Non-related Relativity Thoughts (hijacked from Could relativity be incorrect)

[Anonymous Participant]

I could have sat here all night responding to the various comments on this thread, but instead I'm going to add my own thoughts which do not relate to anyone elses.

 

Firstly, the "theory of relativity" is a poor label for Einsteins work. At the time it was first called a theory it had never been tested, it was simply announced as such. It is also critical to understand that similar theories existed well before he penned his famous conclusions and he admitted being incapable of supporting it through his own work. It took the input of many individuals who never got a single bit of credit to form the mathematical basis of the theory. Einstein himself accepted a professorship under the condition he never be required to teach! Think about that, and what it means. Could it be if he had tried to teach it would have been quickly realized he didn't have any understanding of what had been presented as his own work? Einstein was a creation of popular culture, an icon, a superstar, but like so many others like him there were thousands of more competent and legitimate scientists who were totally unknown.

While I realize my opinion is not important as I am not a god of science like Einstein, I personally believe the theory is a mathematical attempt to hornswaggle the profane, that there is no logical physical basis for the so called theory and it is therefor invalid. I can debunk every single scientific experiment that claims to support the theory using conventional physics, and yet never be heard. THAT is a a problem, when science becomes a faith based religion where the majority defend a given idea without understanding it themselves while censoring the input of those who formulate conflicting ideas, it is no longer science at all. Science has always been constrained to the desires of whomever was in control at the time, take the catholic church for example , which persecuted scientists simple for denying the geocentric teachings of Catholicism..

I think what the wide acceptance of this theory actually proves is who is in control of our society and therefor academia now, nothing more really. Scientists who have ideas which don't fit the agenda aren't accepted until whoever is behind it no longer has the power to censor them.

 

I can't help but observe that i get essentially the same response on a physics forum when I say i think the theory of relativity is wrong as I would if I walked in a Baptist church and said I don't think Jesus was the son of God. No one can explain why I can't hold that view with actual proof, only that it does not agree with what "everyone" else believes to be true and therefore is unacceptable if I want to be in the group.

On 8/8/2017 at 11:54 AM, mistermack said:

That's fine, except that I keep reading that gravity isn't a force. That's the essence of what I was saying really. It's not a force, it's curvature of space time, needing a real force to counteract it and stop me from following it.

But it's not acceleration either, because I'm not gaining kinetic energy. 

Gravity is quite clearly a force. If force is required to counteract it, it is a force. Even if you do believe it is caused by mass  following a "curvature of space time" while trying to follow conventional physical laws and go in a straight line until another force acts upon it, it is a force and anyone that denies that is quite simply not a physicist and has no place in a discussion concerning the subject.

On 8/8/2017 at 0:02 PM, studiot said:

 

In Newtonian mechanics, which is all we need here, gravity is most definitely a force.

The interpretation of gravity as some sort of warping of spacetime (not space) is non Newtonian.

You should not mix Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.

The fact that they cannot logically be linked should tell you something if you were really smart! 

If we have to throw out Newton to accept Einstein I'm outta here! If the two don't correlate logically then one is wrong, and I'm going with Newton!

On 8/2/2017 at 4:22 PM, beecee said:

Firstly, the BB has never been shown to be wrong, rather some modifications at times has been needed: That's why a scientific theory always remains a scientific theory and the best explanation for what we observe.

I contend that the "big bang" theory violates basic laws of thermodynamics and is therefor a weak hypothesis at best. On the face of it, it sounds so patently ridiculous that even an intelligent 6 grade student of science would laugh if he actually understood what is being claimed, that the source of all of the matter and energy in the universe was an explosion of an infinitely tiny "singularity" that sprang forth from nothing itself and resulted in the universe constructing itself into an almost infinity complex interaction of matter and energy. It's not just a violation of the basic concept of entropy , it's just a laughable fairy tale. Claiming the universe is the result of an explosion is the same thing as claiming a tornado hit a junkyard and assembled a fleet of aircraft carriers.

In the end if you believe the big bang theory is correct, unless you can explain how the "singularity" came into existence itself, you HAVE NOT explained the existence of the universe and how it was formed. What we are eventually faced with is the intelligent arrangement is undeniable and is the only thing that allows science to interpret the world around us using the processes it does. It is much easier to believe the universe and time are infinite and the universe itself a sentient , conscious being that we and everything else are part of. While on the face of it this sounds religious and in conflict with scientific ideas, in reality there is not a single observation or experiment than can prove otherwise, and every experiment actually tends to support it. The fact that we cannot disprove the idea does not mean it is false, there are countless ways to falsify it , all you have to do is prove there's not an intelligent arrangement....GET TO IT AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU!

One thing I can say with certainty is that every scientist who ever left his mark on the field prior to the late 19th and 20th century believed in an intelligent arrangement of the universe, and therefor an intelligent sentient conscious creator.

It wasn't until very recently that science was used as a bully pulpit for atheism,and became the religion of atheism.. The most disturbing aspect of it is that it forces the student of science to ignore every piece of evidence and everything he sees around him and accept a faith based idea that excludes the most obvious explanation. What I find revealing is how toxic claiming a belief in creation is to a scientists credibility. While trying to justify religious beliefs with science is fools errand, religion is a creation of the thoughts of men just like science. I am not religious as I believe religion is nothing more than than superstitious nonsense , but  I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either.

I would like to pint out that here is no "rule" of science that constrains all explanations to those that don't involve some intelligent input. It is often claimed we cannot prove or disprove the existence of "god' and therefor it is not a valid scientific idea, but the truth is we CAN prove the universe is intelligently arranged and no one can prove it isn't, and if it is indeed intelligently arranged, it had to have been arranged by intelligence.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

If time is a variable that slows down or speeds up, then relativity has a fundamental flaw

Yes I agree with this because relativity is another way to postulate that spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic.

 

2 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Eventually gravity will be understood as an effect of electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles in matter

Many have sought to support this view but no one has yet offered any way to overcome several practical serious and fundamental observations that demonstrate differences between electrical attractions and gravity.

 

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Gravity is quite clearly a force. If force is required to counteract it, it is a force. Even if you do believe it is caused by mass  following a "curvature of space time" while trying to follow conventional physical laws and go in a straight line until another force acts upon it, it is a force and anyone that denies that is quite simply not a physicist and has no place in a discussion concerning the subject.

 

1 hour ago, Anonymous Participant said:

On 08/08/2017 at 6:02 PM, studiot said:

 

In Newtonian mechanics, which is all we need here, gravity is most definitely a force.

The interpretation of gravity as some sort of warping of spacetime (not space) is non Newtonian.

You should not mix Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.

The fact that they cannot logically be linked should tell you something if you were really smart! 

The definition of force as that which requires force to counteract it is circular and therefore not useful.

The point of Newtonian mechanics is that it provides a clear definition of force, as well as the apparatus to analyse it.

Einstinian relativity does not. It does not even deal with force.

Note that even in Newtonian mechanics there are more complicated agents than force such as stress and strain.
Furthermore you can have stress without strain and strain without stress, again obviating your force countering definition.

 

I will treat the invective in the rest of your text with the contempt it deserves.

Edited September 1, 2017 by studiot

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I could have sat here all night responding to the various comments on this thread, but instead I'm going to add my own thoughts which do not relate to anyone elses.

Thoughts? How about some evidence supporting your mythical story line in this thread.

Quote

Firstly, the "theory of relativity" is a poor label for Einsteins work. At the time it was first called a theory it had never been tested, it was simply announced as such

It didn't need to: It adequately explained some well known observational anomalies and drew together the works of other great scientists such as Lorentz, Planck, Michelson and Morley and others.

Quote

While I realize my opinion is not important as I am not a god of science like Einstein,

Obviously not even close and adequately supported by the following nonsense.....

Quote

I personally believe the theory is a mathematical attempt to hornswaggle

Yes, your opinion worth absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things.

Quote

 I can debunk every single scientific experiment that claims to support the theory using conventional physics, and yet never be heard.

You obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Quote

Gravity is quite clearly a force.

Depends on what model you use.

Quote

If we have to throw out Newton to accept Einstein I'm outta here! If the two don't correlate logically then one is wrong, and I'm going with Newton!

Perhaps you need to research science in general, along with what a scientific theory is and how scientific models work  to avoid such a lengthy post full nonsense.

Quote

I contend that the "big bang" theory violates basic laws of thermodynamics and is therefor a weak hypothesis at best.

You can contend whatever you like, as this is a public forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry and also anonymous participant, and it doesn't change the fact that it is all simply hot air, probably driven by a couple of factors, one being delusions of grandeur, the other "tall poppy syndrome" Or possibly even that you are simply trolling and trying to get a raise out of people...a rather childish action though if it is. Or a fourth possibility could be a religious agenda, driven by the fact that science has made the need for any deity obsolete. Which one suits you the best?

 

That's all with your collective gripe, getting late here and I have a big day tomorrow.

Edited September 1, 2017 by beecee

[Mordred]

I lost track of all the claims of posters being able to debunk a theory, yet never showing they even understand the theory they are claiming to debunk.

 

One of the key requirements is to prove your debunking with mathematics. Not providing mathematics is meaningless drivel in physics.

Plain and simple

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

I've split this into it's own speculative thread, since the new opening post was a non-mainstream hijack of a mainstream thread. Please read the special rules that govern this section, and do your best to support your argument with evidence, especially where you make assertions. Since this is about relativity, some maths would certainly help focus the discussion.

No need to respond to this modnote in thread, but if you object you can report this post and another staff member will respond.

 

[Anonymous Participant]

On 9/1/2017 at 7:14 AM, beecee said:

Thoughts? How about some evidence supporting your mythical story line in this thread.

It didn't need to: It adequately explained some well known observational anomalies and drew together the works of other great scientists such as Lorentz, Planck, Michelson and Morley and others.

Obviously not even close and adequately supported by the following nonsense.....

Yes, your opinion worth absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things.

You obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur.

Depends on what model you use.

Perhaps you need to research science in general, along with what a scientific theory is and how scientific models work  to avoid such a lengthy post full nonsense.

You can contend whatever you like, as this is a public forum open to any Tom, Dick and Harry and also anonymous participant, and it doesn't change the fact that it is all simply hot air, probably driven by a couple of factors, one being delusions of grandeur, the other "tall poppy syndrome" Or possibly even that you are simply trolling and trying to get a raise out of people...a rather childish action though if it is. Or a fourth possibility could be a religious agenda, driven by the fact that science has made the need for any deity obsolete. Which one suits you the best?

 

That's all with your collective gripe, getting late here and I have a big day tomorrow.

A reaction essentially identical to any other religious fanatic. I said I could debunk any experimental proof that appears to confirm Einsteins mathematical predictions, why don't you try me?

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

A reaction essentially identical to any other religious fanatic. I said I could debunk any experimental proof that appears to confirm Einsteins mathematical predictions, why don't you try me?

I already did but you made no answer.

It's there in my post in this thread.

[Anonymous Participant]

On 9/1/2017 at 7:50 AM, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

I've split this into it's own speculative thread, since the new opening post was a non-mainstream hijack of a mainstream thread. Please read the special rules that govern this section, and do your best to support your argument with evidence, especially where you make assertions. Since this is about relativity, some maths would certainly help focus the discussion.

No need to respond to this modnote in thread, but if you object you can report this post and another staff member will respond.

 

The subject of the thread was could relativity be wrong, I think it's just a bit pretentious to claim I hijacked the thread with non mainstream ideas, don't you? How could we possibly discuss the subject without introducing non mainstream thought into the equation? I think the real problem is I introduced some facts that are hard to answer to within the context of manistream thinking, like for instance all observations prove or at least do not disprove  intelligent design and the scientific process as it is couldn't function unless there was an intelligent arangement to the universe. No so called man mainstream scientist has ever tried to respond to that assertion, and that shoudl tell you something..

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

I already did but you made no answer.

It's there in my post in this thread.

Spare me trying to determine where you did this, and simply post it here and now"

I would like to make it clear to anyone who chooses to respond to my posts that I DO NOT subscribe to any mainstream religion as they are all constructs of human minds with a underlying agenda of controlling thought and thus action. This includes Catholicism, Islam, Kabbalism, Judaism, Protestantism, and mainstream pseudoscience pretending to be anything other than the religion of atheism.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

like for instance all observations prove or at least do not disprove  intelligent design and the scientific process as it is couldn't function unless there was an intelligent arangement to the universe.

I don't agree with you but that is not the topic of this thread, which is more specific and limited.

BTW now you have your own personal thread as well as special attention from the powers that be, why are you bitching?
 

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

 

Spare me trying to determine where you did this, and simply post it here and now"

It was within the first two lines of my post of less than ten lines. (specifically lines two and three)

If you can't find it in that space I have no hope of a rational discussion.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

A reaction essentially identical to any other religious fanatic. I said I could debunk any experimental proof that appears to confirm Einsteins mathematical predictions, why don't you try me?

!

Moderator Note

Get to the point, then, instead of tap-dancing.

 

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The subject of the thread was could relativity be wrong, I think it's just a bit pretentious to claim I hijacked the thread with non mainstream ideas, don't you?  

!

Moderator Note

You posted your assertions in someone else's thread. That's hijacking. If you have some conjecture it belongs in its own thread in speculations, which is why it was split. You need to back up your assertions with some sort of model and/or evidence. It needs to be falsifiable. Get to it.

 

On 9/1/2017 at 8:14 AM, beecee said:

 Yes, your opinion worth absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things.

You obviously suffer from delusions of grandeur.

!

Moderator Note

Let's focus on the science, if and when it is presented.

 

[Anonymous Participant]

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't agree with you but that is not the topic of this thread, which is more specific and limited.

BTW now you have your own personal thread as well as special attention from the powers that be, why are you bitching?
 

It was within the first two lines of my post of less than ten lines. (specifically lines two and three)

If you can't find it in that space I have no hope of a rational discussion.

You're going to have to be specific if you want me to attempt to respond. Gravity and electrostatic attraction are similar in many mores ways than dissimilar,  in the end it will be discovered that the four main forces are all the same thing.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Get to the point, then, instead of tap-dancing.

 

!

Moderator Note

You posted your assertions in someone else's thread. That's hijacking. If you have some conjecture it belongs in its own thread in speculations, which is why it was split. You need to back up your assertions with some sort of model and/or evidence. It needs to be falsifiable. Get to it.

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's focus on the science, if and when it is presented.

 

You are reaching, and desperate. Just like a religious fanatic whose god has been denied. My assertions ARE falsifiable, all you need to do as I pointed out already is prove in an instance that the universe is not an intelligent arrangement. NOW GET TO IT!

Edited September 6, 2017 by Anonymous Participant

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

You're going to have to be specific if you want me to attempt to respond. Gravity and electrostatic attraction are similar in many mores ways than dissimilar,  in the end it will be discovered that the forum main forces are all the same thing.

I await you evidence with interest.

 

At least this time you have already moved your position since you are now willing to admit there are dissimilarities.

Since you acknowledge this how can you rationally claim they are the same?

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I await you evidence with interest.

 

At least this time you have already moved your position since you are now willing to admit there are dissimilarities.

Since you acknowledge this how can you rationally claim they are the same?

The same thing appears  different in different situations and interactions. Very simple really. What do all of the main forces have in common? Let's compare nuclear and electrostatic forces, for instance. How are they different? Scale?

[Strange]

36 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I said I could debunk any experimental proof that appears to confirm Einsteins mathematical predictions, why don't you try me?

Go on then. Pick one.

Just now, Anonymous Participant said:

What do all of the main forces have in common? Let's compare nuclear and electrostatic forces, for instance. How are they different? Scale?

As you are the one claiming they are the same, it is up to you to show that they are. (Rather than asking questions of others.)

[Anonymous Participant]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Go on then. Pick one.

Why don't you? Think of the best experimental proof you can that seems the most supportive and conclusive

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The same thing appears  different in different situations and interactions. Very simple really. What do all of the main forces have in common? Let's compare nuclear and electrostatic forces, for instance. How are they different? Scale?

Already moving the goalposts this early in a discussion?

 

You original assertion (repeated) was that gravity and electrostatic attraction are one and the same ie identical.

 

So let's stick with that rather than changing the subject.

 

You made the assertion, so it is up to you to provide the evidence.

 

You already have evidence that I am quite ready to say when I agree with you.

Edited September 6, 2017 by studiot
correct spelling

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

Why don't you? Think of the best experimental proof you can that seems the most supportive and conclusive

Burden of proof. If you can't support your claims, we can assume they are false.

[Anonymous Participant]

Just now, studiot said:

Already moving the goalposts this early in a discussion?

 

You original assertion (repeated) was that ggravity and electrostatic attraction are one and the same ie identical.

 

So let's stick with that rather than changing the subject.

 

You made the assertion, so it is up to you to provide the evidence.

 

You already have evidence that I am quite ready to say when I agree with you.

The very best way to prove anything is the same as something else is to concentrate on trying to show how they're not. If you come to the conclusion it is impossible to isolate a conclusive fundamental difference in observation and fundamental causes, then you're own your way to proving they are the same.  With gravity and electrostatic forces the only real difference is electrostatic forces can manifest themselves as observable phenomenon with much smaller masses  because differences in electrical potential are much greater where electrostatic forces are involved and observed because they involve electrically charged matter, ie an excess of electrons. We think of gravity as existing between one large mass like a planet and smaller masses, but we know the force exists between ALL masses, it's just such a tiny force it is difficult to observe or measure. Clumping together of uncharged particles observed in spacecraft is an example.  All mass contains electrons, protons and neutrons, and we know a force of attraction exists between electrons and protons as it does between both electrons and protons and neutrons. While it would appear the overall forces of attraction should cancel between uncharged masses because similar charges repel, the fact that neutrons have a difference in potential with both electrons an protons is probably the actual force behind gravity and it is electrostatic in nature, as are nuclear forces.. On a much smaller scale, an atom exhibits the same phenomenon , as protons and neutrons bond in the nucleus and electrons are held in place by the difference in electrical potential between themselves and both protons and neutrons. There is no experiment which can prove otherwise.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Burden of proof. If you can't support your claims, we can assume they are false.

It is you who are refusing to support your claim. My claim is you cannot come up with an experimental proof of your assertions that I cannot debunk. Get to it. Provide what you believe is an experimental proof I cannot debunk and I will. I'm not going for the shotgun effect here, there are just too many experiments that have been used as alleged proof of Einstein relativity to debunk them all and they all have Newtonian explanations

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

The very best way to prove anything is the same as something else is to concentrate on trying to show how they're not. If you come to the conclusion it is impossible to isolate a conclusive fundamental difference in observation and fundamental causes, then you're own your way to proving they are the same.  With gravity and electrostatic forces the only real difference is electrostatic forces can manifest themselves as observable phenomenon with much smaller masses  because differences in electrical potential are much greater where electrostatic forces are involved and observed because they involve electrically charged matter, ie an excess of electrons. We think of gravity as existing between one large mass like a planet and smaller masses, but we know the force exists between ALL masses, it's just such a tiny force it is difficult to observe or measure. Clumping together of uncharged particles observed in spacecraft is an example.  All mass contains electrons, protons and neutrons, and we know a force of attraction exists between electrons and protons as it does between both electrons and protons and neutrons. While it would appear the overall forces of attraction should cancel between uncharged masses because similar charges repel, the fact that neutrons have a difference in potential with both electrons an protons is probably the actual force behind gravity and it is electrostatic in nature, as are nuclear forces.. On a much smaller scale, an atom exhibits the same phenomenon , as protons and neutrons bond in the nucleus and electrons are held in place by the difference in electrical potential between themselves and both protons and neutrons. There is no experiment which can prove otherwise.

A mixture of fact, fiction and pure fancy.

8 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

We think of gravity as existing between one large mass like a planet and smaller masses, but we know the force exists between ALL masses, it's just such a tiny force it is difficult to observe or measure.

Fact

Quote

All mass contains electrons, protons and neutrons,

Fiction

Modern particle physics lists a veritable zoo of particles, many, if not most of which have mass but are not eelctrons, protons or neutrons.

Quote

There is no experiment which can prove otherwise.

Pure fancy

As far as I am aware, there are no particles with mass where we have not experimentally measured that mass.

 

You have introduced the word 'potential'

Do you understand its technical meaning, since there is more than one type of potential and they have very different properties.
Do you, for instance, know which type of potential is associated with which force?

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

It is you who are refusing to support your claim. 

I never made any claim.

17 minutes ago, Anonymous Participant said:

I'm not going for the shotgun effect here

Not providing a single example is definitely not a shotgun approach. More like firing blanks.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

You had your chance.

Do not bring the topic up again.