Hijack from Speed of Time

[Logicandreason]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

We know this now, but that was not the state of physics in 1905. In “classical” physics, as you are calling it (it’s Galilean relativity and Newtonian physics), the speed of the source was added to the speed of whatever is being sent. The speeds added linearly. 

Therefore in Classical Physics, c is not 186.. unless that measure has a specific origin. c can only refer to the constancy of motion, not the measurement.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

If c were acknowledged as being constant in Newtonian kinematics, there would have been no point in writing the paper.

Exactly correct, well put, there is no point to Einstein's paper. Because he fails to provide rational explanation of any actual problem.  No problem - then nothing to solve with a brand new irrational Physics.

c is a constant in Classical Physics, but its value will change when the reference frame changes, if there is relative motion between frames. c is locally constant within the frame where its value was determined. And no where else. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

None of this is mentioned in the paper (no numerical value for c, no Zylon), and I thought we were limiting ourselves to the paper.

Einstein absolutely stipulated a specific speed measurement in the paper in section one, Quote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c"  And EVERY expert globally agrees that this measure of c is 186.... and have repeatedly told me that this is the case. If Einstein had only though of c as a "consistency of motion", allowing it to be a variable dependant on the origin of measurement, then he could not have proceeded with his argument that is supposed to reveal the big problem on classical physics. For the section one and two, c must be a fixed value, 186...

And maybe you missed it, but "Zylon System" is just another word to replace the confusing "Stationary System" term that Einstein choose. But calling it Zylon makes the meaning clearer, because its not linked to any Absolute system, which was Einstein's intension.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

 

No, this is wrong. You are misinformed or misunderstand that state of physics before relativity.

The constancy of c is a postulate of relativity. It is taken as a given in the paper, to investigate the ramifications of this deviation from Galilean relativity. A problem here is that Einstein assumed readers of the paper would understand the state of physics at that time, and you don’t seem to.

The "state of Physics" cant have been so well known as you claim, because if it were, Einstein would not have to had spelled it all out as a teacher does to children which is what the first two sections are doing. If you were correct, and you clearly are not, Einstein could have simply skipped the first two sections ang gotten straight into his claims.

Plus, because he must show the nature of the Problem before he can solve it, his postulate, (which is opposite to classical Physics beliefs and Laws and associated Math,) cannot be used in his explanation of why classical physics is wrong.  His Postulates can only be called on in his proposed solution. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

 

see my comments (in bold) inserted into the quote above. 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

At the end of section 2 he has shown that time is relative, owing to the constancy of c, which was not part of “classical” physics. If that had been applied to the problem, the light would have acquired the speed if the source rather than being constant, and the time in both frames would be simply r/c

No he did not show any such thing. In classical Physics c is a variable when used between differently moving frames, but c is a constant within a single frame.  Only under one special case is the measure of c equal between frames, and that is when the relative speed between the two frames is equal to ZERO.

This is what classical Physics indicates. 

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

Its not my job to prove anything to you. that isn't why I visit this forum. I visit this forum to help people that want to learn physics not force them to believe in something they choose not to accept. I offered numerous literature showing c as constant you chose to ignore those.

But it was your idea to explain or "prove" why Einstein was correct when he said that there was a problem with classical physics.    So now you are saying that you can not prove it?

As I stated, I have a difficulty in understanding why Einstein said that classical physics was in error. 

You offered to explain why he came to that conclusion. He explained it totally within section one and two, but now this is insufficient information to follow Einstein's logic? We have to wander off and look at other statements outside that famous  paper that destroyed all of known Physics? 

If the problem is undefined and unexplainable in the section one and two, then I suggest that there is no problem at all. No conclusion can be made at the end of section two, yet Einstein makes one anyway?

 

[Mordred]

The only way to mathematically keep c constant would require the geometry changes set up via the Lorentz transformations. You do not wish to include those. The mathematics involving Maxwell would be needed as a validation Specifically the polarity shift between the electric and magnetic field. However none of that truly matters.

Why not its simple. Observational evidence trumps any mathematics of any theory. Observational evidence takes precedence. You chose not to examine the Observational evidence. So I cannot help you if you have shut your mind down to other researches and tests of the invariance of c or other massless particles. 

The reason you cannot accept the statement classical mechanics is in error is your refusal to accept the evidence of time dilation, constancy of c and length contraction which go hand in hand with each other.  You cannot keep c constant without the length contraction and time dilation which requires a 4 dimensional universe as opposed to the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry. (dimension describes independent variables or effective degrees of freedom in math speak which is also employed by physics).

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

In conclusion its clear that none of you can explain or make rational sense out of Einstein's statement that classical physics has a problem. 

Classical Physics according to Einstein in Section one and two, has a Rod in the Zylon System, with a standard measuring stick, say a meter rule, which is placed repeatedly  along the rod thus getting a measure of the rods length.

Then that same Rod, with known length, PLUS that measuring stick, are hurtled along together with an observer, who repeats the Rod measurement using the same measuring stick and obtains the exact same result.

Further there are clocks everywhere, and all clocks are synchronized all the time. 

When the Observer in the Zylon System calculates the Rod length, he STILL gets the same value as he did before using standard Math and Physics rules.  And the Honda System observer also reports that every thing is hunky dory from his location.    All times and rod length are as expected, the same. Duh.

But now for no reason at all, Einstein sys, Hey guys lets measure that Rod length again,  this time with a tricky exercise that can never be actually performed by mortal man, using Light instead of that un trust worthy carbon fibre Meter certified rule. 

And guess what? the calculated length if the Rod is now different!

So instead of Einstein thinking to himself, Gee, I must have made an error somewhere in my assumptions, NO, he declares that ALL of known Physics is wrong, and all the math equations are wrong, and ALL must to be dumped in exchange for his new math and new physics laws, where there are no no such things as a time  or distance standard. (the foundation of classical physics)

And as if that's not enough, we just have to believe that the unbelievable is somehow real.  "Its UNINTUITIVE" a "HARD PILL to Swallow", "What makes you think that reality has to be rational", and the good old, "Stop asking questions, Shutup and Calculate".

 

[Mordred]

We have been but anytime we bring up the required examples you stated your not interested or you don't accept it. The biggest pieces of evidence for c being constant isn't the mathematics but the observational evidence and precision tests.

 You expect us to use classical mechanics to describe something that requires a deviation from classical mechanics using nothing more than classical physics. Which quite frankly I take your meaning to be strictly Newtonian mechanics. 

no time dilation, no geometry changes, c being additive with velocity. Those are the deviations from classical Newtonian mathematics. However you refuse to examine the evidence supporting those deviations.

[Logicandreason]

12 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The only way to mathematically keep c constant would require the geometry changes set up via the Lorentz transformations. You do not wish to include those. The mathematics involving Maxwell would be needed as a validation Specifically the polarity shift between the electric and magnetic field. However none of that truly matters.

Why not its simple. Observational evidence trumps any mathematics of any theory. Observational evidence takes precedence. You chose not to examine the Observational evidence. So I cannot help you if you have shut your mind down to other researches and tests of the invariance of c or other massless particles. 

The reason you cannot accept the statement classical mechanics is in error is your refusal to accept the evidence of time dilation, constancy of c and length contraction which go hand in hand with each other.  You cannot keep c constant without the length contraction and time dilation which requires a 4 dimensional universe as opposed to the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry. (dimension describes independent variables or effective degrees of freedom in math speak which is also employed by physics).

You speak nonsense now.

We are not supposed to "keep c a constant across any frame". c is only a locally constant measurement. 

So now you are admitting that the whole paper of Einstein's can not be explained because its not rational, (if it were you could explain it) 

and none of it matters anyway, because you have observational evidence. So to submit papers for review is silly now, correct, Just BLURT out your belief as a single conclusion, not bothering to develop any explanations, , and instruct people to go away and not come back until they have invented experiment that support your faith based beliefs.

Because as we all know,

An positive experiment is 100% Proof of any theory. 

And we also know that Experiments are designed by INFALLABLE men,

and we also know that results of Experiments are never made by man INTEPRETATING those results,

and we know that all science is 100% an honest institution,(money and business cant corrupt it)

We also KNOW there has never been any BS artists, liars, frauds who have any agenda,

we know that there is no opportunity for misinterpretation,

We know that there is no chance that our previous bias could influence our approach to running any experiment,

and finally we all know that there is always only ONE way to interpret any experiment result.

and we all know that Reality is Irrational, so we can't rely on our common sense, or even our best attempts to understand, because unlike reality, which is claimed to be irrational and unintuitive (a soft version of irrational)  we as mere men are  burdened under the weight of a rational mind, so we can never understand the irrational. 

And on these 100% certain truths rests the infallible Einstein.

 

[Mordred]

Oh I speak nonsense now, good luck with that. What do you believe the term Invariance means ?

[Logicandreason]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We have been but anytime we bring up the required examples you stated your not interested or you don't accept it. The biggest pieces of evidence for c being constant isn't the mathematics but the observational evidence and precision tests.

 You expect us to use classical mechanics to describe something that requires a deviation from classical mechanics using nothing more than classical physics. Which quite frankly I take your meaning to be strictly Newtonian mechanics. 

no time dilation, no geometry changes, c being additive with velocity. Those are the deviations from classical Newtonian mathematics. However you refuse to examine the evidence supporting those deviations.

It all boils down to the fact that you cant seem to grasp the difference between these two totally different phrases: 

"constancy of motion", and "the measurement of that motion".

If you could understand this, I'm sure you would be better off.

I don't expect you to depart one little bit from what Einstein said.

But you don't want to stick with what he said.

I expect you to use what Einstein claimed he was using when he proposed that Rod Experiment, that is pure classical Physics. 

Can you not do that?

I need to see how Einstein came up with the statement that classical physics has an error.

A rational  explanation is not apparent in the place where he said he had shown that classical physics was wrong.

Section one and two. No where else does he show the issue for classical physics.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Oh I speak nonsense now, good luck with that. What do you believe the term Invariance means ?

The words invariant or invariance do not appear anywhere in his whole paper. Why are you bringing up an unrelated term all of a sudden?

[Mordred]

If I measure an object that always has the same velocity regardless of my velocity or the velocity of the emitter how is that not constant velocity ? What part of that can't you understand We have literally measured the velocity of light in literal thousands of tests that are hugely varied in the test methods and each and every time we get precisely the same value. If that's not constant velocity then I eat my hat. All those precision tests have allowed Physics to narrow down any form of deviation from c to less than \[0.707*10^{-11} \] error margin. Those tests even included all frequencies of the EM spectrum and included other massless particles of the standard model.

The person that can prove this wrong will instantly win a Nobel prize,

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

If I measure an object that always has the same velocity regardless of my velocity or the velocity of the emitter how is that not constant velocity ? What part of that can't you understand

We all understand what constancy of motion is, BUT we all ought to also know that ANY measurement MUST have an associated reference from where that measurement was started.  This is the bit you do not understand.

A number ascribed to a speed, is nothing but a meaningless set of digits, unless you tell me where you were located relative to the thing you were measuring.  EVERY MEASUREMENT MUST HAVE A MESSUREMENT ORIGIN.

Now because all origins are not the same, possibly having different relative velocities, then RATIONALLY, LOGICALLY, Mathematically, and according to common sense, and to Physics and to Dung beetles, then measurements from different locations MUST reflect that change on location or relative motion.

But Einstein says, "NAH, forget about that, looky here at this shiny amazing thingy I have to dazzle you with untold mysteries and endless conundrums and a bunch of paradoxes, isn't that more fascinating?" You also get to play about with heaps of cool math to show how smart you are at parties. And think of the girls, wont they be impressed that you are better than most commoners, because you are one of the elite, who know it all. Girls love a know-it-all.

I am joking with you, but you get my points.

 

4 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

We all understand what constancy of motion is, BUT we all ought to also know that ANY measurement MUST have an associated reference from where that measurement was started.  This is the bit you do not understand.

A number ascribed to a speed, is nothing but a meaningless set of digits, unless you tell me where you were located relative to the thing you were measuring.  EVERY MEASUREMENT MUST HAVE A MESSUREMENT ORIGIN.

Now because all origins are not the same, possibly having different relative velocities, then RATIONALLY, LOGICALLY, Mathematically, and according to common sense, and to Physics and to Dung beetles, then measurements from different locations MUST reflect that change on location or relative motion.

But Einstein says, "NAH, forget about that, looky here at this shiny amazing thingy I have to dazzle you with untold mysteries and endless conundrums and a bunch of paradoxes, isn't that more fascinating?" You also get to play about with heaps of cool math to show how smart you are at parties. And think of the girls, wont they be impressed that you are better than most commoners, because you are one of the elite, who know it all. Girls love a know-it-all.

I am joking with you, but you get my points.

 

I reckon we are done here, I doubt you have anything of value to add, I think all your cards are laid out already. So I will offer to Swansong my attention to see if he has any great ideas that can solve my concerns.

But I would like to thank you for you time and patience. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Logicandreason

[Mordred]

What do you think the geometry is for ? if not to describe the location of each event ? As well as the spacetime path that light will follow ? Why do you think I mentioned graphs and vectors. They are used with the geometry A vector has a start point an end point and a direction. You can plot them directly onto a geometric graph

 SR also employs geometry not just GR. Even Newton mathematics includes geometry though the Geometry is Euclidean.

here is a little terminology for you.

Potential energy is the ability to perform work of a system or state or object possesses due its location.

kinetic energy is the ability to perform work due to its momentum.

mass is the resistance to inertia change or acceleration. 

These terms are essential to understand any physics topic or theory. Including classical, SR, GR, QFT, QM, String theory etc etc.

This definition is extremely important 

Spacetime is any metric (geometry) that describes space with time given dimensionality of length via the interval (ct)

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Ok, Mr Swansont, You will see that the discussion I was having with Mordred has now concluded with the issue remaining unsolved.

If you have any insights that Mordred may have missed, or some other way of explaining that I might follow, then I'm all ears.

If not, then thanks for the information you have supplied and your time. 

 

 

[Mordred]

Have fun. 

[Logicandreason]

Another anonymous down vote?

Really? You guys with those silly down votes? If Einstein himself was here making comments, I could down vote every comment he made, just for the hell of it, no reasons are required. 

If you don't like what I say, then have the courage and common decency to state what it is that you don't like.

Downvotes with no explanations are just making this science forum seem like a popularity contest. But that's the way science is done right? By popular vote and appeal to authority.

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What do you think the geometry is for ? if not to describe the location of each event ? As well as the spacetime path that light will follow ? Why do you think I mentioned graphs and vectors. They are used with the geometry A vector has a start point an end point and a direction. You can plot them directly onto a geometric graph

 SR also employs geometry not just GR. Even Newton mathematics includes geometry though the Geometry is Euclidean.

It is NOT IN section one or two. Why do you keep wandering off the agreed material? Anyway, you gave it your best shot, just wasn't as clear and easy as you believed was it?

[Mordred]

As I explained numerous times you require more than section 1 and 2 to understand SR. Section 1 and 2 is barely scratching the surface.

here do yourself a favor read this article.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf
An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper.

It will step you through all the basics of SR and its mathematics without being math intensive

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As I explained numerous times you require more than section 1 and 2 to understand SR. Section 1 and 2 is barely scratching the surface.

here do yourself a favor read this article.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf
An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper.

It will step you through all the basics of SR and its mathematics without being math intensive

I do not want to understand SR.  At least I was not attempting to understand SR.

I was very clear that I wanted to understand how Einstein came to the conclusion that classical physics was wrong. That is the end of my interest at this moment. I though I made that very clear many times?

That link will lead to a explanation of SR that begins with the same error you have made, confusing "constancy of motion" with "a measured value of motion", and then deleting any reference for that measurement. Same result, a nonsensical exercise.

[Mordred]

Fine then stick with Galilean relativity matters not to me. However you need to understand SR enough to understand how it deviates from classical mechanics.....To understand why Einstein states what you described. 

Its like trying to learn how to count without numbers to do otherwise. Or writing your name without an alphabet.

If ever want to truly how and why SR differs from classical mechanics you need to study both not just one.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

The biggest pieces of evidence for c being constant isn't the mathematics but the observational evidence and precision tests.

We need deeper explanations concerning constancy of c,so that transition from Galilean relativity to SR becomes more appealing to the commonsense....otherwise,to the majority... without physics degrees, it will ever appear to be a conspiracy...I tend to think nature had enough reason to make common sense to be Galilean as our first step of developing intiution.

[Logicandreason]

14 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

We need deeper explanations concerning constancy of c,so that transition from Galilean relativity to SR becomes more appealing to the commonsense....otherwise,to the majority... without physics degrees, it will ever appear to be a conspiracy...I tend to think nature had enough reason to make common sense to be Galilean as our first step of developing intiution.

Hey, It also doesn't make any sense no matter how educated you are. If it made sense to Mordred, he could explain it to me in simple terms but he failed.

He ended up always trying to get me to look at the replacement theory to classical physics, before he could show me that there was even some problem to solve.

I actually understand what the SR concepts are, but its  all based on the error of presuming some problem exists, when it doesn't.

To overcome the rational and logical thoughts of the common sense human, you know the poor suffering ignorant masses, 

and get them to accept SR, then you simply have two tasks. 

1.  Prove rationally that "consistency of motion, also known as "inertial motion" is interchangeable with 
"a subjective measurement of speed" namely 300 million meters a second. 

2, then also prove that its possible to make a measurement of ANYTHING AT ALL without having a necessarily related starting point.

Now it only take a pig farmers son to realise that these two tasks are impossible to prove.

The ONLY possible answer to the first point is the two statement are never interchangeable. NO.

The second is an impossibility.

 

So that means that you can't make any of those clever math derivations that are the heart of SR, even if I let you away with not showing me how there was a massive error with classical Physics in the first place.

These are the  3 things you have failed at , or soon will fail at.

Thus there can be no such thing as Special relativity.  

Q.E.D.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Fine then stick with Galilean relativity matters not to me. However you need to understand SR enough to understand how it deviates from classical mechanics.....To understand why Einstein states what you described. 

Its like trying to learn how to count without numbers to do otherwise. Or writing your name without an alphabet.

If ever want to truly how and why SR differs from classical mechanics you need to study both not just one.

Unlike you, I may not know algebra. But you got to admit I'm not an idiot. 

I actually understand what Einstein is saying, I have spent a lot of hours of reading, watching University lecturers etc, so I know how they take a student from nowhere to understanding the Hypothesis, at least up to an including the Kinematic part.  So Length contraction Time dilation and Mass increase, Even the basics of e=mc^2.. There are about 5000 videos on YouTube all saying the exact same things. (University sources videos) seems Ive watch every one of them, according to my wife.

 And afterwards I realised that something was amiss somewhere, it was just a matter of giving it some though to find where.

Yes there are many people who have tried to show errors in SR but they all attack the theory AFTER the Theory has been presented, It turns into a shouting match. Relativist I've found are excellent at having a foot in all possible camos, so if they get attacked on some point they switch feet, thus changing the goal posts.

So that why I decided to look at why exactly Einstein was unhappy with classical Physics, and I quickly found that his explanation had those two misrepresentations of what Classical Physics actually said. 

As I said in the earlier post, to defend SR theory you MUST prove that these two statements are correct. 

1.  Prove rationally that "consistency of motion", also known as "inertial motion" is interchangeable with 
"a subjective measurement of speed" specifically 300 million meters a second.  So if I go into a rocket, and stabilize my speed, does that mean I must now be doing 300 million meters a second? because that is what "constancy of motion" is defined as, you told me as much.

2, then also prove that its possible to make a measurement of ANYTHING AT ALL without having a necessarily related starting point.

And obviously they are not.

But to accept SR you have to skip lightly over these points not even giving them a split seconds attention, and pretend that everything is ok.   Only then can you work your tricky Lorentz equations and distort time and distances and other insane claims such as e=mc².

 

 

 

[Eise]

25 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

But to accept SR you have to skip lightly over these points not even giving them a split seconds attention, and pretend that everything is ok.   Only then can you work your tricky Lorentz equations and distort time and distances and other insane claims such as e=mc².

It seems to me you have forgotten that all results of special relativity are tested to the bone, and shown to be correct. I provided the link. Here it is again.

29 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

He ended up always trying to get me to look at the replacement theory to classical physics, before he could show me that there was even some problem to solve.

Eh? There was a huge problem: Poincaré, Lorentz, and probable many other physicists (less famous), were very well aware that the Galilean transformations do not work for the Maxwell equations. That means that classical mechanics and Maxwell are inconsistent. One of them has to change. Based on the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light, classical mechanics must be adapted.

Your 'Ansatz' is also a bit weird: as if SR is logically based on Einstein's original article only. Even if there would be errors in it, the further development of SR is not touched by that. There even have been several physicists who think that Einstein's argumentation in 'Moving Bodies' is not quite correct, but the conclusions of the article were not put in doubt by that. 

So if you can't follow 'Moving Bodies', then try a more modern introduction, and educational better, or easier to read than Einstein's original article. 

[Logicandreason]

9 minutes ago, Eise said:

It seems to me you have forgotten that all results of special relativity are tested to the bone, and shown to be correct. I provided the link. Here it is again.

Eh? There was a huge problem: Poincaré, Lorentz, and probable many other physicists (less famous), were very well aware that the Galilean transformations do not work for the Maxwell equations. That means that classical mechanics and Maxwell are inconsistent. One of them has to change. Based on the postulate of the invariance of the speed of light, classical mechanics must be adapted.

Your 'Ansatz' is also a bit weird: as if SR is logically based on Einstein's original article only. Even if there would be errors in it, the further development of SR is not touched by that. There even have been several physicists who think that Einstein's argumentation in 'Moving Bodies' is not quite correct, but the conclusions of the article were not put in doubt by that. 

So if you can't follow 'Moving Bodies', then try a more modern introduction, and educational better, or easier to read than Einstein's original article. 

We are no where near up to the point of looking at claimed results and conclusion about any experiments.

Which part of . "Results of experiment can not prove that a hypothesis is correct." do you not understand?  And we are still stuck on showing how Einstein explained that there is some problem with classical physics.

Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. 

Einstein tried to explain how it was a big deal, but his explanation is contains irrational logic.  More about this in another topic, not here. But he did not present  that as any part of his explanation of where the problem was. His actual words were that it and the lack of an aether discovery so far, SEEMED to indicate that something might be wrong.

After broaching the possibility that something COULD be amiss, he went on to explain where an error could be found, in the Rod in a moving frame experiment.

There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates.

(Top marks though for the word of the day competition)

The 1905 Paper was what was peer reviewed, and on that Paper alone, classical Physics was overturned.

Are you saying that the Original Paper is alone unable to make a rational statement, it needs 100 years of additional explanations in order to accept the claims?

Every single article I've read, and every video lecture and short video explanation (Don Lincon and Brian Green, and every other big name in Physics, many dozens of them,  has a video on this, about SR and all are identical in that every one makes the exact same error right at the beginning. So they all get the same results of course.

One definition of stupidity is: Expecting a different result If you keep doing what you have always done, because you will always get what you have always got.  That actually explains most of those thousands of experiments, they are doing exactly that, adding to the grand total, by repeating the essentially same things.

So either Einstein can explain away those two points I've recently spelled out, using only classical  Physics, or he can not claim that there is a problem with classical Physics.

Simple as that.

But Einstein is not here, and never bothered to explain it in the whole rest of his life, so its up to you to defend his good  (too good) name.

Surely I don't have to repeat the two points again do I?

And rather than all this dancing about, surely it s just easier too explain those two points and settle this once and for all?

 

 

 

 

 

Please disregard a few typos in preceding posts, I cant seem to return to them to make corrections, but you can easily supply the appropriate word according to the context.

 

[exchemist]

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

We are no where near up to the point of looking at claimed results and conclusion about any experiments.

Which part of . "Results of experiment can not prove that a hypothesis is correct." do you not understand?  And we are still stuck on showing how Einstein explained that there is some problem with classical physics.

Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. 

Einstein tried to explain how it was a big deal, but his explanation is contains irrational logic.  More about this in another topic, not here. But he did not present  that as any part of his explanation of where the problem was. His actual words were that it and the lack of an aether discovery so far, SEEMED to indicate that something might be wrong.

After broaching the possibility that something COULD be amiss, he went on to explain where an error could be found, in the Rod in a moving frame experiment.

There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates.

(Top marks though for the word of the day competition)

The 1905 Paper was what was peer reviewed, and on that Paper alone, classical Physics was overturned.

Are you saying that the Original Paper is alone unable to make a rational statement, it needs 100 years of additional explanations in order to accept the claims?

Every single article I've read, and every video lecture and short video explanation (Don Lincon and Brian Green, and every other big name in Physics, many dozens of them,  has a video on this, about SR and all are identical in that every one makes the exact same error right at the beginning. So they all get the same results of course.

One definition of stupidity is: Expecting a different result If you keep doing what you have always done, because you will always get what you have always got.  That actually explains most of those thousands of experiments, they are doing exactly that, adding to the grand total, by repeating the essentially same things.

So either Einstein can explain away those two points I've recently spelled out, using only classical  Physics, or he can not claim that there is a problem with classical Physics.

Simple as that.

But Einstein is not here, and never bothered to explain it in the whole rest of his life, so its up to you to defend his good  (too good) name.

Surely I don't have to repeat the two points again do I?

And rather than all this dancing about, surely it s just easier too explain those two points and settle this once and for all?

 

 

 

 

 

The independence of the speed of light from motion of source and receiver is an observed fact. It is idle to pretend otherwise. All of SR follows from that observed fact. And all observations predicted by SR are found to be correct in practice.

Whether Einstein's logic was sound or not doesn't really matter. Nature behaves, so far as we can tell, as if SR is correct.  

If you want to argue about the logic that's fine. But do not pretend the observations are wrong. 

 

[Logicandreason]

49 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The independence of the speed of light from motion of source and receiver is an observed fact. It is idle to pretend otherwise. All of SR follows from that observed fact. And all observations predicted by SR are found to be correct in practice.

Whether Einstein's logic was sound or not doesn't really matter. Nature behaves, so far as we can tell, as if SR is correct.  

If you want to argue about the logic that's fine. But do not pretend the observations are wrong. 

 

But its Ok for you to pretend that those observations are in fact the only possible explanations? Even though they are made by people who have a vested interest in supporting Einstein? There is no possibility of error or misunderstanding something? 

Yes, the independence of light from the source or receiver may very well be demonstrable reliably, but that is not the same as saying that the measure of light speed is independent of its origin of measurement. Never been done, not even possible to demonstrate or test. For the same reason why they haven't measured the speed of light in a one way experiment. 

So let's sum up about experiments:  No experimental evidence to support things changing length, 

no experimental evidence that proves that Time has changed. Evidence shows that clocks get out of wack, but this is not the same thing as time warping, its only wacky clocks due to physical changes. There is no possible way to prove that Time itself is dilating.   No one knows what Time is anyway how you going to show that its changed?

Next, Mass increase.  Experiments consist of the calculation heavy results of "observing" the apparent invisible hypothesised particles and figuring out what may have occurred. Particle Physics is hardly a strong branch of Physics these days, haven't you heard? And finally to show that the predictions that result form Einstein's theories are terrible, we only have to look at the belief that the hypothesis (which includes Einstein's theories) that 95 % of the whole universe is missing.  No one stopped to think about how stupid this conclusion was, they never stopped to think, gee, clearly our prediction is incredibly, wildly wrong, indicating that the theory is based on total nonsense.

Actually the whole idea of Mass increase was recognised quite early as being totally silly and could never be explained. So they don't mention it now, its all just SR is length contraction and Time Dilation.  In a stupid move, they try to claim that Mass is actually Momentum,, yes, of course Einstein the Genius wrote Mass many times, but really was meaning to write Momentum. and that swap is probably the most stupid thing I've read about  Physics. Mass is NOT Momentum. Foe decades they had the excuse that there was a big difference between rest Mass and relativistic Mass.  Decades later after those expert professors who understand SR, had been teaching this at Uni, they realised that this duck and dodge excuse was also stupid, so now they have just gone back to Mass is Mass. The current duck and dodge will have something to do with quantum, its the ultimate duck and dodge tool ever conceived.  In any case Mass increase in Einstein's Paper was clearly nonsense.

You are NOT using the scientific method when you say that the theory can't be explained, cant be understood, contains rational errors but, "because of experiments" it must be accepted anyway. This is not the scientific method.

 

 

Show me one Physics Professor that skips all explanations of SR, won't answer student questions, refuses to address issues, then  just states that SR is a FACT, irrational but still a FACT, there  IS Time dilation and Length Contraction and its all correct because of experiments, and that is all you need to know.

Just ONE.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Logicandreason

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

But its Ok for you to pretend that those observations are in fact the only possible explanations? Even though they are made by people who have a vested interest in supporting Einstein? There is no possibility of error or misunderstanding something? 

Yes, the independence of light from the source or receiver may very well be demonstrable reliably, but that is not the same as saying that the measure of light speed is independent of its origin of measurement. Never been done, not even possible to demonstrate or test. For the same reason why they haven't measured the speed of light in a one way experiment. 

So let's sum up about experiments:  No experimental evidence to support things changing length, 

no experimental evidence that proves that Time has changed. Evidence shows that clocks get out of wack, but this is not the same thing as time warping, its only wacky clocks due to physical changes. There is no possible way to prove that Time itself is dilating.   No one knows what Time is anyway how you going to show that its changed?

Next, Mass increase.  Experiments consist of the calculation heavy results of "observing" the apparent invisible hypothesised particles and figuring out what may have occurred. Particle Physics is hardly a strong branch of Physics these days, haven't you heard? And finally to show that the predictions that result form Einstein's theories are terrible, we only have to look at the belief that the hypothesis (which includes Einstein's theories) that 95 % of the whole universe is missing.  No one stopped to think about how stupid this conclusion was, they never stopped to think, gee, clearly our prediction is incredibly, wildly wrong, indicating that the theory is based on total nonsense.

Actually the whole idea of Mass increase was recognised quite early as being totally silly and could never be explained. So they don't mention it now, its all just SR is length contraction and Time Dilation.  In a stupid move, they try to claim that Mass is actually Momentum,, yes, of course Einstein the Genius wrote Mass many times, but really was meaning to write Momentum. and that swap is probably the most stupid thing I've read about  Physics. Mass is NOT Momentum. Foe decades they had the excuse that there was a big difference between rest Mass and relativistic Mass.  Decades later after those expert professors who understand SR, had been teaching this at Uni, they realised that this duck and dodge excuse was also stupid, so now they have just gone back to Mass is Mass. The current duck and dodge will have something to do with quantum, its the ultimate duck and dodge tool ever conceived.  In any case Mass increase in Einstein's Paper was clearly nonsense.

You are NOT using the scientific method when you say that the theory can't be explained, cant be understood, contains rational errors but, "because of experiments" it must be accepted anyway. This is not the scientific method.

 

 

Show me one Physics Professor that skips all explanations of SR, won't answer student questions, refuses to address issues, then  just states that SR is a FACT, irrational but still a FACT, there  IS Time dilation and Length Contraction and its all correct because of experiments, and that is all you need to know.

Just ONE.

I can't follow you here. Invariance of the speed of light has been observed, time dilation has been observed (I gave you an example) and mass/energy equivalence has been observed (I gave you an example).

If you want to argue that the observed invariance of the speed of light is some kind of artifact of the measuring process (is that what you are claiming?), you still have to deal with these other observations, which are predicted by SR.   

Edited June 14, 2023 by exchemist

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

is a FACT

Let us get a few facts straight.

 

1) The underlying failings of relativity in classical mechanics were known and written about by Newton, along with the comment that he could not account for them.

2) Newton knew nothing of electrodynamics or electromagnetism.

3) Between Newton and Maxwell a sound theory of waves was developed culminating in the linear wave equation.

4) 50 years before Einstein, Maxwell noted that his 4 equations of electromagnetism lead to the same linear wave equation. He further noted that this equation introduces a mathematical constant having the units (dimensions) of a velocity and possessing the remarkable characteristic  of possessing the same value as measurements from the time of Romer on, of the speed of light.

5) It is often forgotten to mention in discussion that this speed refers to empty space (in vacuo).
Newton demonstrated (refraction) that the speed of light varies in a material medium.

6) Newtonian Mechanics does not conform to "The Principle of Relativity", without recasting as a measurement of differences.

7) Classical Electromagnetism  (Coulombs, and Lorentz Laws) do not conform to the Principle either, although Maxwell's 4 laws individually do.

This all affirms my point that to properly approach Relativity we need to take into account the precursor material and decide exactly what we want the theory to provide for us.

A blinkered approach such as saying "I don't want to go beyond section 2 of SR" is a form of saying 

Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.

Isn't that wasting everybody's time ?

[Eise]

20 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Your 'huge problem" about Maxwell, was an academic storm in a teacup. There isn't actually a problem in in anyway. 

The situation is similar to the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Theory now. Both are tested extensively, and no experiment refuted these theories until now. You could call that an 'academic storm in a teacup', because, as far as I can see, it will not have a direct impact on any technology in daily use. However, as said before, some technologies would not work if we would not take relativity in account: GPS would not work, synchrotons would not work (in fact synchrotons were a necessary technology, because cyclotrons do not work anymore when velocities get too high: the classical law of conservation of momentum does not apply anymore, and must be replaced by relativistic momentum. As that is impossible to do based on the mechanism of the cyclotron (i.e. constant frequency of change of polarisation) we needed new concepts). Without taking into account relativity, particle accelerators would not work.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

There is nothing weird about my Ansatz, its very methodical on starts the the beginning and makes no assumptions, it contains no postulates.

Yes, it is weird: do you think that anything in physics (theoretical and practical) would change, if you find errors in the article 'that started it all'?

I would suggest you read the first part of Leonard Süsskind's 'Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory', from the 'Theoretical Minimum' series.  It is more educational than Einstein's Moving Bodies', and more modern in its language.