xyzt

I am going to do a bit of my own research on lorentz variance

It is called Lorentz "INvariance".

as it seems (at least on this forum) the interferometer experiments are considered outdated and unreliable?

Not at all, what gives you this idea?

I am not sure if sungenis touched on these, i know i remember hearing him mention lorentz but not sure how into detail he went.

There is nothing to be learned from Sungenis, he's an ignorant and a crank.

 

 

Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that, which a lot of times were described as null results. What sungenis is saying is that 1/6th is describing a 24hour period in the geocentric model, and that these results are consistent through like what, 80 years of testing? I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that?

Let me set your many confusions straight:

1. The experiment in cause is Michelson-Morley.

2. Michelson-Gale is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT experiment and sungenis says NOTHING about it.

3. Michelson and Morley expected to "detect" the move of Earth through "aether", or a speed of about 30km/s. This was due to INCORRECT applications of a laws of physics.

4. Instead, they "detected" a much lower speed. Subsequent experiments detected even lower speeds converging to ....ZERO.

5. The reason is that Michelson used the wrong theory, when one uses the correct theory (Special Relativity) , one gets the correct prediction....ZERO!.

6. An exact zero can never be measured due to the fact that all experiments are subject to statistical errors. Nevertheless, over the years, the measurements have steadily converged towards zero. Start reading here.

7. sungenis is not only an idiot, he's also a despicable liar, there is nothing that can be learned from him and his acolytes.

I see the words idiocy, stupid, and quite a few caps locked words in there. Yet, as one of the people who asked me to do a time-stamp of the video (which i gladly did!) you still refuse to have a discussion about what sungenis puts forth in the video. I honestly expected a little more from this forum, cause hey its the first one that popped up on google remember?

Because you are lying, there is nothing on Michelson-Gale.

Yes the experiments were expecting one thing, but what they found was 1/6th of that,

Nope, you obviously have no clue.

I bring up these interferometer experiments because it seems like what sungenis is holding onto the most (outside of the CMB data), he even notes how einstein said "if michaelson - morley is wrong, relativity is wrong". Did einstein actually say that?

No, he didn't. And yes, you have no clue. One more thing, it is "Einstein", no "einstein". Get it?

Ok, lets talk about the science then. I was asked to do some timestamps (understandably) and what i linked above he talks about interferometer experiments. This is one of the main things sungenis focuses on, and was one of the things that grabbed my attention because of how long they have been doing these experiements with basically the same results. Is the experiement itself flawed? Were the instruments used flawed? How do they keep getting results that fly in the face of relativity?

 

If anyone wants to watch the youtube clip i linked above that starts at 13:20 and goes to around 21:00, then just post your thoughts about what he is getting at with the inferometer experiements and why they seem to contradict relativity.

There is no point in watching any youtube of this idiocy, there is no disproof of the current experiments.

As an aside, the Michelson-gale experiment is supposed to produce a non-null experiment and...it produced a non-null experiment.

As another aside, Michelson-Gale, like Sagnac, has NOTHING to do with relativity, so it cannot "disprove" relativity.

As yet another aside, I cannot believe for a second that Sungenis is THAT stupid to be talking about Michelsod-Gale in his video, so you must be confused.

 

Why are these presenters granted any credibility at all?

Because they are "thinkers out of the box", not "followers" like the mainstream. Apparently, Sungenis took my argument against his crackpoterry to show that Michelson-Gale/Sagnac support his point of view. I have no patience to go through the video (makes me want to puke), so I would like to know the timestamp where he's talking about Michelson-Gale. Scotty, please give out that timestamp in order to support your claim.

they don't seem totally different. perhaps you can explain, though that may be off topic.

Sagnac effect is kinematic, there are no forces, no external effects involved, so it is purely local.

Foucault experiment involves the dynamics of the whole universe, one cannot tell if the universe is not rotating about the Earth, "dragging" the pendulum frame with it.

 

Feel free to link anything you think would be helpful, michaelson morley experiments seem to be evidence for both sides so im not sure i can accept these lol. Surely, more experiments have been done since then? (genuinely dont know). Anywho, off to bed thanks for the chat and trying to be civil with a peasant like myself

It is not "Michelson-Morley", it is "Michelson-Gale", a totally different experiment. Contrary to your fringe claim, Michelso-Gale cannot "be evidence for both sides".

What mathematics died he present to explain the movement of Foucault's pendulum?

This is a VERY interesting question, the argument presented by people that deny the Earth rotation is that one can assume that the Earth does not rotate and that it is the universe that rotates causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate with it.

By contrast, experiments based on the Sagnac effect, like the Michelson-Gale experiment, by virtue of being purely local and kinematic (as opposed to being cosmological and dynamic) cannot be attributed to anything else but to the Earth rotation about its axis.

 

i probably sound like a fanboy for sungenis

Yep.

until i find hard evidence (this should exist, either we have measured the earths movement or we havent) i gotta at least keep it in the back of my head.

The evidence is in front of you, except that you cannot or would not accept it.

 

Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis,

No one is attacking you, I have just pointed out the errors in your claims, whether you are "just a messenger" or a shill for Sungenis, I couldn't care less.

 

Thats actually hilarious, this experiment is one of the main things sungenis points to that supports his claims in the video i linked. I wish so much at least one of you watched the videos i linked, just to know where im coming from and what sungenis is getting at. Would make this so much easier to either disprove him, or maybe (possibly?) any of his points are eye openers to people who frequent this forum (im not asserting that would happen, but wouldnt that be crazy!?)

I am not interested in Sungenis. I debated him on another website, I gave him a long(er) list of experiments that disprove his nutty claims, the bottom line is that rotation is absolute, as such it can be detected from within a frame associated to the Earth. He is not only an idiot, he's a dishonest idiot.

Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote).

Rotation: the Michelson-Gale experiment

Revolution: change of seasons.

Hi - here is related simple example, still a bit counterintuitive to me.

* Train A and Train B are traveling on the same track at the same velocity and agree that their clocks are synchronized.

* They have agreed to both exert thrust X at what they both agree is clock time Y which will accelerate them both.

* They find after the thrust event at time Y that their clocks no longer appear to be synchronized.

...because they applied the thrust synchronously in THEIR co-moving place but NOT in ANY other frame.

 

Time association to speed of light is hogwash.

Others have already pointed out the multiple mistakes in your "theory". Let me point out another one:

The way GPS works is that it needs to take into consideration the relativistic time dilation: [math]\tau=t \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}[/math] where "c" is ...the speed of light. Do you have GPS in you car? Does it work?

My initial sense was that the "theory" belonged to Trash. Turns out that I was correct, thank you for confirming it.

Hello to everyone

This is my first time here (or anywhere for that matter) as an observer of our science community. I crave for knowledge, develop my own theories, and I am certainly curious about what the general circulating beliefs are in relation to what surrounds us.

So I will start by saying, that my intention is to start a thread on a very controversial subject (in my perspective) theorized by Newton. And I aim to smash the idea that you can not travel faster than light, and the association of light-speed to time. This may be an extended discussion, so I first want to know if there is interest to get into this before I spend any time on it, so I don't end up talking to myself. Thanks.

 

Zen

 

 

Before you "develop" a "theory" you need to LEARN the EXISTING ones. Have you studied physics?

Does dark energy obey Einsteins mass-energy equation E = mc^2,, I was just curious to know ?

 

If it does then how ?

 

Thanks in advance.

The correct formulation is either:

1. The total energy E contained by a proper mass [math]m_0[/math] is [math]E=\gamma m_0c^2[/math]

2. The variation of total energy [math]\Delta E[/math] released by a variation of proper mass [math]\Delta m_0[/math] is [math]\Delta E=c^2 \Delta m_0[/math]

3. In the rest frame co-moving with the mass [math]m_0[/math] the total energy is equal to the rest energy [math]E_0=m_0c^2[/math] because [math]\gamma=1[/math]

[math]E=mc^2[/math] is a (bad) shorthand for either 1,2 or 3.

Now, there is no mass associated with dark energy, so your question cannot be answered.

 

So just acceleration won't produce time dilation?

1. It is not "time dilation", it is "total accumulated proper time".

2. Acceleration does not affect the "total accumulated proper time" directly, speed does. See the "clock hypothesis"

 

Somehow, I doubt the OP will accept that...

Tough for him.

 

OK. Here are a few of the most obvious ways you are wrong:

 

 

Does 9x = 9 ?

No: 9 * .999 = 8.991

 

Interestingly enough, 0.(9)=1

 

 

We force our equations onto nature all the time

Who is "we"?

and rarely notice that when they don't fit or have no meaning because they are misapplied.

Can you provide proof of your above statement ?

 

Just by rotating angle of polarization filter person on board of rocket can change energy received by all detectors, while in its own frame of reference energy appears to be the same.

 

Total energy (just like kinetic energy) is frame-DEPENDENT , the above has nothing to do with conservation of energy. You are mixing frame-(in)dependence with conservation. Totally different concepts.

Hello!

 

Subject: Violation of energy conservation in (special) relativity.

 

Possible? plausible? not possible?

 

What is your opinion, and why?

 

Best Regards!

 

Very, very unlikely. What's on your mind?

so they moved along their frame.

Huh?

 

So the clocks start out synchronized, and at the end of the experiment, someone has to conclude that they became unsynchronized.

Incorrect. In the FRAME that the clocks are synchronized, they STAY synchronized.

In all OTHER frames (in motion wrt the frame above), the clocks are NOT synchronized.

This is because synchronization is a relative phenomenon, i.e. it is FRAME-DEPENDENT.

Hi I am new to this forum and am currently in year 12 at high school. We are in the middle of learning about relativity in Physics class and i came across a question my teacher couldn't answer.

 

I understand that when an object starts to reach a velocity near that of light, it reaches a point where its kinetic energy cannot increase any further so instead the energy is converted into mass. And that to the person in the craft going light speed there wouldn't be any noticeable change in mass however to an outside observer there would be a mass change.

 

My question is, if the person in the craft going light speed can't see a change in mass, and they obviously can't go any faster, where does the energy go?

 

~ Seth

...into increasing the person's speed , i.e. into increasing the person total energy.

 

 

 

So what does this mean? That time dilates more the further away something is from the direction of travel compared to something close to the front?

No, it doesn't.