I hereby challenge Relativity and promote Aether.

[studiot]

In principle, I can cook up a GIF of me beating Donald Trump to death with a rubber chicken.

 

 

Please please post this, I can't wait. +1

 

[John Cuthber]

The motions in the GIF, will be following the equations of motions according to Einstein. It will help you to visualize why I don't believe in Einstein.

For that to make sense you would have to produce a GIF of the neurons in your brain failing to understand physics.

 

Please please post this, I can't wait. +1

 

Sadly, I fear this will remain "in principle".

[koti]

Sadly, I fear this will remain "in principle".

 

Not necessarily...I'd just need John to tape himself over a greenbox while beating air to death with a rubber chicken.

 

+1 for:

For that to make sense you would have to produce a GIF of the neurons in your brain failing to understand physics."

[swansont]

I am going to stop you right there.

First error is you said the Electron passes earth at earth clock's 8:00 AM. But in my example I said it would pass at 8:06.

I don't even know how you are getting this backwards-time travel of 7:55 from.

 

I'm going to wager that Janus's numbers are correct, based on a long history of getting it right. You might consider that yours are wrong. They look made-up to me, and more so when your conclusion is that different observers see different results, which is not possible with the self-consistent mathematics in relativity. IOW, you can't just say one thing happens at one time, and another thing happens at another time, based on a whim. That's not science. That's argument by rectal retrieval.

[Strange]

The motions in the GIF, will be following the equations of motions according to Einstein. It will help you to visualize why I don't believe in Einstein.

 

 

Then why not just use the equations.

[quickquestion]

 

 

Then why not just use the equations.

Physical locations of objects will be in the gif. It will be a multimedia. The more physical it is, the better it is. People can argue about equations all day. but it is tough to argue with a clear concise physical representation.

 

 

 

I'm going to wager that Janus's numbers are correct, based on a long history of getting it right. You might consider that yours are wrong. They look made-up to me, and more so when your conclusion is that different observers see different results, which is not possible with the self-consistent mathematics in relativity. IOW, you can't just say one thing happens at one time, and another thing happens at another time, based on a whim. That's not science. That's argument by rectal retrieval.

einstein litterally says object's speed changes their time.

time, is the rate of behavior and change of objects.

my argument is that relativity changes aging, but not time.

 

the gif will make this clear.

 

 

 

For that to make sense you would have to produce a GIF of the neurons in your brain failing to understand physics.

Sadly, I fear this will remain "in principle".

 

A famous person once said "If the first time you hear of quantum physics, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

I modify this quote and say "If the first time you hear of einstein's relativity, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by quickquestion

[Bignose]

I modify this quote and say "If the first time you hear of einstein's relativity, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

Shocking or not, it works. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 (You know, the link I posted in the 1st page of this thread that seems to have been forgotten about.)

 

It is 113 pages of just how damn close the predictions from relativity agree with physical experiments.

 

Until you are prepared to show us how every one of those examples is wrong and you have an idea that can make better predictions, snappy quotes and promised gifs are meaningless. This is how science works. Put up or shit up. Put up by actually showing us your theory in mathematics and how good its predictions are. If you can't, then you need to drop all these claims.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Bignose

[Janus]

I am going to stop you right there.

First error is you said the Electron passes earth at earth clock's 8:00 AM. But in my example I said it would pass at 8:06.

Okay, I see the reason for the confusion. I worked the problem by assuming the electron went from Earth to a piece of cardboard 5 light min from the Earth, leaving when the clock on Earth read 8:00 AM. You had it going the other direction. But your set up was very vague. You never actually stated where the electron is fired from relative to the Earth or when. I just made some assumptions.

 

I don't even know how you are getting this backwards-time travel of 7:55 from.

No backwards time travel. In my set up, the electron starts at Earth when the Earth clock reads 8:00 AM and the cardboard has it own clock reading Earth time as measured in the Earth frame. If the cardboard is 5 light min away, the image of the its clock that you see at Earth left 5 min ago. So if the Earth clock reads 8:00 AM, then the image you see of the cardboard's clock will read 7:55 AM, or the time that that clock read when the light left.

 

In any case, your contention that the electron in its telescope would see the clock at the card board clock as being frozen at 8:00 AM is in error. The electron will still see the clock as Doppler shifted at an extreme rate no matter from what direction it approaches from. Also, what time the electron sees on the cardboard's clock when it starts it journey depends on how far the Electron is from the cardboard when it sets off.

 

No matter how you set it up, you cannot produce a situation where the electron hits the cardboard in one frame and misses in another. If you come to that conclusion you have made a mistake in your application of SR.

[swansont]

 

einstein litterally says object's speed changes their time.

time, is the rate of behavior and change of objects.

my argument is that relativity changes aging, but not time.

 

the gif will make this clear.

 

 

 

Einstein had equations that tell you what the effect is (and the time changes for everything else, not the moving object, if viewed from the object's frame). You can't just randomly assign the numbers to a problem. If your gif doesn't properly use the math of SR, it will be meaningless.

[Sensei]

my argument is that relativity changes aging, but not time.

You started from reading about, hard to grasp for layman, twin's aging thought experiment, and immediately you were put off.

 

You should start from much easier to grasp decay of unstable particles,

where are used Special Relativity equations to predict something which you can actually see on your own eyes in particle detector (which you can build literally today for couple dozen usd)..

I wrote example equations here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104711-we-are-in-the-outflow-of-a-universal-black-hole/page-2#entry982413

Using them you can predict decay energy, velocity, kinetic energy, momentum of newly created particles.

Then compare with what you have in particle detector.

 

A famous person once said "If the first time you hear of quantum physics, the concept does not immediately shock you, then you are not understanding it correctly."

In quote it was "quantum mechanics", not "quantum physics".

 

 

Special relativity is widely used in particle detectors like CERN/LHC, in computer software, to recreate impact of particles with other particles, and production of mesons, baryons, and leptons 2nd and 3rd generation, high energy gammas, etc. etc

Edited April 25, 2017 by Sensei

[quickquestion]

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for, the Relativity movie.

 

I actually realize a gif wouldn't be enough to list all my points. I also laid out the equations I used in case anyone wants to challenge my points.

You have to defeat all of my major points in order to put Einstein in the clear. For instance, point 2. of mine may be somewhat weak, but you have to also destroy points 1,3, and 4. For instance, if you disprove simulation 1, but not simulation 2, my argument still stands.

 

[Strange]

I tried watching your video (I don't usually bother). It shows some fuzzy, handheld and illegible pictures of books and then an incomprehensible and unexplained animation of "bullets". As light doesn't behave like bullets, I don't know what it is intended to show.

 

But, basically, if you are not able to present arguments that are based on the mathematics of relativity (which you clearly aren't), then I think they can just be ignored. All you are saying (again) is: "I don't understand relativity so I am going to make some stuff up which I think proves it wrong".

 

And, again, all this does is demonstrate your ignorance.

[quickquestion]

I tried watching your video (I don't usually bother). It shows some fuzzy, handheld and illegible pictures of books and then an incomprehensible and unexplained animation of "bullets". As light doesn't behave like bullets, I don't know what it is intended to show.

 

But, basically, if you are not able to present arguments that are based on the mathematics of relativity (which you clearly aren't), then I think they can just be ignored. All you are saying (again) is: "I don't understand relativity so I am going to make some stuff up which I think proves it wrong".

 

And, again, all this does is demonstrate your ignorance.

You are demonstrating your ignorance if that is the only thing that you got from my video.

I shall take it to other forums then, if my video is seemingly beyond your comprehension.

PS: There was math in my video.

Edited April 25, 2017 by quickquestion

[Strange]

PS: There was math in my video.

 

 

Great. Then can you present it here.

[quickquestion]

 

 

Great. Then can you present it here.

I did, which was in the video. But apparently 10 mins is too much to watch. I blame it on modern television.

[Mordred]

How about simply following the criteria of our forum rules in speculations on mathematical rigor?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842

 

as a Cosmologist I certainly won't bother listening or watching some video telling me physics is wrong without substantial mathematical rigor and a comprehensive mathematical proof.

 

Videos are a waste of time without showing extensive calculations that a measly 10 minute video cannot possibly cover.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred

[quickquestion]

How about simply following the criteria of our forum rules in speculations 9n mathematical rigor?

My video is math and text.

Math..and text, and some video simulations.

 

A professor teaches using a lecture and powerpoint. My video is like a Powerpoint presentation. You can't simply say PowerPoint is not allowed.

This is my style of teaching. You cant demand that I simply change my style and hand out papers to students. I teach via a certain way that is needed.

Edited April 25, 2017 by quickquestion

[Mordred]

insufficient post your formulas and calcs here. I should not need to go outside this forum to get answers on a speculation model

[quickquestion]

insufficient post your formulas and calcs here. I should not need to go outside this forum to get answers on a speculation model

youtube should work embedded in the forums, at least it is so on my browser.

 

in the video there is dynamic simulations.

what you are suggesting is somewhat absurd. it would be like having an engineering class, but i am forbidden to use a marker on whiteboard, powerpoint or show enginnering videos and simulations.

 

Its like where IP man is fighting that British guy but IP starts winning, and they tell him kicking is against the rules. But that is how IP naturally teaches and fights. You are denying me my style and what I need to succeed.

[Mordred]

And I shouldn't have to load some questionable video that may or may not be hazardous to my computer. Especially one where you quickly move your camera across the pertinant text from some book.

 

Take it from a professional cosmologist all your video does is show how little you understand. Not trying to be insulting but if you wish to prove Eather of any form and Einstein wrong this video doesn't even come close and yes I watched it all

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred

[quickquestion]

And I shouldn't have to load some questionable video that may or may not be hazardous to my computer. Especially one where you quickly move your camera across the pertinant text from some book.

 

Take it from a professional cosmologist all your video does is show how little you understand. Not trying to be insulting but if you wish to prove Eather of any form and Einstein wrong this video doesn't even come close and yes I watched it all

Could you explain why.

Also it is a standard youtube video, none of which are known to be hazardous to any computer.

[Mordred]

For one thing its obvious from that video you absolutely no idea how time dilation works. If you did understand it then you would realize it makes perfect sense.

 

The problem is you refuse to take the time to understand how it works within field theory.

 

Start with mass give the proper definition of mass?

 

Forget all this garbage about an ether and replace ether with fields. Now setup a global field metric using mass density (you can use the Einstein field equations for this setup)

 

then setup your mass distribution, fire lasers through different mass density regions will that laser travel the same rate? absolutely not.

 

Secondly it is impossible to have a static Eather in a vacuum that is dragged by the Earth without being detectable via redshift. Or for that matter having zero thermodynamic temperature influence aka friction itself.

 

Basic physics if you move any body through any static medium you create differential pressure regions. The high pressure zone at the front with low pressure following. Pressure affects temperature.

 

I just proved your theory wrong. Though if you studied the subjects and tests everyone pointed out to you. You would have learned that those tests were testing for that behavior I just described and those results came back null.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred

[quickquestion]

For one thing its obvious from that video you absolutely no idea how time dilation works. If you did understand it then you would realize it makes perfect sense.

 

The problem is you refuse to take the time to understand how it works within field theory.

 

Start with mass give the proper definition of mass?

 

Forget all this garbage about an ether and replace ether with fields. Now setup a global field metric using mass density (you can use the Einstein field equations for this setup)

 

then setup your mass distribution, fire lasers through different mass density regions will that laser travel the same rate? absolutely not.

 

Secondly it is impossible to have a static Eather in a vacuum that is dragged by the Earth without being detectable via redshift. Or for that matter having zero thermodynamic temperature influence aka friction itself

If space is a vacuum, then what is the point of science supporting Tepler's idea of using a rotating large cylinder to warp space.

If space is nothing, then what is the stuff being warped and moved by the cylinder.

 

Now for the time being, lets forget about aether just for sake of debate. Can you salvage Einstein's theory after i tried to defeat it with paradoxes 1.2.3. and 4. in the video? As well as both experiments 1 and 2? Aether was not a key requirement for those points.

 

Secondly it is impossible to have a static Eather in a vacuum that is dragged by the Earth without being detectable via redshift. Or for that matter having zero thermodynamic temperature influence aka friction itself

 

Now, you have to be more specific.

Vacuum dragged by Earth? I don't understand. Aether is not a vacuum.

It is too early in the game to talk about thermodynamics at this stage. All I can say is...mainstream science says "Light has no mass...yet has thermodynamic influence as well as influenced by gravity"...Seems like these rules are fairly mysterious and flexible.

 

Start with mass give the proper definition of mass?

 

Mass shouldn't matter in this context, because according to Einstein time dilation is the same regardless of mass (except in the sense that apparently you can't reach c if you have mass.)

 

 

Forget all this garbage about an ether and replace ether with fields. Now setup a global field metric using mass density (you can use the Einstein field equations for this setup)

 

then setup your mass distribution, fire lasers through different mass density regions will that laser travel the same rate? absolutely not.

 

This is getting off track, but yes laser will travel slower through different mass regions. But this does not directly prove or directly disprove my points.

[Mordred]

Light has no rest mass it still has inertial mass

If space is a vacuum, then what is the point of science supporting Tepler's idea of using a rotating large cylinder to warp space.

If space is nothing, then what is the stuff being warped and moved by the cylinder.

 

Now for the time being, lets forget about aether just for sake of debate. Can you salvage Einstein's theory after i tried to defeat it with paradoxes 1.2.3. and 4. in the video? As well as both experiments 1 and 2? Aether was not a key requirement for those points.

 

Now, you have to be more specific.

Vacuum dragged by Earth? I don't understand. Aether is not a vacuum.

It is too early in the game to talk about thermodynamics at this stage. All I can say is...mainstream science says "Light has no mass...yet has thermodynamic influence as well as influenced by gravity"...Seems like these rules are fairly mysterious and flexible.

 

Mass shouldn't matter in this context, because according to Einstein time dilation is the same regardless of mass (except in the sense that apparently you can't reach c if you have mass.)

 

This is getting off track, but yes laser will travel slower through different mass regions. But this does not directly prove or directly disprove my points.

All of the above can be answered if you stop to think.

 

Take an electric field for example. Have you ever heard the term "propogation delay" ie you can slow down signals via an electromagnetic field?

 

Mass is "resistance to inertia change"

 

Spacetime is a geometry that describes freefall motion. Fields can and do interact and interfere with kinematic motion via their respective coupling constants

Edited April 25, 2017 by Mordred

[quickquestion]

Light has no rest mass it still has inertial mass

Ok but have we ever observed light resting? I thought it automatically travelled at or near C at all times.