Jump to content

Blasphemy (Aether, really)


Handy andy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not aware of the many tests done on special relativity, but always have thought it to be an instrument error caused by the movement through space

 

 

All the many different experiments, done by people using different methods and different instruments, all just happen to have undetected errors that exactly replicate the predictions of theory? It seems easier to just say the evidence is consistent with the theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May be a good time for this:

 

"What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?"

 

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

(Hope I'm not repeating earlier use.)

 

That's what you may get when everyone uses the same instruments, with the same inbuilt error and misunderstanding of gravity, but then science isn't a religion and we don't have to believe just because everyone else does. I do not disagree with the results of either general relativity or special relativity, I just question the understanding of space and gravity. Which could result in an instrumentation error.

 

Yes you are probably repeating earlier use. But thanks for joining in.

 

I would like to focus more on ionization so wont be posting any further on this thread.

 

 

All the many different experiments, done by people using different methods and different instruments, all just happen to have undetected errors that exactly replicate the predictions of theory? It seems easier to just say the evidence is consistent with the theory.

 

I Agree, The evidence derived via the methods used supports the theory.

and

Instruments are not perfect and do not give consistent results under all conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple experiments that give results that match expectation, yet are waved away by claims of somehow all having the same "error" (that yet gives that expected result).

 

It's clear who is operating on belief, instead of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple experiments that give results that match expectation, yet are waved away by claims of somehow all having the same "error" (that yet gives that expected result).

 

It's clear who is operating on belief, instead of science.

 

I do not believe everything I argue or talk about, I did however put forward a plausible idea I think is worth considering regarding misunderstanding how an atomic clock works, when moving through a medium with sufficient speed to affect its movement.

 

The separating ion idea is more interesting, I am going to exclusively post there now, unless I see something interesting :)

 

Have you carried out experiments to validate the claims of special relativity:) . How many variations of experiments validating special relativity are there? Which do you like the most? Are they all valid? :) The one and only one I am aware of is flying fast planes around the planet in opposite directions under the influence of gravity (movement in space of space, which might affect the movement or orbits of electrons around atoms moving in space)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do not believe everything I argue or talk about, I did however put forward a plausible idea I think is worth considering regarding misunderstanding how an atomic clock works, when moving through a medium with sufficient speed to affect its movement.

 

 

Only worth considering by someone who has no idea how science works.

 

 

 

Have you carried out experiments to validate the claims of special relativity:) . How many variations of experiments validating special relativity are there? Which do you like the most?

 

Hundreds. Maybe, thousands if you count the tests if Lorentz invariance.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

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

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+special+relativity

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

 

Plus all the tests of general relativity.

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

 

Feel free to show that all of those have errors that precisely replicate the predictions of theory.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+general+relativity

And here is a cheap experiment you can do yourself: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/27/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Only worth considering by someone who has no idea how science works.

 

 

Hundreds. Maybe, thousands if you count the tests if Lorentz invariance.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

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

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+special+relativity

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

 

Plus all the tests of general relativity.

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

 

Feel free to show that all of those have errors that precisely replicate the predictions of theory.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+tests+of+general+relativity

And here is a cheap experiment you can do yourself: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/27/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100/

 

Thanks for the reply, and to elaborate, I initially started the thread under religion and blasphemy, because I did not see the speculations / trash can forum, which the thread was correctly moved to by the "evil liar". Strange you should write I don't understand how science works, I used to be an academic for a short while, before moving into industry. But having said that I wasn't allowed to do a Phd on lightning as I basically told the prof in charge of funding he was a moron. I speculated that positrons were manufactured in lightning clouds, and explained what I thought was going on and how lightning works, which he disagreed with. I was write and he was wrong. I also dealt with a lot of academics in industry who wanted me to tell them how I did what I did, and they wanted to tell me how to do my job. I had learned to be polite by this stage in my career.

 

Thank you for all the very useful links, which are your favourite experiments on special relativity. The thread albeit in the trash can has some very good information included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe everything I argue or talk about, I did however put forward a plausible idea I think is worth considering regarding misunderstanding how an atomic clock works, when moving through a medium with sufficient speed to affect its movement.

 

You need to have an actual, verifiable mechanism if you want to be taken seriously.

 

I think I have a decent handle on how atomic clocks work. All you've done is some hand-waving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to have an actual, verifiable mechanism if you want to be taken seriously.

 

I think I have a decent handle on how atomic clocks work. All you've done is some hand-waving.

 

I know :) I understand the GPS system would be a little inaccurate with out special relativity, being taken into account. :)

 

I think this thread has come to a natural end.

 

I have learned some new things, and am particularly happy with the expanding universe, I was completely unaware of the speed it was going, that was new to me. I also like the analogy of space near planets I put forward etc, and it is inline with Einsteins theories as well.

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know :) Ancient navigators often managed to use dead reckoning without astro to navigate in fog for days on end, with only an acceptable loss of life and ships in its day. Astro Navigation is still practised by some navigators and can be surprisingly accurate to within 0.5Nm, but would not be any good for satnavs in cars. GPS used for cars and ships today are accurate to within a few metres, so you can tell which street you are driving down. The most useful thing about a GPS onboard a boat when you do Astro navigation is the GPS clock, it is bang on, and every second counts ie 1 second = 1Nm in distance.

 

When you say completely unusable, do you mean it would have an increasing error every day, that would render the position fix more and more inaccurate, but for short durations might give ships an idea of where they are in the middle of an ocean to within a few miles.

 

Clearly as a guidance network for cruise missiles it would hopefully not stop working or get jammed, as this might result in collateral damage, as it is put today. Collateral damage being injuring or murdering of innocent by standers human beings, animals, and other insignificant things on the planet that no one seems to care about.

 

You could construct an argument similar to religion whereby GPS is a good thing and helps people except when controlled by fanatics. Would the world be a safer place without GPS.

Similarly you could construct an argument similar to religion whereby guns are a good thing and help people except when used by fanatics, would the world be a safer place without guns. Would the inventors of the atomic bomb regret their invention today.

etc etc I am rambling :(

 

But since this thread was about space and ultimately about space expanding and contracting and being the source of gravity, and all known forces and all matter etc with a bit of strings woven in as well, I will shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep saying that.

 

I know :) I keep saying that too. If you hadn't commented I wouldn't be answering your remark :)

 

Would someone like to explain how an atomic clock works. To keep the thread interesting. and none personal.

 

When GPS satellites are orbiting the planet they are all orbiting in the same direction. Was the aeroplane experiment or something similar repeated over the poles.

Edited by Handy andy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

When you say completely unusable, do you mean it would have an increasing error every day, that would render the position fix more and more inaccurate, but for short durations might give ships an idea of where they are in the middle of an ocean to within a few miles.

 

Without the relativistic corrections the GPS clocks would be out by about 38 microseconds per day.

Light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond, so that error amounts to something like 38,000 feet per day.

About 7 miles or 11 km per day.After a few years, you wouldn't even know what side of the planet you were on.

Since the specification for GPS is of the order of 10 metres, it would be out of specification when the error reached about 30 ns. That's about a thousandth of a day.

 

So, "completely unstable" is probably an understatement.

"Useless" might be a better word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the relativistic corrections the GPS clocks would be out by about 38 microseconds per day.

Light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond, so that error amounts to something like 38,000 feet per day.

About 7 miles or 11 km per day.After a few years, you wouldn't even know what side of the planet you were on.

Since the specification for GPS is of the order of 10 metres, it would be out of specification when the error reached about 30 ns. That's about a thousandth of a day.

 

So, "completely unstable" is probably an understatement.

"Useless" might be a better word.

Here's the thing.

if c is a constant that appears always the same speed regardless of speed.

How can you tell what % of c something is going.

if a space shuttle moves forward of earth...which is closer to c the space shuttle or earth.

how can you tell.

Edited by quickquestion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing.

if c is a constant that appears always the same speed regardless of speed.

How can you tell what % of c something is going.

 

 

Tricky one this. It might involve some advanced concepts you are not familiar with.

 

Say something is moving at 150 million metres per second.

 

Then it is simple arithmetic to divide that by the speed of light to find it is (approximately) 0.5 c.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Tricky one this. It might involve some advanced concepts you are not familiar with.

 

Say something is moving at 150 million metres per second.

 

Then it is simple arithmetic to divide that by the speed of light to find it is (approximately) 0.5 c.

 

Hope that helps.

yeah but who's to say which is moving 150 million meters per second...

earth or the spaceship?

 

lets keep it simple and talk about inertial only. No orbits or curves, just straight lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah but who's to say which is moving 150 million meters per second...

earth or the spaceship?

 

lets keep it simple and talk about inertial only. No orbits or curves, just straight lines.

 

 

All motion is relative. So you define the speed relative to something. Typically, you assume that your own frame of reference is "stationary" and measure speed relative to that.

 

Or you might say choose some other reference. For example, if you want to calculate the path of a ball being thrown on a moving train, it may be simpler to use the train's frame of reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

All motion is relative. So you define the speed relative to something. Typically, you assume that your own frame of reference is "stationary" and measure speed relative to that.

 

Or you might say choose some other reference. For example, if you want to calculate the path of a ball being thrown on a moving train, it may be simpler to use the train's frame of reference.

stationary to what?

 

you dont believe aether exists...so what part is exactly stationary...?

 

how can you say the spaceship (inertia, no curve or accel) is going .5c?

couldnt i argue that actually, its earth going .5c?

so if both could be going .5c...then why does the spaceship atomic clock supposedly age less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the fact that c is independent of the frame of reference that means it can be used as a way of defining speed.

defining its own speed.

but how can it be used to define others.

using a c as a measuring stick, means that everyone else is going always c.

according to c...earth is already traveling at c.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defining its own speed.

but how can it be used to define others.

using a c as a measuring stick, means that everyone else is going always c.

according to c...earth is already traveling at c.

 

 

I have no idea why you would think that. It makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.