theory of Relativity" (as written by A.E.) is not

    a false doctrine! It IS correct, like it or not!

    (Many, MANY people secretly wish they could disprove it...and after a century, it has yet to happen)

    .....Many have attacked GR because they see it is absurd e.g. Eric Lerner in The Big Bang Never Happened. Even Sir Karl Popper admitted to being unimpressed by GR after Sputnik was launched! Very few have seen through Einstein's key piece of humbug however - SR as outlined in OEMBS.

    Your "interpretations" of the meanings of light-wavelengths is WRONG. Period.

    There is NO DOPPLER EFFECT/AFFECT in regard to light. Period. You are mistaking the limits of human perceptions as a "true condition"...we NEVER SEE LIGHT AS IT REALLY IS!!!

    This is because no chemical is "fast" enough to register "light as it truly is"...in fact it is a strong possibility that "color" is NOT a real attribute of light at all.

    .....Ha ha ha! You'd better read some physics textbooks first Gerry N!

    You look around outside...the grass is green, the leaves on the trees are green, and the sky is blue, and the clouds white, the Sun is yellow.<<<(all of these observations are false/positives)

    ^^^all of these colors only exist in our minds^^^^it is "how we see".

    If the Sun is truly yellow...then why is it "blinding white" after a hard rain? And the sky seems "featureless and faint" as well? Why? Because the rainfall removed much of the particulates

    from the atmosphere, which are almost always present...that is the reason. (our ability to see evolved with "particulates" present in the air, which is readily proved by our perceptions

    of a "red or orange" setting sun or rising sun...the Sun itself has NO COLOR AT ALL! Anyone who has been in space will tell you this)

    .....Do you know what a spectrograph is, Gerry N? You're merely spouting the views of Democritus who believed in primary & secondary qualities.

    Your knowledge of "Light" needs a lot of work, TFOLZO...you have NO "real knowledge" beyond what you have read! That is NOT enough for someone to be able to tell me "this is how

    it works". (think about this...convert "speed" to a "frequency" with regard to "c" and then tell me "what it could mean". The answer may shock YOU for change!


    (Thanks for reading!)
    I've read plenty about light, as you can well see - and that's why I see that the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) is correct & why SR is BS. And furthermore DET is based on the correct equations, Woldemar Voigt's Doppler equation, which Lorentz stupidly hijacked to create his own BS called 'Lorentz Transformation Equations' which supposedly quantify TD&LC (time dilation & length contraction) rather than the Doppler Effect. So think about this, Gerry N - at least when your eyes stop bugging out like organ stops!

    (Thanks for reading - but get some eye-drops too)


    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #80  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings, tk421, but gee, you sound really upset, like a kid who suddenly discovers that Santa Claus doesn't really exist!

    Before you purchase your aeroplane tickets to Stockholm to pick up your Nobel, you really need to study the theory you propose to displace. A gram of data trumps kilotonnes of "thought experiments." And kilotonnes of data crush, kill and reduce your ill-formed notions to sub-Planck-length bits: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

    Sub-Planck-length bits huh! The Planck length. That stuff is hokey. Planck's constant is not linear motion - it is a unit of angular momentum. It is NOT a linear measurement.

    I find it quite amusing that so many would-be revolutionaries display such an emotional reaction to Einstein. Part of it, I suspect, is pure ego: "If I overturn Einstein, I'll be crowned the greatest physicist of all time!" Of course, these people ignore the century of dedicated effort by many researchers to find weaknesses in relativity, to look for where new theories might take over. It takes ignorance of these experiments to sustain the illusion that a simple thought experiment is going to overturn it all. Blind dedication to the aether, or a "God frame" of reference helps the general effort, too.


    That junk, referred to in red, is the application of an absolute reference frame (ARF) whether stagnant ether or Newton's absolute space or "the body alpha": these are all notions referring to the universe as a whole as constituting a reference frame for motion. There is no such thing - nor is there such a thing SUBJECTIVELY as Einstein wants to teach i.e. "nothing can travel faster than light relative to me." Well think again, tk421, objects can and do move faster than light relative to each other!

    There is frequently a less amusing aspect of the displayed emotion, as has also been mentioned: Plain old anti-semitism. It has motivated many a scientist to decide that relativity must be wrong, from Lenard to the present day. Again, willful ignorance helps; one must be able to disregard with a wave of the hand the incredible mountain of experimental evidence that tells us that SR is correct within its stated domain of applicability.

    Ah yes, when nothing else works, accuse the critic of anti-Semitism! You really are desperate! Even cincirob never stooped into the gutter like that - and that was when there was relative peace in the Middle East too!

    As for the supposed "incredible mountain of experimental evidence" in favour of SR & GR. This is meaningless because almost any theory whatsoever can be harmonized with SR&GR because curved spacetime accommodates all sorts of nonsense.

    You want proof?

    Alright! Here it is - from Hawking's book where an old lady supposedly spoke of the earth being supported on a turtle's back, the turtle in turn standing on "turtles all the way down." Einstein's SR&GR (=BS) is fully compatible with that nonsense! Why? Because the spacetime geodesics are curved, hence we can NEVER see the infinite tower of turtles with our telescopes since our light follows the geodesics - i.e. any light from the tower of tortoises cannot reach us! IOW Einstein is licence for 'freedom', empty speculation (like finance speculators) - freedom to speculate without any need to be held to account for logical paradoxes when applied to actual physical conditions.

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-01-2014 at 04:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #81  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Einstein's SR is like a parasitic vine on a tree that claimed that it was holding up the tree.
    Antisemite? Check!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #82  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    You need to ask yourself BWS. Do I support the 3-D electromagnetic Maxwell...
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    I too wanted to overturn Einstein before.

    But then Maxwell got me!
    ...or should I revel in the paradoxical prattle of the Einsteinian relativists? - more superficially exciting I admit.

    Indeed, you remind me of the last chorus of the Rhine-maidens in Wagner's Das Rheingold - & so I'm willing to risk tk##whatsit's anti-Semitic jibes here.

    Rheingold! Rheingold!
    Reines Gold!
    O leuchtete noch
    in der Tiefe dein lauterer Tand!
    Traulich und treu
    ist's nur in der Tiefe:
    falsch und feig
    ist, was dort oben sich freut!

    Rhinegold! Rhinegold!
    Purest gold!
    If but your bright gleam
    still glittered in the deep!
    Now only in the depths is there
    tenderness and truth:
    false and cowardly
    are those who revel above!


    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #83  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #84  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Well um... The foundations that gave Einstein the notion of the speed of light being constant came from what is known as Maxwell's equations. All the relativity deniers that I've seen never mention J. C. Maxwell.

    That's what I meant in a nutshell. Also meaning that, intuitively, I was against relativity before I began to learn more.

    I was also hoping Marku,s or whoever, would make a sticky like the one in TheScienceForum about experimental tests for relativity.

    And uh... like... I don't know what you meant by that Wagner thin. Innocent and stupid maidens? But you myust know, this anti semitism wont get you far cause I am a Druish princess.

    Spaceballs - playing with your dolls again? - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #85  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    And uh... like... I don't know what you meant by that Wagner thin. Innocent and stupid maidens? But you myust know, this anti semitism wont get you far cause I am a Druish princess.
    Funny --- you don't look Druish.

    May the Schwartz (or Schwarzschild) be with you always!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #86  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Good link BWS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #87  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Greetings, tk421, but gee, you sound really upset, like a kid who suddenly discovers that Santa Claus doesn't really exist!
    To discern who of the two of us is upset, one need only to identify who is posting in multiple colours (partly because of an inability to master the quote tag), in giant fonts, and using language like "jackshit". Hint: It's not me. [And one who can't master the intricacies of the quote tag is unlikely possessed of sufficient intellectual endowment to master -- to say nothing of overturn -- relativity.]

    I think you really need to calm down and take your meds. Isn't it that time of the day?

    And after you do calm down, reflect on your entire approach to persuasion: "TRUST ME! i AM RIGHT! EINSTEIN WAS A LYING SOB WHO STOLE HIS IDEAS FROM NON-JEWS! THINGS CAN TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT! REALLY! YOU ARE ALL SHEEP!"

    As a persuasive method, yours fails spectacularly. Instead, here's what you must do to be taken seriously: Show that you actually understand what relativity says. Show that you acknowledge the body of experimental evidence that supports SR. Show where, in that body of evidence, there is nonetheless a loophole that could even possibly allow your ideas to persist. Then present a mathematical formalism that yields specific quantitative predictions of where your physics departs from the known. At the same time, you must show that your formalism is in precise quantitative agreement with existing theory in all of the domains in which existing theory applies.

    If you cannot do that, then all you have is opinion. Opinions might persuade in a pub, but they don't go very far at all in science.

    Now quit foaming at the mouth, quit shouting, and get to work. The sooner you stop acting like an infant, the sooner you'll have a chance of being taken seriously. At the moment, you're being treated like the crackpot you're emulating to high precision.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #88  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    Now quit foaming at the mouth, quit shouting, and get to work. The sooner you stop acting like an infant, the sooner you'll have a chance of being taken seriously. At the moment, you're being treated like the crackpot you're emulating to high precision.
    You may have missed the fact that he's been doing this since 1966. Yes, for the last 48 years!
    His mental illness has long crossed from the acute stage to the chronical one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #89  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    You may have missed the fact that he's been doing this since 1966. Yes, for the last 48 years!
    His mental illness has long crossed from the acute stage to the chronical one.
    Apparently one is given a lot of "alone time" in padded enclosures. I'm just surprised that they're also given internet access.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #90  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    Apparently one is given a lot of "alone time" in padded enclosures. I'm just surprised that they're also given internet access.
    Yes, way too much time. On a different note, his handle is an anagram for Zoloft.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #91  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Pardon me...
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    To discern who of the two of us is upset, one need only to identify who is posting in multiple colours (partly because of an inability to master the quote tag), in giant fonts, and using language like "jackshit". Hint: It's not me. [And one who can't master the intricacies of the quote tag is unlikely possessed of sufficient intellectual endowment to master -- to say nothing of overturn -- relativity.]
    ...but it was x0x who FIRST used that abusive term (here underlined). That is why I highlighted it when quoting his own words. So quibble with him, not me..

    The rest of your nonsense is unworthy of comment.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #92  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Pardon me......but it was x0x who FIRST used that abusive term (here underlined). That is why I highlighted it when quoting his own words. So quibble with him, not me..
    But it remains true that you are, er, fond of large fonts and multiple colours that accompany loud expressions of rage, so the observation remains.

    The rest of your nonsense is unworthy of comment.
    You mean nonsense like requiring you to back up your shouted assertions with actual science? I have no doubt that you lack the capacity to comment, so it is not a surprise that you are taking the coward's way out. It's a standard ploy from the crackpot's playbook. Seen it countless times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #93  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    I had written correctly: "Pardon me......but it was x0x who FIRST used that abusive term.... That is why I highlighted it when quoting his own words. So quibble with him, not me..

    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    But it remains true that you are, er, fond of large fonts and multiple colours that accompany loud expressions of rage, so the observation remains.
    Yeah, but that rage was HIS (x0x's), not mine. I'm merely bringing it to everyone's wider attention - along with Tesla's non-ethnic-Croatian background! And I don't think x0x will be happy that you keep bringing it up, either!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #94  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    That is why I highlighted it when quoting his own words. TFOLZO
    It is an objective fact that the user of large fonts and multiple colours in this thread is almost exclusively you. Trying to shift the discussion away from that fact is not helping your credibility (such as it is).

    As I have said, you have considerable homework to do if you wish to persuade us that you actually something substantial to show for your 48 years of work. Yelling, stomping your feet, calling people names, etc. will not accomplish anything other than to confirm what many suspect.

    You need to address the many experiments that I have linked to. These experiments support SR. That is the reason that SR is accepted by the mainstream science community; it's how SR became mainstream. If you think you've got a superior theory, all you have to do is show it. So far, all you've done is claim it. Well, I could claim that I am the rightful heir to the throne of England, but unless I show it, I'm not going to get the keys to Buckingham Palace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #95  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Now deal with the facts instead...
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It is an objective fact that the user of large fonts and multiple colours in this thread is almost exclusively you. Trying to shift the discussion away from that fact is not helping your credibility (such as it is).

    As I have said, you have considerable homework to do if you wish to persuade us that you actually something substantial to show for your 48 years of work. Yelling, stomping your feet, calling people names, etc. will not accomplish anything other than to confirm what many suspect.
    ...and you might even learn something. A light source & mutually moving observers is a genuine physical situation! Only abstract armchair criticism, designed specifically to defend Big Al Einstein's SR, would deny the setout below as a genuine experimental situation.

    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R (receding observer) >>>
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S (stationary observer - relative to source L)
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A (approaching observer) <<<

    I couldn't think of any simpler presentation than that. The Doppler Effect is real and wavelengths change with observer motion - and they change in a consistent way as you can see from the above. What it is telling us at a deeper level is the internal nature of the photon itself. It evolves; it changes over time as longer wavelengths move FASTER than shorter wavelengths.

    The big issue is that gamma rays & radio waves are involved in this phenomenon too - and thus this is a quantum phenomenon, not some vague 'collective effect of light' or Democritean twaddle about color 'merely being in our eyes.'

    What you DO see tk421 is that this simple observation refutes SR once and for all - hence you do not dare to deal with honestly, but just rubbish it in the hope that no one will listen! And I even bolded the colored stuff so it'll look more like crayons.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #96  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoloft
    It evolves; it changes over time as longer wavelengths move FASTER than shorter wavelengths.
    Few ideas but fixed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #97  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Now deal with the facts instead...
    longer wavelengths move FASTER than shorter wavelengths.
    No. Your assertion is simply contrary to experiment. And thus I do refute thee.

    You still seem reluctant to address the experimental tests I linked to earlier: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

    There, you will find experiments that test your assertion. Your assertion fails. There are tests of the speed of light from moving sources (both terrestrial and otherwise). There are also tests of speed of light variations with frequency. In all cases, SR is correct.

    Your cartoon drawings might impress the other inmates in your institution, but unless and until you directly address the many experiments that contradict your assertions, you will not sway scientists.

    Other advice: Read the Baez Crackpot Index. Study it. Then studiously avoid increasing your score. You have referred many times to hidebound defenders of the orthodoxy, albeit without that exact phraseology. That habit does not improve your persuasivenss.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #98  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkMason View Post
    Now we have to introduce mysteriously twisting rods because perfect rigidity doesn't exist. Even if it doesn't, what causes the rod to twist just because the train is moving over it??
    I haven't read this whole thread so please excuse any repetition that I've introduced.

    Suppose the rod is set to twisting as observed in the ground frame at t = 0. Then since there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid rod you have to take into account the speed of propagation of the stress in the rod that causes it to move. That equals the speed of sound in the rod. When you take into account the speed of propagation using the transformation equation of velocity you'll find out that the speed has one value in the + direction and another value in the - direction. This accounts for the simultaneity. It'd be a good exercise for you to create an example using real numbers. The transformation equations can be found online at The Lorentz transform equations, the addition of velocities and spacetime

    You can take my word for it that physicists are as sloppy as this attempt to prove all of us wrong. Did you not consider that all these things have already be thought of a century ago? Einstein and all the relativists that followed him are extremely smart people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #99  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: virtually any of your posts.

    Are you really this pathological? Or do you just get a kick out of "jerking everyone's chains" by zipping around like a fly on various piles of dogsh*t "sources?"

    Every reply SCREAMS "the Doppler effect is the true aspect of light movement" without any explanation at all...because "you say so!"

    .....

    "I better read some more physics textbooks?" In relation to what? "Color wavelengths?" (you think that "colors" are some sort of mandate of "realness?") You believe only what you

    see and read what others have written and form some ad-hoc coalition of theory that reads like a demented Chinese restaurant menu! Is this "all" you have?

    "Stringing together various aspects of new/old observations" and declaring "I have found the common LINK TO ALL THINGS!" Really? Okay...how does it work? Show me.

    .....

    What is your obsession with Jews and Germans and references to Democritus? You are so far out in "left field" with this I don't even know what the hell it means???

    How about just answering to the physics involved...and leave "war...and rumors of war" out of it.

    .....

    If you have a theory that is even remotely plausible regarding light...WRITE IT OUT, and forget all the addendum crap!


    (Thanks for reading!)
    I gave you something to consider, and you didn't bother to include an answer because you could not form any sort of effective rebuttal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #100  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: virtually any of your posts.

    Are you really this pathological? Or do you just get a kick out of "jerking everyone's chains" by zipping around like a fly on various piles of dogsh*t "sources?"

    Every reply SCREAMS "the Doppler effect is the true aspect of light movement" without any explanation at all...because "you say so!"

    .....No! You can see that for yourself by merely examining my colourful diagrams above. If you deny this then you have to deny the Doppler Effect yourself. No one is coming forward to say that these observations are wrong!

    "I better read some more physics textbooks?" In relation to what? "Color wavelengths?" (you think that "colors" are some sort of mandate of "realness?") You believe only what you

    see and read what others have written and form some ad-hoc coalition of theory that reads like a demented Chinese restaurant menu! Is this "all" you have?

    "Stringing together various aspects of new/old observations" and declaring "I have found the common LINK TO ALL THINGS!" Really? Okay...how does it work? Show me.

    .....I've told you - mathematically via the Voigt Doppler Equations. Even Pais has a section on it!

    What is your obsession with Jews and Germans and references to Democritus? You are so far out in "left field" with this I don't even know what the hell it means???

    How about just answering to the physics involved...and leave "war...and rumors of war" out of it.

    .....I am answering the physics. You're just uncomfortable because Big Al EInstein is being exposed as the prime gangster of the Prohibition Period - the Prohibition on traveling faster than light. (Besides, with Germans, isn't it "right field"?)

    If you have a theory that is even remotely plausible regarding light...WRITE IT OUT, and forget all the addendum crap!

    You can see it here on this thread, Gerry Bul Bul* - the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET).

    TFOLZO


    *Nightingales are called 'bul buls' in the Middle East and in my country!
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-02-2014 at 03:27 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •