The rights and wrongs of Henri Bergson

[studiot]

I am starting this as a split from Mordred's what is space topic as the subject has been broached.

 

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Spacetime is a concept mostly arising from the theory of Relativity. Phenomenologically speaking , either time does NOT exist ( almost implied within QM ) or there is an essence or entity or whatever truly existing by the name of "time" which fundamentally goes against the grain of Space. Space cannot be intrinsically grafted onto Time to provide for Relativity a hybrid by the name of Spacetime or Timespace. 

They are two differing entities not even hypothetically mathematically capable of merging together the way Minkowski wanted them to. Even worse was Dr Einstein's arbitrary adopting them into his own theory of Relativity through the artificiality of having a Riemannian ambience. I suggest reading most of the critique made by Prof Henri Bergson on Einsteinian mannerism of dealing with Time and Spacetime. 

These catastrophic events of going from the flat space of the much laboriously worked-on special theory of relativity to the queer curvature of spacetime in General Relativity are still affecting us in dealing with yet other problematics such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, worm holes, negative energy, etc, etc... pushing us to be coerced into focusing hundreds or even thousands of much-energy-taking articles and books on yet another grotesque being by the name of Quantum Gravity. 

Then, come in the issues of pair-production threshold for gamma rays and of the photon-production threshold(s) for cosmic rays even when at Planck-Scale effects might be perceived as new paths for modern physics. Here even departures from Lorentz symmetry can take place,, and a very valuable type of particles physics processes to be brought in here are the ones that are totally forbidden in a STANDARD special-relativistic setup. I personally believe there is every reason why we should name all of the abovementioned processes "anomalous". 

 

I am doing my best not to go further and further into the noxious consequences of accepting spacetime (curvature). We have even had to dilate and contract time when this hinges onto the fixed speed of light. There many other anomalies, too. But enough of it all FOR NOW.          

...................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Very Dear Moderator

Many many thanks for your hint. I feel now quite free to open and distend this topic in even better format (elsewhere) .......

 

Henri Bergson's disagreement with Einstein is nearly one hundred years into the past.

HB was observably wrong in at least the twins paradox.

Quote

Bergson

If we said that
the first flow lasted two hundred years, the other flow will also last two hundred years.
Peter and Paul, earth and projectile, will have gone through the same duration and
aged equally”

However he was right in this

Quote

Bergson

“Practically we perceive only the past

 

His metaphysics made matters worse rather than better in that he introduced two kinds of time !

I had to check with my copy to make sure you were not referring to another philosopher, Professor Berkson, whose book "Fields of Force" offers a rather different view.

I don't think that either Bergson or yourself understand what I meant by " without an underlying coordinate system", particularly as Bergson used 'duration' differently.

It is possible to mathematically replicate Special Relativiety (SR) without any coordinate system whatsoever by means of a network of linked invariants.
This difference is the difference between Euclidian geometry and that of DeCartes.

 

I look forward to your discussion.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by studiot

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have started a new thread here for your convenience,

containing my answer to your comments

 

I am glad that "interlocutor" Studiot is conversant with Bergson's discourse. I am , however , sorry that (s)he is in the thinking groove that whoever lived many years ago , even one-and-a-half centuries ago , must needs be wrong as compared with anybody who outlasted him. Are Newton and Leibnitz , and their calculus , wrong simply because they belonged to centuries ago  ??  !! The Cartesian/Euclidian analogy is totally out of order here. 

 

I am very grateful that (Lady) Studiot has gone to the length of searching through Professor Berkson's important writing(s) , too. This is a direct proof of her care for what she wishes to (dis)prove. 

 

Lady Studiot accuses not only me but also Prof Henri Bergson of not being able to understand her statement(s) ; she writes : 

Quote : 

"I don't think that either Bergson or yourself understand what I meant by " without an underlying coordinate system", particularly as Bergson used 'duration' differently." [ end of quote )  

 

In point of fact , it is Prof Bergson's differing understanding of Duree\Duration that distinguishes him as the forerunner in marking time as a non-Mathesis , outside-of-coordinances thing-in-itself , not at all capable of being amalgamated so awkwardly with space to give birth to an extremely contra-intuitionistic pre"assumption famed by the name of Spacetime. 

 

A chain of linked invariants itself makes an Absolute as far as phenomenological and epi-phenomenological differences in between Time and Space are concerned.  

 

I  am also very  thankful indeed  to (Lady) Studiot for bringing into this present constructive discussion the weakest , least defensible segment of Prof Einstein's argumentation methodology : that is to say , the dilation   !!  and contraction !! of Time (as a result of his maintaining the light speed constant )......... 

 

REZA SANAYE

 

  

[studiot]

@Prof Reza Sanaye

I cannot imagine why, when the moderator told you to start another thread and I helped by doing so you are continuing to wish to discuss spactime in a thread where the original poster quite clearly and specifically said he was discussing space as distinct from spacetime.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

@Prof Reza Sanaye

I cannot imagine why, when the moderator told you to start another thread and I helped by doing so you are continuing to wish to discuss spactime in a thread where the original poster quite clearly and specifically said he was discussing space as distinct from spacetime.

Now this is an obvious misbehavior in the game . . .  

 

You Ladyship knows full well that you urgently asked me for a reply to/discussion of  your own statements AND that I did exactly the same thing .. . .  

 

 

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

)......... 

REZA SANAYE  

Wow! I certainly wish that you would modify your use of the English language, in line with that generally used everyday in the 21st century.

Onto the subject matter, I was certainly unaware of Henri Bergson until I googled the name...ahh, another philosopher I see. Albert of course is well known, as he should be. 

There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it. Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.

Attributed to Richard Feynman.

 

Apologies to my Philosophy friends. 

45 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

. I am , however , sorry that (s)he is in the thinking groove that whoever lived many years ago , even one-and-a-half centuries ago , must needs be wrong as compared with anybody who outlasted him.  

Obviously, not necessarily all people and/or all theories must indeed be wrong, but just as obviously most are. Even the great Isaac Newton, who you actually raised as an example, also said that he only saw as far as he did, because he was standing on the shoulders of giants. I will as a nobody add to that by saying that science is a discipline in eternal progress.

51 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

"I don't think that either Bergson or yourself understand what I meant by " without an underlying coordinate system", particularly as Bergson used 'duration' differently." [ end of quote )  

 The validity and benefits of both SR and GR have continually gained momentum, and knowledge/data through the years, and as even in recent times, had predictions verified. [gravitational waves and BH's] 

53 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

not at all capable of being amalgamated so awkwardly with space to give birth to an extremely contra-intuitionistic pre"assumption famed by the name of Spacetime. 

 

A chain of linked invariants itself makes an Absolute as far as phenomenological and epi-phenomenological differences in between Time and Space are concerned.    

Space is simply what exists between you and me, the planets and galaxies. Time is what stops everything from happening together, or a means of measuring intervals between sequential events.

Spacetime is the unified multidimensional framework constructed by Minkowski and which we locate events, and describe them in terms of the three spatial dimensions and that of time.  The necessity of spacetime, follows from the fact that the speed of light is constant. Intervals of Spacetime considered separately by different observers, vary and are not the same. And finally and most importantly, in GR, gravity is described and evident in the curvature and warping of spacetime.

Rest assuredly that we have no universal NOW.

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I  am also very  thankful indeed  to (Lady) Studiot for bringing into this present constructive discussion the weakest , least defensible segment of Prof Einstein's argumentation methodology : that is to say , the dilation   !!  and contraction !! of Time (as a result of his maintaining the light speed constant ).........   

If that means what I think it means, it is then categorically, totally wrong. Time dilation and contraction are experimentally verified. Our GPS systems and other data attest to that fact. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Intervals of Spacetime considered separately by different observers, vary and are not the same

Slight misunderstanding there.

It is the spacetime intervals tha are invariant ie measured or reckoned the same by all (inertial) observers.

Both space intervals (ie lengths) and time intervals (ie durations) vary with observer.

Remember, Mordred started this thread to discuss space as separate from time.
He refers to space as 'volume' , wghich is a pretty fair description.

You are correct that Minkowski invented spacetime, (but then unfortunately died.)

Edited February 24, 2021 by studiot

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Slight misunderstanding there.

It is the spacetime intervals tha are invariant ie measured or reckoned the same by all (inertial) observers.

Both space intervals (ie lengths) and time intervals (ie durations) vary with observer.

Remember, Mordred started this thread to discuss space as separate from time.
He refers to space as 'volume' , wghich is a pretty fair description.

You are correct that Minkowski invented spacetime, (but then unfortunately died.)

Off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin! 😬 What I should have said is, Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, but the spacetime interval, is invariant. Thanks for that pick-up.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Now this is an obvious misbehavior in the game . . .  

 

You Ladyship knows full well that you urgently asked me for a reply to/discussion of  your own statements AND that I did exactly the same thing .. . .  

 

 

My apologies, it was nothing personal nor a trick.

I realise now that I must have got mixed up trying to set up this thread and introduce the appropriate background posts from the 'space' thread.

You did in fact reply here not there.

So the mix up was totally my fault.

The point is that we are supposed to stay on 'topic here'. So discussion of spacetime invariants and coordinates are off topic in a thread about space.

 

Now consider the following network of 5 points and the geometric figure they describe.

 

The geometric figure is quite independent of any coordinate system.
This is a basic property of Euclidian geometry, which is primarily about shape.
Wherever you place this shape and in whatever orientation it remains the same.

This is not true of the geometry of Descartes since as you move it about or turn it round the coordinates of each of the 5 points will, in general, change, although the distance between each point remains invariant.

This difference is also common to a network of points in the spacetime of special relativity.
The interval between each point does not vary so the whole of spacetime could be described, without a coordinate sytem at all.
Just a simple list of intervals. The network is fixed.

[geordief]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The interval between each point does not vary so the whole of spacetime could be described, without a coordinate sytem at all.
Just a simple list of intervals. The network is fixed.

How would you organize the collection of  spacetime intervals intervals so as to potentially turn them back into a reality?

Would you have a local origin(the start of the first interval) corresponding to the apex of a light cone?

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I  am also very  thankful indeed  to (Lady) Studiot for bringing into this present constructive discussion the weakest , least defensible segment of Prof Einstein's argumentation methodology : that is to say , the dilation   !!  and contraction !! of Time (as a result of his maintaining the light speed constant )......... 

Time dilation - both the kinematic and gravitational kinds - is arguably the single most extensively tested phenomenon in the history of physics, and is being directly utilised/accounted for in a large number of engineering applications, some of which are common household items which we all use. Also, some features of our everyday world are direct results of special relativity, such as the colour of some metals for example.

Given this, why do you think the idea is “indefensible”? To me, that’s kind of like saying that the idea that the best shape for car tyres is “round”, is indefensible. It doesn’t make any sense to me to claim such a thing.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

During daily scheduled airlines, Hafele and Keating flown cesium beam nuclear times in October 1971 twice around the world, once eastwards and once westwards. The gravity time dilation and the movie time dilation are considerable - and indeed they are of comparable magnitude in this experiment. The effects of time dilation were predicted and calculated as follows:

Predicted: Time difference in ns between the ground base main  clock and the average time as registered by the 4 clocks going west & east :

                      Eastward           Westward

Gravitational  144 +/- 14            179 +/- 18

Kinematic     -184 +/- 18            96 +/- 10

Predicted global   -40 +/- 23            275 +/- 21

Observed:           -59 +/- 10             273 +/- 21

 the gravitational time dilation might be different due to lower flight trajectory in the eastward flight...but somebody should clarify..

Why should the dilation of cinematic time in both directions be so different? In both instances the aircraft flew to the Earth at around the same velocity as the atomic clock...

1) no idea how these contributions G and K were isolated

2) no idea how the clock on the plane which has larger speed than the clock on Earth can possibly be not dilated but have faster pace in the westward journey and is instead dilated in the eastward. 

 

When it comes to  modelling  : 

A non-systematic Pioneer anomaly can be successfully modeled with its tacit violation, both of the theory of the weak equivalence of general relativity (re: 'low' mass bodies only) and of the Newtonian inverse square law. Those theoretical obstacles and different obstructive limits, including the low level of the pre-Saturn anomaly in Pioneer 11, have not been (to date) persuasively modelled. 

 

As for the philosophy of science behind it all :  

 Lorentz Transformations are proclaimed to be non-orbital and only in certain parts of orbital motion. These mistakes can only be published without proof as normal if people  are brainwashed and impacted by lack of studies! Anyone who argues such oxymoron must show where the smallest amount of space in the Special Relativity has been specified in which a section is declared a segment of a straight line and the application of LT to that segment only has been restricted. Cannot be found anywhere !
If you conclude that the  Lorentz transformation  does not apply to the entire curve, that means that there is no particular relativity and that is the end of the story. In any event, special relativity loses. The synchronization of clocks is fun to be looked at and examined even more closely  as it is crystal-clear  that in his 1905 paper on special relativity, the religious Charisma hero, Dr Albert Einstein, used a misleading synchronization process.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Prof Reza Sanaye

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If you conclude that the  Lorentz transformation  does not apply to the entire curve, that means that there is no particular relativity

I do not understand this.
1) Would you like to amplify this ?
Lorenz effects only apply to components in the direction of (relative) motion.
Any curve by its own nature has components both in this direction and perpendicular to this direction, at which point the Lorenz effect is precisely zero.

Relativity and the Principle of Relativity goes way back centuries before Einstein.
2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ?

 

23 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

The synchronization of clocks is fun to be looked at and examined even more closely  as it is crystal-clear  that in his 1905 paper on special relativity, the religious Charisma hero, Dr Albert Einstein, used a misleading synchronization process.

3) What exactly do you find wrong with synchronisation as described in the 1905 paper?
I certainly find one has to flip back and fore between pages and sections to correlate it all  - and then it all makes perfect sense to me, but I admit it is difficult to explain.

 

Three specific questions about some rather waffly and unsubstantiated assertions on the subject.

I hope Dr Swanson will comment of your thoughts about the H-K experiment and many subsequent repeats, some of which I believe he has participated in.
This terrority is his kingdom.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

Quote from Studiot : 

"I hope Dr Swanson will comment of your thoughts about the H-K experiment and many subsequent repeats, some of which I believe he has participated in.
This terrority is his kingdom. "

{ End of Quote//Emphasis mine } 

 

I am eagerly waiting for Dr Swanson to opine on it all  .. . .. .. 

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

I am eagerly waiting for Dr Swanson to opine on it all  .. . .. .. 

As I am eagerly awaiting your answers to my questions.

🙂

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

As I am eagerly awaiting your answers to my questions.

🙂

First , ( and foremost ! )  :  

My Respectable lady ; 

Relativity and the Principle of Relativity does NOT  go way back centuries before Einstein. I am sorry to let you know that you cannot possibly "legitimize" a hotchpotch of assumptions by Dr Einstein [ in the format of Relativity ] by according it with a background of centuries-old-established literature. If it was that ancient , then what did Prof Albert Einstein really manage to do ??  ! 

 

Second :  

You ask me : 

"2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ?" 

My reply : Albert Einstein's Relativity 

 

Third : 

Please do not hesitate  (as some sort of priming , at least ) ; to have a look at : 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283225134_Einstein's_variable_speed_of_light_and_his_enforced_wrong_synchronization_method 

 

Regards, 

Reza

 

 

[studiot]

59 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

First , ( and foremost ! )  :  

My Respectable lady ; 

Relativity and the Principle of Relativity does NOT  go way back centuries before Einstein. I am sorry to let you know that you cannot possibly "legitimize" a hotchpotch of assumptions by Dr Einstein [ in the format of Relativity ] by according it with a background of centuries-old-established literature. If it was that ancient , then what did Prof Albert Einstein really manage to do ??  ! 

 

Second :  

You ask me : 

"2) So what particular relativity did you have in mind ?" 

My reply : Albert Einstein's Relativity 

 

Third : 

Please do not hesitate  (as some sort of priming , at least ) ; to have a look at : 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283225134_Einstein's_variable_speed_of_light_and_his_enforced_wrong_synchronization_method 

 

Regards, 

Reza

 

 

 

I have found it helpful to have a copy of the 1905 paper always to hand since we get a steady stream of new members who have 'definitely and positively refuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity'.
Many of these have never read the paper properly or can answer the simple question "Why does the paper title not refer to Relativity at all ?"

Here are some comment's to answer your assertions that Special Relativity is incorrect.

Like most refutations yours seems to be focused on refuting what Einstein did not say, rather than what he did.

So to start with a quote from what he actually said (the 1905  paper  "On the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies June 30th 1905")

 

Quote

It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics… when applied to moving bodies leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena……

 

Examples of this sort, together with unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereinafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies.  ………..

 

I will try to explain just how well thought out and put together these few words are and that they really do justify the claim in the final line that these two postulates are in effect all you need to know.

 

1)

First note that Einstein acknowledges preceding work and that a weaker Principle of Relativity (for mechanical systems) was already known.

 

His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones.

 

2)

He recognises that further postulates must perforce be compatible with the first.
Since there are only two postulates this means that they must be compatible with each other.

 

3)

He then posits his second postulate which introduces the speed of light as c but note that he does not say this is constant, just definite. Note also that he does not say explicitly that c is the same for all observers.

 

These are the three key steps that must be taken as a whole to understanding SR.

 

The rest of the paper is devoted to the consequences of these three steps taken together. It is here he develops the ad hoc Lorenz equations, the equality of the c for all observers and other important things, which includes the constancy of c as a necessity built into the mathematical model developed.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I have found it helpful to have a copy of the 1905 paper always to hand since we get a steady stream of new members who have 'definitely and positively refuted Einstein's Theory of Relativity'.
Many of these have never read the paper properly or can answer the simple question "Why does the paper title not refer to Relativity at all ?"

Here are some comment's to answer your assertions that Special Relativity is incorrect.

Like most refutations yours seems to be focused on refuting what Einstein did not say, rather than what he did.

So to start with a quote from what he actually said (the 1905  paper  "On the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies June 30th 1905")

 

 

 

 

I will try to explain just how well thought out and put together these few words are and that they really do justify the claim in the final line that these two postulates are in effect all you need to know.

 

 

1)

First note that Einstein acknowledges preceding work and that a weaker Principle of Relativity (for mechanical systems) was already known.

 

 

His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones.

 

 

2)

He recognises that further postulates must perforce be compatible with the first.
Since there are only two postulates this means that they must be compatible with each other.

 

 

3)

He then posits his second postulate which introduces the speed of light as c but note that he does not say this is constant, just definite. Note also that he does not say explicitly that c is the same for all observers.

 

 

These are the three key steps that must be taken as a whole to understanding SR.

 

 

The rest of the paper is devoted to the consequences of these three steps taken together. It is here he develops the ad hoc Lorenz equations, the equality of the c for all observers and other important things, which includes the constancy of c as a necessity built into the mathematical model developed.

Many thanks for affirming and confirming me , , ,,  ,, ,,, , , ,, 

 

Quote : 

"His first Postulate extends this to non-mechanical ones." { end of quote }

by "His" you certainly mean Mr Einstein's . . .  ...  

I am ( like you ) asserting that Prof Einstein was working on a number of Postulates[ and self-asseverated axioms ]  , , ,, ,,That's it . .. . . ..  .

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

That's it . .

That certainly is it for me.

This discussion is just a futile windup.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

That certainly is it for me.

This discussion is just a futile windup.

I should hardly think so . . . .

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

During daily scheduled airlines, Hafele and Keating flown cesium beam nuclear times in October 1971 twice around the world, once eastwards and once westwards. The gravity time dilation and the movie time dilation are considerable - and indeed they are of comparable magnitude in this experiment. The effects of time dilation were predicted and calculated as follows:

Predicted: Time difference in ns between the ground base main  clock and the average time as registered by the 4 clocks going west & east :

                      Eastward           Westward

Gravitational  144 +/- 14            179 +/- 18

Kinematic     -184 +/- 18            96 +/- 10

Predicted global   -40 +/- 23            275 +/- 21

Observed:           -59 +/- 10             273 +/- 21

 the gravitational time dilation might be different due to lower flight trajectory in the eastward flight...but somebody should clarify..

 

Both the in-flight and layover durations were not the same, so one would expect to accumulate a different timing discrepancy, since it's the product of frequency and duration.

 

4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

1) no idea how these contributions G and K were isolated

2) no idea how the clock on the plane which has larger speed than the clock on Earth can possibly be not dilated but have faster pace in the westward journey and is instead dilated in the eastward. 

1. Isolated in the theory. This particular experiment could not fully distinguish between them, but by flying in opposite directions and thus having two different speeds, it shows the kinematic effect quite clearly when comparing the two data sets, and both being consistent with the overall confirms the gravitational effect. (and, of course, we have other experiments we could look at)

2. Clocks on the ground are not at rest; since the earth rotates it is not an inertial reference frame. Clocks moving east move the fastest. (if the plane flew at the right speed, a westbound plane could have zero velocity with respect to a quasi-inertial observer at rest with respect to the earth. The effect of the orbital path not being inertial is very small here and ignored.)

 

3 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Relativity and the Principle of Relativity does NOT  go way back centuries before Einstein.

Galileo 1632 vs Einstein 1905. I'd say that's centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Both the in-flight and layover durations were not the same, so one would expect to accumulate a different timing discrepancy, since it's the product of frequency and duration.

 

1. Isolated in the theory. This particular experiment could not fully distinguish between them, but by flying in opposite directions and thus having two different speeds, it shows the kinematic effect quite clearly when comparing the two data sets, and both being consistent with the overall confirms the gravitational effect. (and, of course, we have other experiments we could look at)

2. Clocks on the ground are not at rest; since the earth rotates it is not an inertial reference frame. Clocks moving east move the fastest. (if the plane flew at the right speed, a westbound plane could have zero velocity with respect to a quasi-inertial observer at rest with respect to the earth. The effect of the orbital path not being inertial is very small here and ignored.)

 

Galileo 1632 vs Einstein 1905. I'd say that's centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

If we still cannot distinguish Galilean understanding of Relativity from Prof Einstein's take of it , I have to say we are in Big Big Trouble . . . . . . . .

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If we still cannot distinguish Galilean understanding of Relativity from Prof Einstein's take of it , I have to say we are in Big Big Trouble . . . . . . . .

That’s not what I said. I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what I said. I don’t know how you come to this conclusion.

Sir ! 

You are very clearly saying : {Quote} : "that is centuries" . .  .. .

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Sir ! 

You are very clearly saying : {Quote} : "that is centuries" . .  .. .

Yes.  

What YOU said was 

13 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

If we still cannot distinguish Galilean understanding of Relativity from Prof Einstein's take of it , I have to say we are in Big Big Trouble . . . . . . . .

I don't see anything in there about the time gap; you are clearly discussing the concept, not the timing. I never discussed the conceptual details or suggested they could not be distinguished. 

Do better.

[beecee]

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Rest assuredly that we have no universal NOW.

If that means what I think it means, it is then categorically, totally wrong. Time dilation and contraction are experimentally verified. Our GPS systems and other data attest to that fact. 

 

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Time dilation - both the kinematic and gravitational kinds - is arguably the single most extensively tested phenomenon in the history of physics, and is being directly utilised/accounted for in a large number of engineering applications, some of which are common household items which we all use. Also, some features of our everyday world are direct results of special relativity, such as the colour of some metals for example.

Given this, why do you think the idea is “indefensible”? To me, that’s kind of like saying that the idea that the best shape for car tyres is “round”, is indefensible. It doesn’t make any sense to me to claim such a thing.

Final paragraph in Markus' post is the obvious question to be answered. To deny something as validated as time dilation/contraction is indefensible.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/#:~:text=To test the time-dilation,ion research in Darmstadt%2C Germany.

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”

more at link...................