beecee

Thanks fellas. Please though, in the interest of my continued learning, please review my own claims and posts. Pretty rough and ready I do realize.

From your link......"A model provides the individual with a structural representation of the phenomenon, allowing him to gain a fuller understanding of it. " What I said in my last post..... "Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from". My claim stands And yet we still use Newtonian system everyday in all aspects on Earth, and still in most space missions that have been undertaken. In fact GR gives the same answers as Newtonian, though far more mathematically involved and obviously with far more precision. Newtonian is not wrong when applied within its zone of applicability. As you perfectly well know, but seem to be in denial, when objects obtain speed, time with it from another frame appears to slow down...that continues at an ever increasing rate as speed approaches "c" until at "c" it literally stops. Even though obviously "c'will never be reached, we/scientists are allowed to apply reasonable continuing logic to extend to "c'. Again a scientific theory is the highest accolade that exists in any particular scientific discipline. But we all know you are aware of that and once again, are being obtuse.....https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html "A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You see that is a part of the scientific method you need to learn about. Scientific theories are based on observations and repeatable experimental results and other empirical evidence. But as observations improve or as we observe further, scientific theories may be added to, modified, and/or totally rejected. On the other hand as scientific theories such as SR, GR, and the theory of evolution, continue making successful predictions, their certainty does grow and they become more set in concrete///evolution for example is as sure as we can really ever get, I'm sure you'll agree. I have told you what a scientific theory is. And obviously practical science speaks for itslef but just as obviously is based on the scientific method in general. Yes they are. Otherwise please show me something that indicates they are not scientific theories. Yep certainly from an external frame point of view, and verified many hundreds of times.... I;m not a mathematician but again, what I will say is that all frames are as valid as each other. We all know the amount of rubbish on the net, so I havn't really checked out your links. But as you and I know, and most all on this forum and the vast majority of scientists, that SR has been validated many thousands of times. Einstein has been, and still is tested everyday and as far as I know has passed with flying colours and both SR and GR are still overwhelmingly the theories/models of choice, simply because they match observations far more precisely then anything else you can care to name, and of course continue making successful predictions. And yes, GR certainly has its limitations and no one has ever disputed that, but it is still the overwhelming theory/model that scientist accept and successfully use. As a lay person and an amateur, like yourself, I would make every effort to know the incumbent model/theory, I would question and wonder why over a hundred years or so that the real professional and experts in that field had not also realized this hypothetical inconsistency, and then if I was still certain that I had found some fault or anomaly, I would sit down and write a proper paper for proper professional peer review. But getting back to reality what you refuse to see is that scientific theories, even those as certain as SR and GR are being continually tested everyday by these aforementioned professionals, and everyone of them would dearly love to be able to find some fault or inconsistency in the task at hand, and guarrentee fame and fortune for themselves for the rest of their lives. Before yo go off half cocked re your thoughts on DM, you would be wise to consider the evidence that does support it. If more evidence happens to come to light invalidating this DM, then I'm sure those at the coal face will be forthcoming with such evidence and have it properly published for proper peer review. .Again do what you need to do to bring any of your mythical objections re SR and as an extension, GR to professional attention. In the meantime I believe you are confusing the Doppler shift with cosmological shift and in other circumstances, gravitational shift. In the meantime SR and GR both at this time stand as unchallenged.

You are being deliberately obtuse again...Again theory and model are synonymous, as I said. Got it? Certainly far better then you are able to predict. And obviously my statements are based on more then 100 years of validation and verification. I answered that. If you chose to be obtuse and ignore answers, that's your problem. But here it is again."Because any logical extension of what we see happen at sub relativistic speeds, can be extended to relativistic speeds and logically be also assumed at "c". And it is certainly far more logical for me as a lay person to accept 113 years of research, tests, experiments, discoveries etc that have supported and aligned with SR/GR, then to swallow the rhetoric of another lay person on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...or even John. " A theory is the highest scientific accolade. Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from. So perhaps with all your self proclaimed knowledge on SR, you should really go back to square 1 and learn proper scientific mainstream accepted standards and definitions. All frames of references are as valid as each other. One of the cornerstones of what you are attempting to invalidate and pretty badly.

113 years actually, but yeah let's wait a year or two or three or three hundred. Oh, and you say it is a theory and not a model? Gee I was pretty sure they were synonymous. Or are you being purposely obtuse again? Perhaps you would like to link me to some reputable company and/or scientific orginization that doesn't use SR but some other model? I'm in and out of here all day to day so I have plenty of time. None will replace SR that is certain....GR? not replace either but possibly in time extended on with a validted QGT. Because any logical extension of what we see happen at sub relativistic speeds, can extended to relativistic speeds and logically be also assumed at "c". And it is certainly far more logical for me as a lay person to accept 113 years of research, tests, experiments, discoveries etc that have supported and aligned with SR/GR, then to swallow the rhetoric of another lay person on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...or even John. I call that delusions of grandeur...no formal qualifications, no hard yards and or degrees etc, no access to particle accelerators or any other state of the art experimental facility, just your own intuition, and pride...sorry matey, that's not what science is based on. You have none, zilch, nada empirical evidence to show any part of SR/GR is invalid or wrong, and you lack any model that predicts, anything over and above the incumbent model/s. That's the state of the nation at this time. For the umpteenth time wrong...firstly the frame of a photon is unrealistic despite your unsupported denial of that fact, secondly as experiments have shown time dilation increases as "c" is approached until, you guessed it, time for want of a better term stands still, thirdly taking the time dilation into consideration and length contraction in the unrealsitic frame of reference of the photon, it could/would traverse the observable universe in an instant. Great!! Bingo!!! So now swallow your pride, and study up on the incumbent theory you are trying to claim fault with, formulate the proper maths, put in the hard yards, the 5 to 10 years and more of blood sweat and tears, accept that your incredulity at what SR/GR has shown us and what it has successfully predicted, is no scientific reason to reject it. The world of science and the scientific methodology proceeds on regardless of the dime a dozen amateurish folk with no qualifications etc and their rhetorical nonsense that they intend to swamp science forums with.

Not true: All theories are at one time or another just simple hypotheticals....They run the gauntlet, gather empirical evidence, make predictions and are conditionally accepted, until an observation or some empirical evidence shows them to be wrong or limited in scale. SR/GR of course have continually done that and as a result like the theory of evolution, are as certain as one could hope for. You know what to do. If you are afraid to put it to the test, there is probably good reason for that fear. No, not really but again that does not invalidate SR/GR which you erronously claim you have done. I mean we can find this sort of nonsense on all science forums, Attempting to show Einstein as wrong is always the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and so numerous that there worth now is about a dime a dozen. There are loads and loads of simply hypothetical papers giving others food for thought. I have linked to them also. But again the vast majority support SR/GR and mainstream for the many reasons already stated, and because they have been through the process of review and acceptance. Your claims have not. I don't treat mainstream as scared knowledge. I treat it as the best theory/model of what we observe at this time. I do though treat those that claim mainstream or an incumbent theory as wrong, with great distrust and cynicism, as I have seen the way they operate on at least three science forums, and on near all occasions some form of agenda or misunderstanding, or aflcition such as "delusions of grandeur" is obvious.

+11111111111!!!!!!

Well in my case as a fellow amateur, when I find another amateur claiming that some part of mainstream science is wrong, and realizing that the mainstream incumbent versions/theories etc, had needed to also run the gauntlet so to speak, and pass muster and repeatable experiments confirming them, like SR/GR, it beggars belief in my opinion. Particularly when that amateur does not have a proper model, does not have empirical evidence of his or her claims, and simply sees the need to spread his or her 'story/fairy tale", on public science forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. In other words avoiding professional scrutiny in most cases and the scientific methodology. Yes, that raises my hackles and makes me stop and think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity Criticism of the theory of relativity: "Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideologicalbases.[A 1][A 2][A 3] Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community.[1] Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. According to some authors, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections.[A 1][A 2][A 3] There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Acceleration_in_special_relativity Acceleration in special relativity[edit] It was also claimed that special relativity cannot handle acceleration, which would lead to contradictions in some situations. However, this assessment is not correct, since acceleration actually can be described in the framework of special relativity (see Acceleration (special relativity), Proper reference frame (flat spacetime), Hyperbolic motion, Rindler coordinates, Born coordinates). Paradoxes relying on insufficient understanding of these facts were discovered in the early years of relativity. For example, Max Born (1909) tried to combine the concept of rigid bodies with special relativity. That this model was insufficient was shown by Paul Ehrenfest (1909), who demonstrated that a rotating rigid body would, according to Born's definition, undergo a contraction of the circumference without contraction of the radius, which is impossible (Ehrenfest paradox). Max von Laue (1911) showed that rigid bodies cannot exist in special relativity, since the propagation of signals cannot exceed the speed of light, so an accelerating and rotating body will undergo deformations.[A 16][B 7][B 8][C 4] Paul Langevin and von Laue showed that the twin paradox can be completely resolved by consideration of acceleration in special relativity. If two twins move away from each other, and one of them is accelerating and coming back to the other, then the accelerated twin is younger than the other one, since he was located in at least two inertial frames of reference, and therefore his assessment of which events are simultaneous changed during the acceleration. For the other twin nothing changes since he remained in a single frame. Much more at both links....

Standing on the shoulder's of a dwarf will not get you very far. Newton obviously meant standing on the shoulders of giants...you know, other scientists, physicists etc, such as in his case Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Copernicus etc..... Bingo!

The choice is yours. And again you have avoided answering the matter which you yourself raised re the supernatural. Why are you now stooping to being obtuse and misquoting? Again any attempt at referencing the frame of a photon is invalid for the reasons already stated and which you obviously avoid. Again science through experiments and observations are able to make logical assumptions. Particle accelerators and other experiments have shown that as we move at speed, and approach "c" time dilation and length contraction are a result and confirmed. We, that is scientists are then logically able to assume what should/does happen at "c' I don't doubt after reading your posts and your mentioning of the supernatural, that you probably really believe that. Ahh again avoiding answering the question/s. ps: I believe actually what will be waiting is a wooden spoon. No you didn't. But hey, I don't really want to spoil your delusional world.

Certainly...and I do my share of dreaming, particularly about where and why the BB banged. But really, all jokes aside, the frequency of amateurs coming to this and other science forums, open to all and sundry and every Tom, Dick and Harry, sees these claimants of having trumped Einstein and relativity, being worth a dime a dozen.

I don't really believe so. But one would I suggest be at least educated in that appropriate discipline and be familiar with whatever he or she is trying to come up with. Seredipity could also play a part. In reality even though Einstein's theory trumped Newton, does that mean he was cleverer then Newton? Perhaps what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants is relevant. Einstein in that scenario, had more shoulders to stand on.

And you stand there claiming to have invalidated SR, and as an extension GR?

Why not simply answer the question, unless I really have got you. None that I know of except of course being a totally invalid concept which will obviously get you know where. Bullshit, Again check out particle accelerators and many other applications of the validity of SR/GR Ahh yes the delusions of grandeur affliction again. Now again try writing up a paper for professional peer review and then be willing to accept the criticism that even SR/GR had to go through before being validated.

That's why I asked you whether you believe in ghosts demons and the supernatural in general etc [which you raised] And the possible afflction being delusions of grandeur in thinking that you have discovered/reasoned and invalidated SR/GR which has been put to the tests many thousands of times and passed with flying colours. Obviously as I already told you we cannot put ourselves in, or even talk about the frame of reference of a photon, but relativity, that theory that has been validated thousands of times, tells us that as we approach "c" [and as shown in experiments many times] time slows down and lengths shorten. Therefor at "c" time should not exist and the photon be able to traverse the universe in an instant. No you can't and be my guest. And again if you are so inflicted with delusions of grandeur, then write up a paper for peer review. You can argue till the cows come home, but you will never invalidate SR/GR simply because we use and apply them every day. SR is the subset or special case of GR without gravity, so you appear to be deliberately constructing a paradox. Try again.

Yes, a point I already made. It appears that we now have some dancing around the issue at hand re SR and as an extension, GR.

It shows that time dilation is a fact as detailed in Einstein's SR. What has this to do with any time flow for a photon? which is non existant.

You say you don't "believe"in time travel, and then claim science is not about beliefs? Time travel is certainly possible at least forward and that is allowed for in relativity. And of course my question was about your beliefs or otherwise in demons, ghosts etc, simply because I saw it as a possible reason for your wayward and incorrect thinking and assumptions. But hey! Again if you believe you have the necessary evidence to show SR and consequently GR is wrong, then write up a paper for professional peer review.

And as long as your self proclaimed knowledge and logic are clouded with afflictions and/or agendas, they will prove to be faulty. Again photons are confined to one speed in a vacuum. Time does not pass for a photon and obtaining speed "c" for anything with mass is simply a no go.

You never heard of particle accelerators? And obviously confirmation of GR [completely] would mean the confirmation [many thousands of times] of SR, since SR is simply a subset or special case of GR.

Nice explanation Janus, as usual. It never ceases to amaze me that after more than a 100 years of SR/GR verification, experimentation and observable validation, by many many qualified, credentialed experts and young up and coming physicists, that we still have those few that despite not having served the time in this discipline, can have the gaul to stand up bare faced and claim they have invalidated Einstein. As an amateur, and no more then an observer in the face of those that claim SR/GR is wrong, I ask myself the following. [1] SR/GR has been put to the test continually for more then a 100 years, and according to the credentialed experts, has passed all tests with flying colours. [2] Why do then so many fellow amateurs, that have claimed to have read up on relativity rather then study it, then assume the mantle of an expert and on equal footing with those that have put in many years of hard yards in studying it. then claim that it is wrong. [3] If these amateurs are so sure SR/GR is wrong, why do they not write up a paper for professional peer review? [4] Relativity has passed essentially every single test to which it has been put for the past 100 years It has literally been tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators, and such, so why should/can any reasonable thinking person accept the rhetoric and claims of an "self proclaimed" amateur? [5] While GR is incomplete, it is not wrong when applied within its broad near all encompassing fields of applicability. [5] In recent times GR has been further put to the test and passed with flying colours, with the discovery of gravitational radiation. [6] SR of course is simply a subset or special case of GR, as even this old amateur knows. [7] When finally science does formulate/discover a more encompassing theory [a QGT] that can be validated as well as GR, it will almost certainly be by some professional, well versed in the finer points of SR/GR, as one of the criteria of any new scientific theory, is first know perfectly the incumbent theory which you are hoping to replace. Likewise science in general for me. And likewise I also do not have any formal education. But I'm not disputing something that has already run the gauntlet so to speak and passed all tests with flying colours. So I say to you, first get some formal education and know inside out, the theory you are trying to invalidate. That is simply wrong and a obviously deceitful claim to make. SR and the more encompassing GR, are put to the test everyday in particle accelerators and many other applications. Again claiming no one has ever searched finding any solution is deceitfully wrong. I'm also no genius and probably further down the genius ladder then you are, but I'm not burdened with delusions of grandeur and fooling myself that I am able to invalidate that which has been continually validated for more then a 100 years. Nothing wrong in thinking certainly, as long as your thinking and self proclaimed logic is not clouded by any agenda and/or affliction. Even as an amateur lower on the genius ladder then yourself, I do know that putting yourself in the frame of reference of a photon is impossible because a photon is never at rest so no such frame exists. I see you mention ghosts, angels etc...Do you believe in such mythical entities? And of course you are mistaking legitimate criticism and pointing out of errors in your thinking for this imaginary emotional hatred claim. So, playing the victim card I see, rather then accept the reasonings/explantions and pointing out of the errors you have made. And of course if you are certain that you have defended your claims and shown they are correct, then why not do the right and proper thing for humanity as a whole and write up a scientific paper for professional peer review. I believe as an amateur I have said enough and the mention of ghosts etc has now enlightened me to some probable cause and reason for the absurd incorrect and invalidated claims you have made.

Again this brings your honesty into question, as Sagan iterates. You can amuze yourself as much as you like, by imagining unscientific and unevidenced concepts, and yes as far as science is concerned, a great majority of that is ridiculous. You sit there all pretentious and claim you find it hard to fathom spacetime, and instead put forth some sort of imaginary omnipotent creature? You fail to recognise that most of which at one time long ago, was unexplainable, unless we invoke some silly omnipotent being, is now explainable by science. No need for your imaginary friend. While science still has a way to go to explain everything, you chose to short circuit that debate by "a god of the gaps" myth. Meaningless indeed. In the meantime science continues on with the task at hand.

Try being honest with yourself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4a7F6dOdlc

Hey Moontanman he was joking! wasn't he?

http://www.oxfordreference.com/page/scienceandtech/science-and-technology Science and Technology Science encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, and technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes. Oxford Referenceprovides more than 210,000 concise definitions and in-depth, specialist encyclopedic entries on the wide range of subjects within these broad disciplines. Our coverage comprises authoritative, highly accessible information on the very latest terminology, concepts, theories, techniques, people, and organizations relating to all areas of science and technology—from astronomy, engineering, physics, computer science, and mathematics, to life and earth sciences, chemistry, environmental science, biology, and psychology. Written by trusted experts for researchers at every level, entries are complemented by illustrative line drawings, equations, and charts wherever useful.

No wrong again. I'm saying that near everything you claim and say is totally bereft of evidence and nothing but unsupported rhetoric and just as obviously driven by some anti science agenda. Oh, and once again to highlight another error or gap in your knowledge or more accurately the lack thereof, science is not about "proof" it is about the best explanation at any particular time, and as observations are extended, may be modified, changed or completely dropped, based on those new improved observations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. (Classical physics also predicts the bending of light, but only half that predicted by general relativity.) Nothing to do with each other?? Again empty rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology More nonsense. But hey! the ball's in your court. Please show me evidence about science hindering progress, and of course evidence invalidating all the overwhelming evidence that supports relativity both SR and GR. I'm a patient man with time at my disposal this morning.