Hijack from Special Relativity - simple questions?

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

No.  Continually repeating the same falsehood over and over again does not make it true.  Two light clocks maintaining a constant velocity with respect to each other, will both measure the other as running slow.   As long as they maintain this constant velocity with respect to each other, there is no objective way to say which clock is really ticking slow.   

Exactly! I couldn't agree more...

However according to some 50% of educated scientists, it is exactly, as he said - constant velocity causing real effects of time dilation... And this is exactly, what brings me here...

https://www.quora.com/Special-Relativity-Is-time-dilation-due-to-velocity-just-an-illusion-Is-it-a-recording-mistake-Is-only-time-dilation-due-to-gravity-acceleration-real#

It seems, that the theory of relativity is still causing a lot of disagreement between the scientists. In such case, it is not so bad idea, to trust my own intuition, instead of those with "authority" - and my intuition tells me, that we have to introduce some external force/field, or change the velocity/energy of an object, to physically affect the rate of time flow. If we speak about time dilation due to constant velocity, it can be only relative/apparent...

At least I know, that I'm not alone on this "battlefield"...

[JohnMnemonic]

54 minutes ago, studiot said:

However we do have the technology to take two clocks, running as identically as possible, leave on eon Earth and take the other for a few trips round the Earth at speed.

This experiment has been done many times now and always confirms the predictions of SR.

Ahh, are you talking about the famous Hafele–Keating Experiment? Of course, it's hard to argue with real life observations (although there are some people, who claim, that those results were altered, but let's leave it for now). However there's nothing what wouldn't allow us, to argue about the possible causes of observed effects. By an accident, I've made a short animation, which shows a simplified version of this experiment:

According to the mainstream theory, time flow inside the plane which was moving eastward, was slowed down, because it's velocity was increased, while westward moving plane experienced higher rate of time flow, because he was moving slower...

But I can still give you 2 different explanations...

- time flow rates inside the planes changed during the time, when they were accelerating. Plane, which started to increase his speed in westward orientation, started to decrease the distance to the clock on the planet's surface, while the one which was accelerating to the East, started to increase the distance.

- while all velocities, smalller than c, are relative, pilots of planes are able to notice the difference between the distances, which they passed during the flight - they just need to look at the Sun. Plane, which was moving westward circled around Earth from noon to noon just once, while the one moving eastward, made 3 full circles during the same time (I'm talking about animation, not the actual experiment). To maintain the symmetry of motion between the plane and the clock on the Earth's surface, time inside that plane had to flow at different rate - faster for the plane, which passed shorter distance and slower for the one, which passed a longer distance. It might appear, that this explanation is just a different version of the official one, but keep in mind, that all velocities are in this case relative, while distances are in fact definitive...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Ahh, are you talking about the famous Hafele–Keating Experiment?

Well that may have been the beginning, but I'm not stuck nearly 50 years ago.

Since that time we have had satellites eg NASA GP-B experiments, but my knowledge of these is far from encyclopaedic.

[JohnMnemonic]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Well that may have been the beginning, but I'm not stuck nearly 50 years ago.

Since that time we have had satellites eg NASA GP-B experiments, but my knowledge of these is far from encyclopaedic.

True... But don't you think, that it's strange, that no one still didn't try to get some better results? Our current technology is now much better, allowing us to make much more precise measurements... It would probably good for the science, if Einstein's theory would be once again proved... But, what do I know?

BTW good, that there is still this thread. All I wanted, was to discuss some of my ideas and learn couple new things, but obviously some people think, that in fact I want to present a completely functional model of unified physics and a fully validated scientific theory, based on endless strings of sophisticated calculations, which will turn the entire world of science upside-down... Hmm, maybe I didn't say clearly enough, that I'm not a professional scientists. Or maybe I forgot to mention, that I'm a total amateur, who treats physics as a kind of hobby...?

Or maybe some people don't like, when amateurs, like me start to talk about things, which are against the mainstream science...? It would be probably much better for all, if I would try to prove the flat Earth "theory", instead looking for new solutions for some old problems in physics...

Anyway I really appreciate your input in the discussion - it is a rare sight, that people with actual knowledge have the will to speak with amateurs, like me  Most of so called "scientists" try only to improve their self-confidence and prove, how smart they are...

Edited August 5, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

59 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Or maybe some people don't like, when amateurs, like me start to talk about things, which are against the mainstream science...? It would be probably much better for all, if I would try to prove the flat Earth "theory", instead looking for new solutions for some old problems in physics...

Well in my case as a fellow amateur, when I find another amateur claiming that some part of mainstream science is wrong, and realizing that the mainstream incumbent versions/theories etc, had needed to also run the gauntlet so to speak, and pass muster and repeatable experiments confirming them, like SR/GR, it beggars belief in my opinion. Particularly when that amateur does not have a proper model, does not have empirical evidence of his or her claims, and simply sees the need to spread his or her 'story/fairy tale", on public science forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. In other words avoiding professional scrutiny in most cases and the scientific methodology. Yes, that raises my hackles and makes me stop and think.

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

Criticism of the theory of relativity:

"Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideologicalbases.[A 1][A 2][A 3] Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community.[1]

Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. According to some authors, antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections.[A 1][A 2][A 3] There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Acceleration_in_special_relativity

Acceleration in special relativity[edit]

It was also claimed that special relativity cannot handle acceleration, which would lead to contradictions in some situations. However, this assessment is not correct, since acceleration actually can be described in the framework of special relativity (see Acceleration (special relativity), Proper reference frame (flat spacetime), Hyperbolic motion, Rindler coordinates, Born coordinates). Paradoxes relying on insufficient understanding of these facts were discovered in the early years of relativity. For example, Max Born (1909) tried to combine the concept of rigid bodies with special relativity. That this model was insufficient was shown by Paul Ehrenfest (1909), who demonstrated that a rotating rigid body would, according to Born's definition, undergo a contraction of the circumference without contraction of the radius, which is impossible (Ehrenfest paradox). Max von Laue (1911) showed that rigid bodies cannot exist in special relativity, since the propagation of signals cannot exceed the speed of light, so an accelerating and rotating body will undergo deformations.^{[A 16][B 7][B 8][C 4]}

Paul Langevin and von Laue showed that the twin paradox can be completely resolved by consideration of acceleration in special relativity. If two twins move away from each other, and one of them is accelerating and coming back to the other, then the accelerated twin is younger than the other one, since he was located in at least two inertial frames of reference, and therefore his assessment of which events are simultaneous changed during the acceleration. For the other twin nothing changes since he remained in a single frame.

 

Much more at both links....

Edited August 6, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Well in my case as a fellow amateur, when I find another amateur claiming that some part of mainstream science is wrong, and realizing that the mainstream incumbent versions/theories etc, had needed to also run the gauntlet so to speak, and pass muster and repeatable experiments confirming them, like SR/GR, it beggars belief in my opinion. Particularly when that amateur does not have a proper model, does not have empirical evidence of his or her claims, and simply sees the need to spread his or her 'story/fairy tale", on public science forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. In other words avoiding professional scrutiny in most cases and the scientific methodology. Yes, that raises my hackles and makes me stop and think.

Well, that's because in the difference to scientists with an actual career, such amateurs don't risk anything by making claims, that are against mainstream theories, which the majority larned to accept without questions. You see, problem is, that most of my controversial claims is in fact based on recent theories and official researches. It is very sad, that people, who spent half of their lives by learning officially approved theories don't want to follow recent trends in science and models, which are still being developed - they simply got used to swallow everything, what is served by those with "authority". Only few are open for new ideas, and are able to constantly improve their knowledge - for the majority everything, what wasn't written in their books and approved by the scientific elite is obviously wrong, stupid and pseudo-scientific... I really don't want to rip apart your hermetic world, but did you ever tried to notice, that the science is still FAR from perfection and even the most famous theories might be replaced in the future by better ones...

Did you ever heard about such things, as Scale Relativity, fractal space-time, Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm,  Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter?

Do you know, that there's quite a lot of scientists, who noticed at last, that the idea of physical time dimension is completely useless and are working right now on models, which are based on the assumption, that Universe exists in real-time only? Do you know, that according to recent studies, entire Universe looks and works like a giant brain? 

Do you know, that magnetohydrodynamics is the only branch of physics, which is in 100% functional? Do you know, what is magnetic reconnection and flux transfer event, or how flux tubes can connect to the lower atmosphere and cause outflows of ionized particles from the magnetosphere? Do you know, how interplanetary electric fields affect the upper cloud layer? Compared to MHD, Special Relativity looks like a crippled gnome with some serious brain issues...

Do you know, that Special Relativity was already disproven theoretically? Do you know, that there are some alternative models of gravity, which work nicely without the hypothetical dark matter? I don't know, if you noticed, but we don;t live in 1905 anymore and even the XX century is gone - and science didn't end at Einstein's Relativity...

I know, that it might be hard, but I would suggest you, to look at the science from a slightly wider perspective and stop to treat mainstream theories, as some sacred knowledge - most of them is already outdated, only people still didn't managed to notice...

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-010-9170-2

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity Theory/Download/4451

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/6751

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

http://www.nacgeo.com/download/SpecialRelativityIsWrong.pdf

http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sTimeDilationDecipheredandProvenWrong/Einstein’s Time Dilation Deciphered and Proven Wrong.htm

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

Just now, JohnMnemonic said:

Well, that's because in the difference to scientists with an actual career, such amateurs don't risk anything by making claims, which are against theories, which the majority larned to accept without questions. managed to notice...

Not true: All theories are at one time or another just simple hypotheticals....They run the gauntlet, gather empirical evidence, make predictions and are conditionally accepted, until an observation or some empirical evidence shows them to be wrong or limited in scale. SR/GR of course have continually done that and as a result like the theory of evolution, are as certain as one could hope for.

Quote

You see, problem is, that most of my controversial claims is in fact based on recent theories and official researches. It is very sad, that people, who spent half of their lives by learning officially approved theories don't want to follow recent trends in science and models, which are still being developed - they simply got used to swallow everything, what is served by those with "authority". Only few are open for new ideas, and are able to constantly improve their knowledge - for the majority everything, what wasn't written in their books and approved by the scientific elite is obviously wrong, stupid and pseudo-scientific... I really don't want to rip apart your hermetic world, but did you ever tried to notice, that the science is still FAR from perfection and even the most famous theories might be replaced in the future by better ones...

You know what to do. If you are afraid to put it to the test, there is probably good reason for that fear. 

 

Quote

Did you ever heard about such things, as Scale Relativity, fractal space-time, Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm,  Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter?

No, not really but again that does not invalidate SR/GR which you erronously claim you have done. I mean we can find this sort of nonsense on all science forums, Attempting to show Einstein as wrong is always the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and so numerous that there worth now is about a dime a dozen. 

 

Quote

 

Do you know, that there's quite a lot of scientists, who noticed at last, that the idea of physical time dimension is completely useless and are working right now on models, which are based on the assumption, that Universe exists in real-time only? Do you know, that according to recent studies, entire Universe looks and works like a giant brain? 

Do you know, that magnetohydrodynamics is the only branch of physics, which is in 100% functional? Do you know, what is magnetic reconnection and flux transfer event, or how flux tubes can connect to the lower atmosphere and cause outflows of ionized particles from the magnetosphere? Do you know, how interplanetary ellectric fields affect the upper cloud layer?

Do you know, that Special Relativity was already disproven theoretically? Do you know, that there are some alternative models of gravity, which work nicely without the hypotheticalo dark matter? I don't know, if you noticed, but we don;t live in 1905 and XX century is gone - science didn't end at Einstein's Relativity...

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2012-04-physicists-abolish-fourth-dimension-space.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/738387/Time-NOT-real-EVERYTHING-happens-same-time-einstein

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-010-9170-2

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Relativity Theory/Download/4451

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research Papers-Relativity Theory/Download/6751

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

http://www.nacgeo.com/download/SpecialRelativityIsWrong.pdf

http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sTimeDilationDecipheredandProvenWrong/Einstein’s Time Dilation Deciphered and Proven Wrong.htm

 

There are loads and loads of simply hypothetical papers giving others food for thought. I have linked to them also. But again the vast majority support SR/GR and mainstream for the many reasons already stated, and because they have been through the process of review and acceptance. Your claims have not.

Quote

I know, that it might be hard, but I would suggest you, to look at the science from a slightly wider perspective and stop to treat mainstream theories, as a sacred knowleddge - most of them is already outdated - only people still didn't

I don't treat mainstream as scared knowledge. I treat it as the best theory/model of what we observe at this time. I do though treat those that claim mainstream or an incumbent theory as wrong, with great distrust and cynicism, as I have seen the way they operate on at least three science forums, and on near all occasions some form of agenda or misunderstanding, or aflcition such as "delusions of grandeur" is obvious.

 

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Not true: All theories are at one time or another just simple hypotheticals....They run the gauntlet, gather empirical evidence, make predictions and are conditionally accepted, until an observation or some empirical evidence shows them to be wrong or limited in scale. SR/GR of course have continually done that and as a result like the theory of evolution, are as certain as one could hope for.

Let's wait a year or two and see, if SR will still be considered as the best solution. Funny, that after 100 years, it is still considered as a THEORY and not a functional model, like QM, EM, MHD and many other ones...

Quote

No, not really but again that does not invalidate SR/GR which you erronously claim you have done. I mean we can find this sort of nonsense on all science forums, Attempting to show Einstein as wrong is always the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and so numerous that there worth now is about a dime a dozen. 

It doesn't invalidate SR - but in many ways replaces it...

Quote

There are loads and loads of simply hypothetical papers giving others food for thought. I have linked to them also. But again the vast majority support SR/GR and mainstream for the many reasons already stated, and because they have been through the process of review and acceptance. Your claims have not.

Look, how long ago those papers were published - most of them around 2 years ago. Give them another 2 to 5 years and we'll see...

Quote

I don't treat mainstream as scared knowledge. I treat it as the best theory/model of what we observe at this time. I do though treat those that claim mainstream or an incumbent theory as wrong, with great distrust and cynicism, as I have seen the way they operate on at least three science forums, and on near all occasions some form of agenda or misunderstanding, or aflcition such as "delusions of grandeur" is obvious.

And yet you repeat some statements, without giving a single thought about them... "Time doesn't flow for light..." Why? "Because the theory says so...", "Because everybody accept the SR - so it has to be correct...".

"It's incorrect to use photons as frame of reference" Why? "Because SR doesn't allow it...", "Because Einstein said so...".

You see, this is the difference between us - I won't accept any claim, without spending some time, thinking about it... You accept claims, just because everybody tell you, that you have to accept them... I accept them, only when I understand their meanings and only after they will make sense for me... If something doesn't make sense, or can be easily disproved by well known facts, then I reject it - and until someone won't prove me, that it is in fact correct, I will treat it as useless junk (no matter, if it was Einstein, who said so, or if everyone around tries to force my acceptance).

Simple and well known fact, that each photon has it's own timeline/history proves clearly, that it has to experience flow of time - this is for me more than enough, to conclude, that Einstein made in this case a mistake. 

And because, couple minutes of thinking is enough, to figure out a solution, which will allow me to use photons as reference - it is clear to me, that the issue is not in the idea, to use speed of light as a reference, but in the theory, which gives us invalid results...

When I see, that observations don't match my predictions, my first guess is, that there's something wrong with the model - and not that 70% of mass in the Universe is invisible and beyond any kind of perception....

But it's most likely because I'm not a professional scientist....

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

Oh, and you say it is a theory and not a model? Gee I was pretty sure they were synonymous. Or are you being purposely obtuse again?

So you don't see the difference between a theory and practice. Theoretically I could try to explain it to you, but in practice it wouldn't make sense...

Quote

None will replace SR that is certain....GR? not replace either but possibly in time extended on with a validted QGT.

Oh, so you can also foretell the future? Can you tell me which numbers I have to choose in a lottery?

Quote

Because any logical extension of what we see happen at sub relativistic speeds, can extended to relativistic speeds and logically be also assumed at "c".

And it is certainly far more logical for me as a lay person to accept 113 years of research, tests, experiments, discoveries etc that have supported and aligned with SR/GR, then to swallow the rhetoric of another lay person on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...or even John. 

But how it is related to the supposed lack of time flow at c?

Quote

I call that delusions of grandeur...no formal qualifications, no hard yards and or degrees etc, no access to particle accelerators or any other state of the art experimental facility, just your own intuition,  and pride...sorry matey, that's not what science is based on. You have none, zilch, nada empirical evidence to show any part of SR/GR is invalid or wrong, and you lack any model that predicts, anything over and above the incumbent model/s. That's the state of the nation at this time.

Problem is, that I spent last couple years, working with models, which are completely functional - for some "unknown" reason, no one tries to argue with MHD or QM - maybe because those are NOT theories?

Quote

For the umpteenth time wrong...firstly the frame of a photon is unrealistic despite your unsupported denial of that fact, secondly as experiments have shown time dilation increases as "c" is approached until, you guessed it, time for want of a better term stands still, thirdly taking the time dilation into consideration and length contraction in the unrealsitic frame of reference of the photon, it could/would traverse the observable universe in an instant.

And you don't see any problem  with the fact, that every velocity, lower than c doesn't exist, as a definitive value?

If from my perspective some object moves at 90% of c, while from your perspective it moves at 5% of c, what is it's "true" velocity?

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[beecee]

23 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

So you don't see the difference between a theory and practice. Theoretically I could try to explain it to you, but in practice it wouldn't make sense...

You are being deliberately obtuse again...Again  theory and model are synonymous, as I said. Got it?

Quote

Oh, so you can also foretell the future? Can you tell me which numbers I have to choose in a lottery?

Certainly far better then you are able to predict. And obviously my statements are based on more then 100 years of validation and verification.

 

Quote

But how it is related to the supposed lack of time flow at c?

I answered that. If you chose to be obtuse and ignore answers, that's your problem. 

But here it is again."Because any logical extension of what we see happen at sub relativistic speeds, can be extended to relativistic speeds and logically be also assumed at "c".

And it is certainly far more logical for me as a lay person to accept 113 years of research, tests, experiments, discoveries etc that have supported and aligned with SR/GR, then to swallow the rhetoric of another lay person on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...or even John. "

Quote

Problem is, that I spent last couple years, working with models, which are completely functional - for some "unknown" reason, no one tries to argue with MHD or QM - maybe because those are NOT theories?

A theory is the highest scientific accolade. Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from. So perhaps with all your self proclaimed knowledge on SR, you should really go back to square 1 and learn proper scientific mainstream accepted standards and definitions.

 

Quote

And you don't see any problem  with the fact, that every velocity, lower than c doesn't exist, as a definitive value?

If from my perspective some object moves at 90% of c, while from your perspective it moves at 5% of c, what is it's "true" velocity?

All frames of references are as valid as each other. One of the cornerstones of what you are attempting to invalidate and pretty badly.

Edited August 6, 2018 by beecee

[JohnMnemonic]

Quote

You are being deliberately obtuse again...Again  theory and model are synonymous, as I said. Got it?

Nope... There's an important difference between a theory and a working model

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-model-and-vs-theory/

Quote

Certainly far better then you are able to predict. And obviously my statements are based on more then 100 years of validation and verification.

Many people thought the same about newtonian gravity...

Quote

."Because any logical extension of what we see happen at sub relativistic speeds, can be extended to relativistic speeds and logically be also assumed at "c".

Oh, then if time is flowing at sub relativistic speeds - why won't we extend this to 100% of c?

Quote

A theory is the highest scientific accolade. Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from. So perhaps with all your self proclaimed knowledge on SR, you should really go back to square 1 and learn proper scientific mainstream accepted standards and definitions.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

"...a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

So, according to you, there's no difference between theoretical and practical science? No difference between things, which theoretically might happen and those which are in fact taking place? So maybe astronomy is also a theory?

QM and MHD are not theories.

Quote

All frames of references are as valid as each other. One of the cornerstones of what you are attempting to invalidate and pretty badly.

Strange - according to you and the SR, the faster a frame is moving, the slower the time flows for it...

Then what is the rate of time flow for a frame, which for one observer moves at 99% of c, while for another one, at 1% of c?

Quote

And it is certainly far more logical for me as a lay person to accept 113 years of research, tests, experiments, discoveries etc that have supported and aligned with SR/GR, then to swallow the rhetoric of another lay person on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry...or even John.

Tell this to all those scientists, who are not afraid to point out the inconsistencioes in SR...

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20170603.12.pdf

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/Y13.6

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01801199

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986998_Special_Relativity_its_Inconsistency_with_the_Standard_Wave_Equation

http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sThreeMistakesinSpecialRelativityRevealed/Einstein’s Three Mistakes in Special Relativity Revealed.htm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0056v1.pdf

https://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentin_Danci/publication/298786831_The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einstein's_Special_Relativity_Theory/links/56eb2abf08aeb65d7593b029/The-core-mathematical-error-of-Einsteins-Special-Relativity-Theory.pdf

But you probably will simply ignore those links - as it is beyond your capabilities, to think about a possibility, that Einstein might be wrong in some aspects of his theory...

Of course, it also doesn't matter for you, that SR and GR are in many ways inconsistent with QM, as you don't see no difference between theoretical and practical science - but just in case, I will mention, that SR and GR belong to the theoretical part, while QM to the practical one...

 

I have just one more question for you: What would you do, if you would notice, that a generally approved theory is inconsistent with observable reality? Would you try to fix the theory, or would you assume, that something has to be wrong with reality?

Before you will answer, think about the non-observable (non-existant?) dark matter....

 

I need also to mention about a very interesting fact - it seems, that since according to SR, it is impossible/invalid to describe the relation between photons and any physical object, there's no way of making a working model of this theory (which is actually based on the speed of light) - as we are simply not able to represent physical objects together with light in space...

Funny, because relativity Doppler's effect describes the speed of light in relation to a moving source - so, obviously any visualisation of Doppler's effect is against the SR....

Edited August 6, 2018 by JohnMnemonic

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Strange - according to you and the SR, the faster a frame is moving, the slower the time flows for it...

 

To help you understand, answer me this one simple question.

 

In a universe where SR applies but there is only one frame, how fast does time flow,

does it matter how fast that frame is moving?

 

In relation to that closed thread, I had quite a detailed post prepared, but I lost it all as the thread was closed.

Here is the info as well as I can remember.

 

Looking at your responses it is clear you are not fully up to speed on classical (pre relativity ) mechanics.

You cannot hope to understand the finer points of Relativity without this knowledge.

Here is an Oxford University book that treats classical mechanics and then moves into SR and elementary GR in a way that is accessible to someone with high school Maths and Physics.

It introduces briefly but does not use the more esoteric notation such as Einsteins's summation notation, contravariance and covariance, tensors, forms and metrics.

But it does not launch directly into a series of definitions about these and then densely obscure the rest of the book with them.

Also it comes fully and reliably verified, unlike many of your references.

I believe it has a simple derivation of the repeated Lorentz transform we were discussing.

 

Dynamics and Relativity

W D McComb

Edited August 6, 2018 by studiot

[Eise]

34 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Nope... There's an important difference between a theory and a working model

The meaning of the word 'theory' is ambiguous: it can mean 'hypothesis' or 'model'. Sometimes the word 'theory' sticks, even when it is empirically proven to the bone. It is a statement of ill faith to argue that, because of the word 'theory', relativity is still a hypothesis. It is e.g used by creationists, when they say 'evolution is just a theory'. Be assured, special relativity is proven, and explains such a variety of phenomena as the colour of gold, the relation between electrical and magnetic fields, the fact that atmospheric muons can be measured at the earth's surface, the fact that accelerators like the LHC work, time shifts in GPS, etc etc.

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Many people thought the same about newtonian gravity...

Well, for slow speeds Newtonian physics is still so precise, that we nearly never must use relativity. The 'border case' of special relativity gives you Newtonian mechanics.We also know that the domain of general relativity excludes situations where we also need QM. But whatever theory will follow, general relativity will arise as border case where we can neglect quantum effects. In both cases the new theory explains why the old theories worked so fine.

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Oh, then if time is flowing at sub relativistic speeds - why won't we extend this to 100% of c?

Because it does not work: you have to divide by 0. But in the limit of velocity approaching c, time stretches, until at the asymptotic velocity of c, time comes to a halt. However only massless particles can (and must!) travel at c.

1 hour ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Strange - according to you and the SR, the faster a frame is moving, the slower the time flows for it...

Then what is the rate of time flow for a frame, which for one observer moves at 99% of c, while for another one, at 1% of c?

Obviously you do not understand special relativity at all. Time dilation is something observed by an observer who has a certain speed relative to the clock. If the speed is different for yet another frame of reference that observer will notice another time dilation factor. For an observer travelling with a clock, i.e. with the same speed in the same direction, nothing happens. The clock runs as clocks use to do in our normal, low speed world. The paradox you seem to have discovered simply does not exist, and arises from your misunderstanding.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

True... But don't you think, that it's strange, that no one still didn't try to get some better results? Our current technology is now much better, allowing us to make much more precise measurements... It would probably good for the science, if Einstein's theory would be once again proved... But, what do I know?

Have you investigated this? The experiments that confirm relativity? I mean, what *literally* do you know?

 

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Nope... There's an important difference between a theory and a working model

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-model-and-vs-theory/

Many people thought the same about newtonian gravity...

Oh, then if time is flowing at sub relativistic speeds - why won't we extend this to 100% of c?

Anyone who understands relativity knows the answer to this. In fact, it's already been mentioned.

 

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 Tell this to all those scientists, who are not afraid to point out the inconsistencioes in SR...

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.20170603.12.pdf

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/Y13.6

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01801199

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986998_Special_Relativity_its_Inconsistency_with_the_Standard_Wave_Equation

http://www.mrelativity.net/Einstein'sThreeMistakesinSpecialRelativityRevealed/Einstein’s Three Mistakes in Special Relativity Revealed.htm

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0056v1.pdf

https://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valentin_Danci/publication/298786831_The_core_mathematical_error_of_Einstein's_Special_Relativity_Theory/links/56eb2abf08aeb65d7593b029/The-core-mathematical-error-of-Einsteins-Special-Relativity-Theory.pdf

But you probably will simply ignore those links - as it is beyond your capabilities, to think about a possibility, that Einstein might be wrong in some aspects of his theory...

Instead of the shotgun/Gish gallop approach, how about picking one of these and arguing it on its merits. Or is that beyond your capabilities?

(and if so, how can you vouch for the legitimacy of any of these objections?)

 

 

4 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 Problem is, that I spent last couple years, working with models, which are completely functional - for some "unknown" reason, no one tries to argue with MHD or QM - maybe because those are NOT theories?

No one argues with QM? You just haven't been paying attention.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Nope... There's an important difference between a theory and a working model

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-model-and-vs-theory/

From your link......"A model provides the individual with a structural representation of the phenomenon, allowing him to gain a fuller understanding of it. " What I said in my last post..... "Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from". My claim stands

Quote

Many people thought the same about newtonian gravity...

And yet we still use Newtonian system everyday in all aspects on Earth, and still in most space missions that have been undertaken. In fact GR gives the same answers as Newtonian, though far more mathematically involved and obviously with far more precision. Newtonian is not wrong when applied within its zone of applicability.

 

Quote

Oh, then if time is flowing at sub relativistic speeds - why won't we extend this to 100% of c?

As you perfectly well know, but seem to be in denial, when objects obtain speed, time with it from another frame appears to slow down...that continues at an ever increasing rate as speed approaches "c" until at "c" it literally stops. Even though obviously "c'will never be reached, we/scientists are allowed to apply reasonable continuing logic to extend to "c'.

Quote

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

"...a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena"

 

Again a scientific theory is the highest accolade that exists in any particular scientific discipline. But we all know you are aware of that and once again, are being obtuse.....https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html "A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. 

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You see that is a part of the scientific method you need to learn about. Scientific theories are based on observations and repeatable experimental results and other empirical evidence. But as observations improve or as we observe further, scientific theories may be added to, modified, and/or totally rejected. On the other hand as scientific theories such as SR, GR,  and the theory of evolution, continue making successful predictions, their certainty does grow and they become more set in concrete///evolution for example is as sure as we can really ever get, I'm sure you'll agree.

 

Quote

So, according to you, there's no difference between theoretical and practical science? No difference between things, which theoretically might happen and those which are in fact taking place? So maybe astronomy is also a theory?

I have told you what a scientific theory is. And obviously practical science speaks for itslef but just as obviously is based on the scientific method in general.

Quote

QM and MHD are not theories.

Yes they are. Otherwise please show me something that indicates they are not scientific theories.

Quote

Strange - according to you and the SR, the faster a frame is moving, the slower the time flows for it

Yep certainly from an external frame point of view, and verified many hundreds of times....

Quote

Then what is the rate of time flow for a frame, which for one observer moves at 99% of c, while for another one, at 1% of c?

I;m not a mathematician but again, what I will say is that all frames are as valid as each other.

 

Quote

Tell this to all those scientists, who are not afraid to point out the inconsistencioes in SR...

We all know the amount of rubbish on the net, so I havn't really checked out your links. But as you and I know, and most all on this forum and the vast majority of scientists, that SR has been validated many thousands of times. 

 

Quote

 

But you probably will simply ignore those links - as it is beyond your capabilities, to think about a possibility, that Einstein might be wrong in some aspects of his theory...

Of course, it also doesn't matter for you, that SR and GR are in many ways inconsistent with QM, as you don't see no difference between theoretical and practical science - but just in case, I will mention, that SR and GR belong to the theoretical part, while QM to the practical one...

 

Einstein has been, and still is tested everyday and as far as I know has passed with flying colours and both SR and GR are still overwhelmingly the theories/models of choice, simply because they match observations far more precisely then anything else you can care to name, and of course continue making successful predictions. 

And yes, GR certainly has its limitations and no one has ever disputed that, but it is still the overwhelming theory/model that scientist accept and successfully use. 

Quote

I have just one more question for you: What would you do, if you would notice, that a generally approved theory is inconsistent with observable reality? Would you try to fix the theory, or would you assume, that something has to be wrong with reality?

As a lay person and an amateur, like yourself, I would make every effort to know the incumbent model/theory, I would question and wonder why over a hundred years or so that the real professional and experts in that field had not also realized this hypothetical inconsistency, and then if I was still certain that I had found some fault or anomaly, I would sit down and write a proper paper for proper professional peer review.

But getting back to reality what you refuse to see is that scientific theories, even those as certain as SR and GR are being continually tested everyday by these aforementioned professionals, and everyone of them would dearly love to be able to find some fault or inconsistency in the task at hand, and guarrentee fame and fortune for themselves for the rest of their lives.

 

Quote

Before you will answer, think about the non-observable (non-existant?) dark matter....

Before yo go off half cocked re your thoughts on DM, you would be wise to consider the evidence that does support it. If more evidence happens to come to light invalidating this DM, then I'm sure those at the coal face will be forthcoming with such evidence and have it properly published for proper peer review.

Quote

 

I need also to mention about a very interesting fact - it seems, that since according to SR, it is impossible/invalid to describe the relation between photons and any physical object, there's no way of making a working model of this theory (which is actually based on the speed of light) - as we are simply not able to represent physical objects together with light in space...

Funny, because relativity Doppler's effect describes the speed of light in relation to a moving source - so, obviously any visualisation of Doppler's effect is against the SR...

 

.Again do what you need to do to bring any of your mythical objections re SR and as an extension, GR to professional attention. In the meantime I believe you are confusing the Doppler shift with cosmological shift and in other circumstances, gravitational shift.

In the meantime SR and GR both at this time stand as unchallenged.

Edited August 6, 2018 by beecee

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, JohnMnemonic said:

But you probably will simply ignore those links - as it is beyond your capabilities, to think about a possibility, that Einstein might be wrong in some aspects of his theory...

These links are examples of publications that either do not appear in peer-reviewed journals, have been falsified during peer review, or are based on erroneous assumptions & misunderstandings of what SR is actually about. To name just two examples - viXra is not a peer-reviewed journal (anyone can publish anything there, so it is of no scientific value), and Stephen Crothers is a known crank and crackpot, devoid of any scientific credibility.

What I am trying to say is that you need to be more careful in choosing your sources.

On the other hand, it is scientific fact that no violations of Lorentz invariance (the symmetry that underlies the theory of relativity) have ever been observed:

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

Relativity is evidently valid within its domain of applicability. Obviously, that domain is limited, just like for any other model of physics. For example, Newtonian gravity is valid in the weak-field, low-velocity domain, but fails miserably outside of this. Likewise, we expect relativity to break down also at some point, presumably in the domain of quantum gravity. That does not make it wrong though, any more than relativity makes Newton wrong; it’s just a question of getting the domain of applicability right.

[beecee]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

To help you understand, answer me this one simple question..

Also it comes fully and reliably verified, unlike many of your references.

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Obviously you do not understand special relativity at all

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Have you investigated this? The experiments that confirm relativity? I mean, what *literally* do you know?

No one argues with QM? You just haven't been paying attention.

 

12 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

These links are examples of publications that either do not appear in peer-reviewed journals, have been falsified during peer review, or are based on erroneous assumptions & misunderstandings of what SR is actually about.

Relativity is evidently valid within its domain of applicability.

Thanks fellas. Please though, in the interest of my continued learning, please review my own claims and posts. Pretty rough and ready I do realize.

[JohnMnemonic]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

To help you understand, answer me this one simple question.

 

In a universe where SR applies but there is only one frame, how fast does time flow,

does it matter how fast that frame is moving?

To be honest, I'm against the idea, that a constant velocity is causing physical time dilation. Of course I don't have nothing against relative time dilation - but then we would need also a second frame...

Quote

In relation to that closed thread, I had quite a detailed post prepared, but I lost it all as the thread was closed.

Here is the info as well as I can remember.

 

Looking at your responses it is clear you are not fully up to speed on classical (pre relativity ) mechanics.

You cannot hope to understand the finer points of Relativity without this knowledge.

Here is an Oxford University book that treats classical mechanics and then moves into SR and elementary GR in a way that is accessible to someone with high school Maths and Physics.

It introduces briefly but does not use the more esoteric notation such as Einsteins's summation notation, contravariance and covariance, tensors, forms and metrics.

But it does not launch directly into a series of definitions about these and then densely obscure the rest of the book with them.

Also it comes fully and reliably verified, unlike many of your references.

I believe it has a simple derivation of the repeated Lorentz transform we were discussing.

 

Dynamics and Relativity

W D McComb

Thanks! I will check it...

[Markus Hanke]

I find it difficult to fathom how anyone could claim that SR is inconsistent; after all, the relationship between inertial frames is given by a simple hyperbolic rotation. That’s it, that’s all there is to it - a rotation about some angle. Claiming that SR (between inertial frames) is inconsistent amounts to claiming that there are rotations that are not reversible. Can anyone show us an example of a rotation about some point and angle that is not reversible by counterrotating about the same angle? I guess not. 

Taking it further, beyond purely inertial frames, the claim of inconsistency would amount to saying that Minkowski spacetime permits violations of causality. While the formal proof of this one is more tricky, it should nonetheless be intuitively obvious that - since this spacetime is everywhere flat, and has a constant metric - no such violations are possible.

This kind of discussion is just a waste of time, since the internal consistency of SR is not under any kind of contention. The only point that one could possible argue about is the question of whether SR is a good and valid model of the real world. Given that no violations of Lorentz invariance have ever been observed, it stands to reason that it is indeed a good description, at the very least within the domain of applicability that we can currently probe. And that’s a pretty wide domain.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Markus Hanke

[JohnMnemonic]

3 hours ago, Eise said:

The meaning of the word 'theory' is ambiguous: it can mean 'hypothesis' or 'model'. Sometimes the word 'theory' sticks, even when it is empirically proven to the bone. It is a statement of ill faith to argue that, because of the word 'theory', relativity is still a hypothesis. It is e.g used by creationists, when they say 'evolution is just a theory'. Be assured, special relativity is proven, and explains such a variety of phenomena as the colour of gold, the relation between electrical and magnetic fields, the fact that atmospheric muons can be measured at the earth's surface, the fact that accelerators like the LHC work, time shifts in GPS, etc etc.

I never said, that SR is completely wrong in every of it's aspects. There are just 3 things, which I disagree with:

- time dilation due to constant velocity

- lack of time flow at 100% of c

- impossibility of using photons and speed of light, as reference

Maybe there is more, but at this point those are the parts, which I can't accept just like this

Quote

Well, for slow speeds Newtonian physics is still so precise, that we nearly never must use relativity. The 'border case' of special relativity gives you Newtonian mechanics.We also know that the domain of general relativity excludes situations where we also need QM. But whatever theory will follow, general relativity will arise as border case where we can neglect quantum effects. In both cases the new theory explains why the old theories worked so fine.

I know. I just wanted to prove, that we don't have a theory or a model, which would be complete and ultimate. I don't say, that we have to completely get rid of SR - whatever anyone says, it is still the best way, to explain the concept of relative frames. However it doesn't have to mean that SR is in 100% perfect, just as it is now...

Quote

Because it does not work: you have to divide by 0. But in the limit of velocity approaching c, time stretches, until at the asymptotic velocity of c, time comes to a halt. However only massless particles can (and must!) travel at c.

But all we have to do, is to assume, that time is actually flowing at 100% of c and everything would be just fine...

Quote

Obviously you do not understand special relativity at all. Time dilation is something observed by an observer who has a certain speed relative to the clock. If the speed is different for yet another frame of reference that observer will notice another time dilation factor. For an observer travelling with a clock, i.e. with the same speed in the same direction, nothing happens. The clock runs as clocks use to do in our normal, low speed world. The paradox you seem to have discovered simply does not exist, and arises from your misunderstanding.

I was talking about the kind of time dilation, which physically reduces the time, experienced by an observer in motion. This completely breaks the symmetry of relative motion... I don't have nothing against time dilations, caused by relativity of motion and due to Doppler's effect - they work for me just fine...

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/

"Perhaps one of the strangest aspects of special relativity is that distances shrink in the direction of motion. This may not seem so important at first but it leads to something quite remarkable. Common sense tells us that if a spaceship travels at 90% of the speed of light then it would take about 11 years to reach a star 10 light years away, and that is indeed what a stationary observer would see and measure. However, for the spaceship not only time but distance will dilate and the star would be reached in about only 4.8 years. Going even faster reduces the time taken by an ever increasing amount"

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Have you investigated this? The experiments that confirm relativity? I mean, what *literally* do you know?

Well, maybe I don't know about every single experiment, but I've read about the most important ones...

Anyway, ther's no way to prove experimentally, that time doesn't flow at 100% of c...

 

Quote

Instead of the shotgun/Gish gallop approach, how about picking one of these and arguing it on its merits. Or is that beyond your capabilities?

(and if so, how can you vouch for the legitimacy of any of these objections?)

I could do so, but I doubt that the person, who I spoke to would be able to consider any argument, which speaks against SR.

In this particular case, I just wanted to prove, that I'm not the only one, who was able to notice incosistencies in the theory - and that there are many professional scientists, who dare to disagree with Einsten's theory

2 hours ago, beecee said:

From your link......"A model provides the individual with a structural representation of the phenomenon, allowing him to gain a fuller understanding of it. " What I said in my last post..... "Yes, they are theories. And as a consequence is what the model derives from". My claim stands

Just as astronomy or classical mechanics is a theory - that means not too much...

Quote

And yet we still use Newtonian system everyday in all aspects on Earth, and still in most space missions that have been undertaken. In fact GR gives the same answers as Newtonian, though far more mathematically involved and obviously with far more precision. Newtonian is not wrong when applied within its zone of applicability.

And yet, in many cases GR explains things much better. SR is not wrong, until we won't try to define the relation between a photon and something else (and maybe the time dilation due to constant velocity)

Quote

As you perfectly well know, but seem to be in denial, when objects obtain speed time with it from another frame appears to slow down...that continues at an ever increasing rate as speed approaches "c" until at "c" it literally stops. 

And somehow you still wasn't able to notice, that it contradicts the basic laws of relative motion? Of course, if you are talking talking all the time about relative (apparent) time dilation - then ok. However, what I disagree with is the actual (real) time dilation - the one, which creates the twin paradox in SR...

Quote

Again a scientific theory is the highest accolade that exists in any particular scientific discipline. But we all know you are aware of that and once again, are being obtuse.....https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html "A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. 

For me a theory, is something what is still theoretical and still needs a visual or experimental confirmation. For example classical mechanics is NOT a theory for me, as each of it's aspects can be proved by real life observations. And for the same reason, astronomy, QM and MHD are NOT theories as well. SR and GR deal however with things, which are beyond our perception at this moment...

Quote

You see that is a part of the scientific method you need to learn about. Scientific theories are based on observations and repeatable experimental results and other empirical evidence. But as observations improve or as we observe further, scientific theories may be added to, modified, and/or totally rejected. On the other hand as scientific theories such as SR, GR, the theory of evolution, continue making successful predictions, their certainty does grow and they become more set in concrete///evolution for example is as sure as we can really ever get, I'm sure you'll agree.

I agree... And this is examtly why astronomy, QM or MHD are ŃOT theories - they don't need to be proved or modified anymore. Of course, in the case of QM, there are still couple aspects, which are still theoretical - like the Higgs Field for example - but the part, which is being used by quantum physicists in their laboratories is no longer a theory, only an assembly of LAWS (just like the classical mechaniocs)

Quote

Yes they are. Otherwise please show me something that indicates they are not scientific theories.

Is third Newton's law a theory?

No...

And neither are magnetic fields, plasma currents, reconnections, wavefunction, entanglement and all other things, explained by QM and MHD - those are LAWS OF PHYSICS

Quote

Yep certainly from an external frame point of view, and verified many hundreds of times....

I'm talking about a different kind of time dilation... This one:

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Dilation-Calc/

"Perhaps one of the strangest aspects of special relativity is that distances shrink in the direction of motion. This may not seem so important at first but it leads to something quite remarkable. Common sense tells us that if a spaceship travels at 90% of the speed of light then it would take about 11 years to reach a star 10 light years away, and that is indeed what a stationary observer would see and measure. However, for the spaceship not only time but distance will dilate and the star would be reached in about only 4.8 years. Going even faster reduces the time taken by an ever increasing amount"

Quote

We all know the amount of rubbish on the net, so I havn't really checked out your links. But as you and I know, and most all on this forum and the vast majority of scientists, that SR has been validated many thousands of times. 

Haha! Why I knew, that every scientific and peer revieved publication, which dares to disagree with SR, will be automatically labelled by you, as "rubbish"...

swansont - do you know now, what I ment earlier?

Quote

Einstein has been, and still is tested everyday and as far as I know has passed with flying colours and both SR and GR are still overwhelmingly the theories/models of choice, simply because they match observations far more precisely then anything else you can care to name, and of course continue making successful predictions. 

And yes, GR certainly has its limitations and no one has ever disputed that, but it is still the overwhelming theory/model that scientist accept and successfully use. 

Yes yes yes yes... Cool... Newtonian gravity was also tested many times and it worked nicely - until one day, someone noticed something, what didn't work...

Quote

As a lay person and an amateur, like yourself, I would make every effort to know the incumbent model/theory, I would question and wonder why over a hundred years or so that the real professional and experts in that field had not also realized this hypothetical inconsistency, and then if I was still certain that I had found some fault or anomaly, I would sit down and write a proper paper for proper professional peer review.

But they realized - only you decided to call their observations as "rubbish"... I feel, like speaking with someone, who stands in front of an elephant and tells: "but what elephant? I can't see any... Behind me...? But that's only a big rock - just ignore it"

Quote

But getting back to reality what you refuse to see is that scientific theories, even those as certain as SR and GR are being continually tested everyday by these aforementioned professionals, and everyone of them would dearly love to be able to find some fault or inconsistency in the task at hand, and guarrentee fame and fortune for themselves for the rest of their lives.

But they DID find inconsistencies and they DID speak about them loudly. Problem is, that 95% of scientists still keep pretending, that "there's no elephant, just a big rock"

Quote

Before yo go off half cocked re your thoughts on DM, you would be wise to consider the evidence that does support it. If more evidence happens to come to light invalidating this DM, then I'm sure those at the coal face will be forthcoming with such evidne and have it properly published for proper peer review.

By "evidences" you mean the disagreement between between GR and observations? Yes - galaxies are rotating faster, than GR predicts. I can find at least 10 different explanations (where 80% of them requires just a small modification of the GR mechanics).

Assumung, that 70% of mass is somehow "hidden" from us, is the absolutelty last thing, I would think about (but I probably wouldn't)

Do you have any other "evidence"? I would love to hear about it6

Quote

.Again do what you need to do to bring any of your mythical objections re SR and as an extension, GR to professional attention. In the meantime I believe you are confusing the Doppler shift with cosmological shift and in other circumstances, gravitational shift.

By Doppler's effect, I mean Doppler's effect - nothing else

this thing...

Quote

In the meantime SR and GR both at this time stand as unchallenged.

"But what elephant? That's just a big rock"

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

 Well, maybe I don't know about every single experiment, but I've read about the most important ones...

 

And yet you complain "But don't you think, that it's strange, that no one still didn't try to get some better results?"

I have trouble making the two reconcile. Which is it? Do you know about the experiments, or do you think that more precise experiments have not been done? 

51 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

Anyway, ther's no way to prove experimentally, that time doesn't flow at 100% of c...

I will state again: this is not part of SR (or, as far as I am aware, of any theory in physics). A photon is not in an inertial frame of reference. You cannot use c in a Lorentz transformation and get a sensible answer.

So plug away at this, by all means, but understand the context. 

51 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I could do so, but I doubt that the person, who I spoke to would be able to consider any argument, which speaks against SR.

We do it all the time. The speculations forum is well-populated with threads from people who think SR is flawed. Universally these people have been shown to not understand relativity, or how science works, or how to do math. Sometimes all three. 

51 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

In this particular case, I just wanted to prove, that I'm not the only one, who was able to notice incosistencies in the theory - and that there are many professional scientists, who dare to disagree with Einsten's theory

"Daring" to disagree is one thing (and really, it overstates the alleged bravery required), but coming up with an argument that has any merit is quite another. As Markus pointed out above, most of the links are not credible sources, nor are they peer-reviewed, and peer review would likely clear out the worst of the clutter from folks who do not understand relativity.

My invitation stands. Pick one, if you are prepared to defend it. 

  

[JohnMnemonic]

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

These links are examples of publications that either do not appear in peer-reviewed journals, have been falsified during peer review, or are based on erroneous assumptions & misunderstandings of what SR is actually about. To name just two examples - viXra is not a peer-reviewed journal (anyone can publish anything there, so it is of no scientific value), and Stephen Crothers is a known crank and crackpot, devoid of any scientific credibility.

What I am trying to say is that you need to be more careful in choosing your sources.

This one was peer-reviewed:

https://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/UnsolvedProblemsRelativity.pdf

I can't find any notion about the peer-review in those, but researchgate is a reliable source of scientifc publications - they wouldn't publish papers without any scientific value...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315847936_On_the_Logical_Inconsistency_of_Einstein's_Time_Dilation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315847829_On_the_Logical_Inconsistency_of_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318986998_Special_Relativity_its_Inconsistency_with_the_Standard_Wave_Equation

I could look for more, but for now it should be enough

Quote

On the other hand, it is scientific fact that no violations of Lorentz invariance (the symmetry that underlies the theory of relativity) have ever been observed:

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

Relativity is evidently valid within its domain of applicability. Obviously, that domain is limited, just like for any other model of physics. For example, Newtonian gravity is valid in the weak-field, low-velocity domain, but fails miserably outside of this. Likewise, we expect relativity to break down also at some point, presumably in the domain of quantum gravity. That does not make it wrong though, any more than relativity makes Newton wrong; it’s just a question of getting the domain of applicability right.

Thanks! That's exactly what I'm trying to say. However 95% of scientists assume, that if we get invalid results, when we want to use SR in some particular cases, it has to mean, that the problen lies in those particular cases and not in the theory...

Why can't we simply look for an alternative solution, which would work - just as it was with newtonian gravity and GR?

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I find it difficult to fathom how anyone could claim that SR is inconsistent; after all, the relationship between inertial frames is given by a simple hyperbolic rotation. That’s it, that’s all there is to it - a rotation about some angle. Claiming that SR (between inertial frames) is inconsistent amounts to claiming that there are rotations that are not reversible. Can anyone show us an example of a rotation about some point and angle that is not reversible by counterrotating about the same angle? I guess not. 

Taking it further, beyond purely inertial frames, the claim of inconsistency would amount to saying that Minkowski spacetime permits violations of causality. While the formal proof of this one is more tricky, it should nonetheless be intuitively obvious that - since this spacetime is everywhere flat, and has a constant metric - no such violations are possible.

This kind of discussion is just a waste of time, since the internal consistency of SR is not under any kind of contention. The only point that one could possible argue about is the question of whether SR is a good and valid model of the real world. Given that no violations of Lorentz invariance have ever been observed, it stands to reason that it is indeed a good description, at the very least within the domain of applicability that we can currently probe. And that’s a pretty wide domain.

But still we can't get a valid result, if we want to use a photon as reference...

[geordief]

Can the photon travel at less than c if it is making its way out of a gravity well? Would it have a FOR then?

 

Also can its FOR when it does travel at c be expressed as a limit? (if it is the zeros/infinities involved  that are the reason it can't have a valid FOR)

Edited August 6, 2018 by geordief

[JohnMnemonic]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

And yet you complain "But don't you think, that it's strange, that no one still didn't try to get some better results?"

I have trouble making the two reconcile. Which is it? Do you know about the experiments, or do you think that more precise experiments have not been done? 

I was talking about the repetitions of Hafele-Keating experiment

Quote

I will state again: this is not part of SR (or, as far as I am aware, of any theory in physics). A photon is not in an inertial frame of reference. You cannot use c in a Lorentz transformation and get a sensible answer.

Here's  nice movie, which shows the problem:

My question is: why we can't we use different transformations, to make light stationary? We can still rotate or skew the diagram. No one knows, how the relative motion of photons behave at the speed of light - photons don't have to move at the same speed for other photons...

I need to think about it - sadly I don't have such nice tool as this guy...

Quote

We do it all the time. The speculations forum is well-populated with threads from people who think SR is flawed. Universally these people have been shown to not understand relativity, or how science works, or how to do math. Sometimes all three. 

But do you also completely ignore links to publications and assume, that they are just some rubbish?

Quote

"Daring" to disagree is one thing (and really, it overstates the alleged bravery required), but coming up with an argument that has any merit is quite another. As Markus pointed out above, most of the links are not credible sources, nor are they peer-reviewed, and peer review would likely clear out the worst of the clutter from folks who do not understand relativity.

links, which I posted in the response to Markus Hanke seem to be ok...

Quote

My invitation stands. Pick one, if you are prepared to defend it. 

Ok, I'll try... Give me just some time...

1 minute ago, JohnMnemonic said:

My question is: why we can't we use different transformations, to make light stationary? We can still rotate or skew the diagram. No one knows, how the relative motion of photons behave at the speed of light - photons don't have to move at the same speed for other photons...

Ok, I can guess already, what happens after the rotation of time-space diagram - for a stationary photon, photons in motion would appear to move instantly (at 0t)...

Skewing requires better imagination... Maybe I'll try to draw it...

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, JohnMnemonic said:

I was talking about the repetitions of Hafele-Keating experiment

I recall they did a recreation of that on the 25th anniversary. A flight from London to the US and back; they didn't need to go around the world because the clocks were better. There was also an experiment where the plane just did a "racetrack" path for an extended period of time.

And surprise! Wikipedia covers all this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment#Repetitions

But here's the thing: once you have confirmed the theory, you tend to move on, and do experiments that rely on the experiment being correct, rather than a straightforward test. So if you look for a bunch of experiments that are an improvement of Hafele-Keating they may not exist, because we now do more advanced work. GPS, for example, wouldn't work unless relativity were correct. All of the really precise tests of GR wouldn't work if the basics were wrong.