Hijack from Speed of Time

[Logicandreason]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

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

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

No, its been assumed to have been observed.  This stuff is not like looking art a girl in a red dress, she is either there or not. But with EVERYTING to do with SR, experiments magically and conveniently, the 'observations" are about invisible particles, speeds that can't be confirmed, only calculated, and incredible assumptions. No alternative explanations are entertained. 

Anyway,  as I've said before, no experiment can prove relativity, and no interpretation of what's going on with light is slam dunk. You are kidding if you believe that its all beyond contest. 

But regardless, you have admitted that the ONLY basis for SR is now in the interpretation of observations.

Because rational analysis of the hypothesis leads nowhere.

So I've proved my point.

Next,, Am I supposed to spend the next few decades digging up any alternative interpretations and criticisms of experiments that claim to support SR., just to show you what obvious?  That NO amount of observations can PROVE SR. And the ones cited CAN BE OTHERWISE interpreted.  None of this is supporting information is beyond question. 

 

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Let us get a few facts straight.

 

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

2) Newton knew nothing of electrodynamics or electromagnetism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't that wasting everybody's time ?

1. what exactly was Newton unable to account for? And why does his inability necessitate all his laws being discarded? There were other alternatives keeping with Newtons Kinematics that could solve the issues.

4. There is something a bit suspicious about the claims that there could exist a "universal constant" for Permittivity and permeability of "Free Space" that just happens  to reveal the same magic number claimed for Light speed. Permittivity and Permeability are PROPERTIES, and properties (height, weight, hardness, temperature, colour, density, ANY Property is a property of some OBJECT. Energy is even a property of some object.  So how can you claim that you have measured the Property of NOTHING?   Free Space, has no  properties, that is part of its definition, if there are measurable properties, then there is something there to which those Properties are associated. So clearly you are NOT measuring the "Free space" , you are measuring something to do with those plates, a property of the plates and the energy contained. and how the associated energy can bridge the gap.

Thus it can only be a clever fudge to come up with such "universal constants", which magically were able to back up some other claims. The value of those constants is almost identical to the measurement of Wood, some metals, and a whole list of other substances. How come NOTHING measured has the same value as solid plastic or wood? Meaning that EM waves travel through glass, wood plastic and some metals as fast as in a vacuum.???

6. Newton's mechanics does actually conform perfectly to that Principal. Why do you say it does not? By confusing the constancy of motion with a measurement of that motion I bet.

7. I bet you are still using that same error about constancy and measurements yet again.

Any imagined inability of Newtons mechanics can be solved by the correct understanding of constancy and how measurements are not the same thing.

 

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

The speed of light was measured long before Einstein. It had a value. c refers to that speed.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

Not rational to you, but your demonstrated confusion about all this points to you as the problem. The argument is quite rational to people who can follow it.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

Yes, exactly. So when the rod is moving at v, light should move at c+v if they are moving in the same direction. We can find the time to travel the distance of the rod + the distance the rod moves (which we have already established as r + vt) using d = velocity * time

t = d/v = r + vt/c+v

rearranging, we get ct + vt = r + vt, which simplifies to ct = r, so t=r/c

But Einstein’s equation, using the constant c in all frames, is t = r/c-v

The equations are different. One of the motivations for the paper

 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Einstein absolutely stipulated a specific speed measurement in the paper in section one, Quote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c" 

Light has a speed, so of course it has a value. Einstein never specified that value; the actual number doesn’t matter for his argument.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

And EVERY expert globally agrees that this measure of c is 186.... and have repeatedly told me that this is the case. If Einstein had only though of c as a "consistency of motion", allowing it to be a variable dependant on the origin of measurement,

He never refers to it as “consistency of motion” he calls it the “constancy of the velocity of light” meaning it is a constant and not variable

 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

then he could not have proceeded with his argument that is supposed to reveal the big problem on classical physics. For the section one and two, c must be a fixed value, 186...

Yes, a fixed value. Not variable.

The number attached to this isn’t mentioned.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

Einstein was not advocating an absolute system. He was arguing for a relative system. Hence the name, theory of relativity

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

The "state of Physics" cant have been so well known as you claim, because if it were, Einstein would not have to had spelled it all out as a teacher does to children which is what the first two sections are doing.

Einstein wasn’t spelling out the current (prior to 1905) state of physics, he was proposing something new

 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

If you were correct, and you clearly are not, Einstein could have simply skipped the first two sections ang gotten straight into his claims.

Whatever

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

What?

His proposed solution is the explanation 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

I fixed the post, but it would help if you could learn how to use the quote function properly

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

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

Einstein’s equation did not use “classical” physics. He used a constant c for the moving frame!

 

[Mordred]

59 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

Any imagined inability of Newtons mechanics can be solved by the correct understanding of constancy and how measurements are not the same thing.

 

Prove it, that burden of proof is up to you. We have already mentioned dozens of times the observational evidence wasn't fully accounted for by Newtons laws. While SR can and does account for the discrepancies.

Your refusal to examine those discrepancies doesn't change that reality.

So it's up to you to prove SR is unnecessary.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by Mordred

[exchemist]

56 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

No, its been assumed to have been observed.  This stuff is not like looking art a girl in a red dress, she is either there or not. But with EVERYTING to do with SR, experiments magically and conveniently, the 'observations" are about invisible particles, speeds that can't be confirmed, only calculated, and incredible assumptions. No alternative explanations are entertained. 

Anyway,  as I've said before, no experiment can prove relativity, and no interpretation of what's going on with light is slam dunk. You are kidding if you believe that its all beyond contest. 

But regardless, you have admitted that the ONLY basis for SR is now in the interpretation of observations.

Because rational analysis of the hypothesis leads nowhere.

So I've proved my point.

Next,, Am I supposed to spend the next few decades digging up any alternative interpretations and criticisms of experiments that claim to support SR., just to show you what obvious?  That NO amount of observations can PROVE SR. And the ones cited CAN BE OTHERWISE interpreted.  None of this is supporting information is beyond question. 

 

1. what exactly was Newton unable to account for? And why does his inability necessitate all his laws being discarded? There were other alternatives keeping with Newtons Kinematics that could solve the issues.

4. There is something a bit suspicious about the claims that there could exist a "universal constant" for Permittivity and permeability of "Free Space" that just happens  to reveal the same magic number claimed for Light speed. Permittivity and Permeability are PROPERTIES, and properties (height, weight, hardness, temperature, colour, density, ANY Property is a property of some OBJECT. Energy is even a property of some object.  So how can you claim that you have measured the Property of NOTHING?   Free Space, has no  properties, that is part of its definition, if there are measurable properties, then there is something there to which those Properties are associated. So clearly you are NOT measuring the "Free space" , you are measuring something to do with those plates, a property of the plates and the energy contained. and how the associated energy can bridge the gap.

Thus it can only be a clever fudge to come up with such "universal constants", which magically were able to back up some other claims. The value of those constants is almost identical to the measurement of Wood, some metals, and a whole list of other substances. How come NOTHING measured has the same value as solid plastic or wood? Meaning that EM waves travel through glass, wood plastic and some metals as fast as in a vacuum.???

6. Newton's mechanics does actually conform perfectly to that Principal. Why do you say it does not? By confusing the constancy of motion with a measurement of that motion I bet.

7. I bet you are still using that same error about constancy and measurements yet again.

Any imagined inability of Newtons mechanics can be solved by the correct understanding of constancy and how measurements are not the same thing.

 

Not at all. I'm choosing to focus on the observations because you've had a good run with @Mordred on the derivation of the theory and I can't do that as well as he can, as I'm only a chemist. But in the end, in science, observations are what count. How the theory was derived may be interesting intellectually, but the test of a theory is whether it predicts observations correctly.

You seem not to have engaged at all with the examples on time dilation and mass-energy equivalence I gave you earlier. Why is that? 

[Logicandreason]

42 minutes ago, Eise said:

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

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

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

Consider for now, that GR and Quantum are nonsense please. Its possible. Its also explainable how and why its nonsense.

But I cant jump into that argument.   Both GR and Quantum are saying opposing things, both have lots of fun math and both have concrete evidence it is claimed. But both can't be correct as they contradict each other. Only one can be correct, but of course both can be wrong. I go with the latter. Because both Quantum and GR are irrational and illogical.

Neither actually has any incontestable observed evidence.

GPS actually works accurately DESPITE the claims of Einstein, It doesn't apply SR ad GR corrections at all. there are several Papers explaining all the reasons why GPS signals get out of sync with Earth clocks, there are 7 I recall from memory, and NONE of them involve SR  but they do account for Gravity differences.  If you look at the magnitude of those errors, and place the claimed amount due to Relativity on the list, it comes last, the least magnitude. SO of they can solve those other factors by software on Earth receivers, then that could also easily do the same for the claimed relativity errors. Add to that the fact that every satellite clock is RE SYNCRONISED on a daily basis , occasionally twice daily, then this fact alone shows that the claim that they changed the ticking rate on the clocks is a bit far fetched.  The papers have a one line in the intro probably the authors were instructed to place it there, it simply says that the clocks were adjusted while on earth to account for Einstein's fantasy. Yeah, right, I believe anything they say.

There is no absolutely ZERO proof that they pre adjust those atomic clocks prior to sending them into orbit, we can only trust their word. And I don't trust them one little bit. Again there are excellent reasons and arguments as to why GR and SR can NOT be used on those satellites.  But you don't want to hear anything opposed to you pet theories, your dogma.

Really, I've hade more open minded discussions with Mormons about the claims that Joseph Smith was a Prophet than I can elicit out of you guys. 

I've made some excellent rational points in my arguments, but you just skip over them and pretend that I said nothing. 

I've watched a number of Leonard Susskinds Lectures, He strikes me as guy that ought have retired many years ago. His approach changes nothing, only reaffirms the same old errors.

 

But NONE of this is important unless you have that rational Hypothesis which you don't. However you practically admitted that the theory is not important, only the experiments are valid. 

 

 

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Not at all. I'm choosing to focus on the observations because you've had a good run with @Mordred on the derivation of the theory and I can't do that as well as he can, as I'm only a chemist. But in the end, in science, observations are what count. How the theory was derived may be interesting intellectually, but the test of a theory is whether it predicts observations correctly.

You seem not to have engaged at all with the examples on time dilation and mass-energy equivalence I gave you earlier. Why is that? 

A nonsensical hypothesis containing errors is not any base I am willing to use that will encourage me to rush off to try to prove that I'm wrong by looking at experiments interpretations.

No rational hypothesis  then no experiment can possibly prove the unprovable. Your experiments and their interpretations are seen through rose coloured glasses. 

I also don't have the knowledge and equipment to check the claims of the people who ran the experiments. But if they seem to confirm the impossible, then something is wrong with the way the experiment is done.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

You speak nonsense now.

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

!

Moderator Note

It’s pretty clear that it is pointless to continue. Your understanding is too limited, you don’t appear to be interested in learning anything and you admit to not being able to follow the math. You have not presented material asked of you.

It’s all potshots and repeating the same misunderstandings. 

If you view what people have posted as nonsense, the problem is with you, not with them. The posts are fine. The problem is with your comprehension.

Thread closed. Do not bring the subject up again.