Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity

Science and Technology
41

The article you cite is BS kkwan.
It also supposes, as Scott did, that SR is meant as a reaction on the failed measurement of the the movement of the earth in the non-moving ether. This was just a minor point however.
The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein’s contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other. In his original article he formulated two principles:

1) The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. 2) Any ray of light moves in the “stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
2) is more or less superfluous to mention, because it follows from 1): according to the Maxwell equations the velocity of light is: As u0 and e0 are natural constants, it follows that the velocity of light is a constant too. If it wasn't then electric and magnetic forces would depend on the velocity of the observer, which is not according to 1). Citing is not thinking, kkwan.
42
The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other.
From http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz/index.html Error:
We will see that in the moving frame, using the moving units, the Lorentz equations do not give a constant one-way velocity of light in the moving frame. In fact, the Lorentz transformations predicts only the transformation that gives an “average" velocity of light equal to c, which means that the velocity of light is slower in the forward direction and faster in the backward direction, in the moving frame, just as illustrated in equation 17. This is certainly not compatible with the hypothesis of a constant velocity of light.
How moving clocks show a different clock rate:
The fact that the one-way velocity of light equal to c is only apparent, has been explained (5, 6, 7) previously. This illusion is due to a phenomenon involving the increase of kinetic energy needed to carry (the atoms of) the clock from the rest frame to the moving frame. Using quantum mechanics, it has been shown (5, 6, 7) that using the principle of mass-energy conservation, the increase of velocity (kinetic energy) produces a change of energy (quantum levels) to the electrons in atoms, which is responsible for a shift of quantum levels of all atoms in the moving frame. That shift of quantum levels (5, 6, 7) makes the moving clocks run at a different rate
Conclusion:
We must conclude that there is no need of any weird interpretation requiring non-realistic physics and the denial of conventional logic. There is no need of space contraction, or time dilation. The size of matter changes, due to the change of Bohr radius, that also makes clocks run at a different rate. Everything can be explained naturally using conventional logic, mass-energy conservation, and the equations of quantum mechanics.
Without the speed of light as a constant, weird space contraction or time dilation, we can explain this anomaly from my post 29:
If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched" timescales for the distant, “stretched" high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.
Time is a constant, hence no time dilation. The light from the distant quasars exceeded the speed of light from the closer quasars because the speed of light is not a constant. How would you, GdB explain this anomaly? If time is a constant, we can consider simultaneous events in all frames of reference. Newton was correct and Einstein was wrong. Clocks measure motion, not time per se. :lol:
43

kkwan,
That is a fringe science article of the same author. Fact is that the constancy of the speed of light is used to derive the Lorenz transformations, so when the author’s outcome is that it is not, that is really weird. See here] for several derivations of the Lorenz transformations.
Same as for Scott: here] is all the empirical evidence of SR.

44

…i

45

Ac,

46
Please note for yourself and others who keep on, would you stop presuming that I have denied the results of experiment (MANY) that support Einstein’s theory.
That means your 'theory' is empirically equivalent to SR. What then is the basis of saying 'Einstein was wrong'? In what do your extra dimensions differ from your invisible demons? Again: the 'math' is derived from only this requirement: that the laws of nature are the same for all inertial frames. It was Einstein's accomplishment to derive the Lorenz transformations based on this simple single principle, without reference to other ad-hoc hypotheses (just to mention: in Einstein's days the time was ripe for SR. Lorenz, Fitzgerald, Poincaré were close to it, however could not, in their thoughts, get rid of the idea of some preferred fixed frame of reference).
If Einstein’s theory were to hold true to his hypotheses, then the physics at any inertial reference could not be altered such that if they were to go from zero to close to or at the speed of light, they must be able to return in the same functional capacity. We know this isn’t true. For example, if you could speed up to c, or close to, the object at that speed will alter in such a way as to prevent itself from being returned to its original form when it slows down. At least, for instance, cosmic radiation would destroy such an observer at this velocity. Thus, the phyics at that relative velocity are not the same. Likewise, should you freeze something relative to some relative vantage point, that frozen object could not physically come back to its same form upon a thaw. As a simple example, when water freezes, it crystallizes at 3 degrees celsius and so and observing object, like a human, not only would be destroyed upon slowing down to such a relative inertial frame, it cannot be returned to its same form, that is, alive.
Nothing of the above makes any sense.
Because there distance is so great, with the expansion of space and the waves as I have described, the waves get stretched in all directions, not just the vector or average direction. Therefore, the waves would have larger amplitudes as they travel through space.
Larger amplitude means more photons, that means you are saying the energy of the light increases on the way from the quasars to us. Where should that additional energy, these additional photons, come from?
Since the frequence shift has decreased so significantly, light, as defined from the source, would become so slow as to either not be detected or scattered.
Light being slow? Light speed is c, for every observer.
47
That is a fringe science article of the same author. Fact is that the constancy of the speed of light is used to derive the Lorenz transformations, so when the author's outcome is that it is not, that is really weird.
GdB, From http://www.examiner.com/article/new-research-shows-speed-of-light-is-a-variable
Two new studies that will be published in the European Physical Journal D according to a report at the Alpha Galileo website on March 25, 2013, demonstrate that the speed of light is a variable in real space. Text book explanations of the speed of light assume that light travels in a vacuum but space is not a vacuum.
Also, from http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=129690&CultureCode=en
Vacuum is one of the most intriguing concepts in physics. When observed at the quantum level, vacuum is not empty. It is filled with continuously appearing and disappearing particle pairs such as electron-positron or quark-antiquark pairs. These ephemeral particles are real particles, but their lifetimes are extremely short.
A vacuum i.e. space with nothing in it, is an incoherent concept which is never found in real space. There is always something and never nothing in nature.
The speed of light would be dependent on variations in the vacuum properties of space or time. The fluctuations of the photon propagation time are estimated to be on the order of 50 attoseconds per square meter of crossed vacuum, which might be testable with the help of new ultra-fast lasers.
And from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/light-traveled-faster-in-the-early-universe-todays-most-popular.html
Joao Magueijo's radical ideas intend to turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein’s most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/second) -is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has, or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo -who received his doctorate from Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently a professor at Imperial College, London- says: not so. His VSL theory presupposes a speed of light that can be energy or time-space dependent.
Is that fringe science (whatever it insinuates)? GdB, you have insulated yourself in a mental strait jacket instead of keeping an open mind. BTW, you have not explained the anomaly wrt the same time taken by light from distant and closer quasars to the earth.
48
GdB, you have insulated yourself in a mental strait jacket instead of keeping an open mind.
An open mind should not be that open that every new idea is immediately absorbed, without proper investigation.
BTW, you have not explained the anomaly wrt the same time taken by light from distant and closer quasars to the earth.
I have not the pretension that I can explain things that are expert business. Just wait, and see what theory will turn out to be correct. A theory that is so rock solid as SR needs strong arguments to be be overhauled. One single anomaly does not suffice. Your way of thinking is googling for people who share your opinions: that's what you call an open mind.
49
In my theory, time itself slowing down is only the relative apparation. As above I mentioned, changing speeds can alter physical states and thus the first hypothis would be broken. The speed of light is still constant. But the vector of light in one direction is not. It literally alters direction in a sine wave as it is moving. Quasars were presumed to represent different phenomena within the universe. In my theory, those ‘things’ are still ordinary galaxies. Because there distance is so great, with the expansion of space and the waves as I have described, the waves get stretched in all directions, not just the vector or average direction. Therefore, the waves would have larger amplitudes as they travel through space. Since the frequence shift has decreased so significantly, light, as defined from the source, would become so slow as to either not be detected or scattered. What we would see is those higher than ordinary rays that normally cannot be measured close up but slow down to become the very wavelengths that we perceive them.
What is the first hypothesis? The speed of light is not a constant in real space. Please read my last post to GdB. Theoretically, the speed of light can be a constant in a vacuum, but is not so in real space. The speed of light is not dependent on it's frequency or amplitude.
50
An open mind should not be that open that every new idea is immediately absorbed, without proper investigation.
Of course. However, one should be receptive to new ideas and concepts without prejudice.
I have not the pretension that I can explain things that are expert business. Just wait, and see what theory will turn out to be correct. A theory that is so rock solid as SR needs strong arguments to be be overhauled. One single anomaly does not suffice.
So was Newton's theory of gravitation until Einstein proposed GR. Expert business only to be addressed by experts? Surely, you could attempt to explain the anomaly with SR if it is so rock solid without leaving it to the experts. It appears you are evading the issue by passing the buck to the experts.
Your way of thinking is googling for people who share your opinions: that's what you call an open mind.
Don't you do the same thing as well? I do not google indiscriminately and that is not what I meant by an open mind.
51
An open mind should not be that open that every new idea is immediately absorbed, without proper investigation.
Of course. However, one should be receptive to new ideas and concepts without prejudice. Not quite. Ever heard of the hermeneutic circle? It is not uncommon in knowledge theory that you first risk some prejudices: if you had none at all you could not even start to gather knowledge. But then, yes, you should be prepared to give them up if they do not succeed in explain an increasing amount of empirical hints. Do not forget: a new theory should not just explain some new phenomenon, it should still explain the old, already explained phenomena as well. It should be able to explain why the older theory was so successful for a long time. The obvious example in this context: SR becomes the same as Newtonian physics for speeds much less than the light speed. So it was no wonder that people thought they had the one and only true mechanics for so long. So again: just some anomaly, that also is heavily theory loaded, does not suffice to throw away a very successful theory with a lot of empirical support, based on such a very simple principle as 'the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames'.
I have not the pretension that I can explain things that are expert business. Just wait, and see what theory will turn out to be correct. A theory that is so rock solid as SR needs strong arguments to be be overhauled. One single anomaly does not suffice.
So was Newton's theory of gravitation until Einstein proposed GR.
Yep. See above.
Expert business only to be addressed by experts? Surely, you could attempt to explain the anomaly with SR if it is so rock solid without leaving it to the experts. It appears you are evading the issue by passing the buck to the experts.
Not necessary. But science is unfortunately a more complicated business than simple logical intuitions. And pity enough, relativity is against all daily intuitions, and therefore all layman that thought to have found some error in relativity have failed miserably. And that has nothing to do with conservative scientists that are in power. If that were true then we would have never had any scientific revolutions. If proof of errors accumulates, new theories will break through in the end. Another thing: without the right thinking tools, it is impossible to really understand what relativity and QM are all about. I have the basic understanding of both, which helps to see what is nonsense, premature, speculative, or established science. Scott and you show a terrible overestimation of your capabilities to understand what it is all about. On the other side, knowing how complicated everything is, I have no pretension that I can give new theories, so yes, I let this to the experts.
Your way of thinking is googling for people who share your opinions: that's what you call an open mind.
Don't you do the same thing as well? I do not google indiscriminately and that is not what I meant by an open mind.
No, that is not what I do. I have a degree in philosophy, and had subsidiary subjects physics, astronomy and mathematics. And I still read books. And I am grateful for the the chance I had to study philosophy, in a time I had to find my own sources for essays and articles in libraries and bookshops. It made me better prepared for the internet age, where for laymen it is nearly impossible to filter science from nonsense. In the internet you find everything on equal footing. For the rest it still seems that for you googling some opinion is 'having an open mind' or a replacement of 'thinking', simply because all your postings are build up as chains of quotations. And thereby you are highly selective in favor of deviating standpoints (that also can be found abound on the internet), without showing any real understanding of the subject.
52
Not quite. Ever heard of the hermeneutic circle? It is not uncommon in knowledge theory that you first risk some prejudices: if you had none at all you could not even start to gather knowledge. But then, yes, you should be prepared to give them up if they do not succeed in explain an increasing amount of empirical hints. Do not forget: a new theory should not just explain some new phenomenon, it should still explain the old, already explained phenomena as well. It should be able to explain why the older theory was so successful for a long time. The obvious example in this context: SR becomes the same as Newtonian physics for speeds much less than the light speed. So it was no wonder that people thought they had the one and only true mechanics for so long.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
The word prejudice refers to prejudgment: i.e. making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. In recent times, the word has come to be most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics.
I am not implying SR is wrong. The underlying assumptions in SR that light is a constant, time dilation etc. are not confirmed by recent research and astronomical observations. They are also highly preposterous concepts which no human has ever experienced.
So again: just some anomaly, that also is heavily theory loaded, does not suffice to throw away a very successful theory with a lot of empirical support, based on such a very simple principle as 'the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames'.
Nobody is suggesting that SR and GR should be thrown away, just as Newton's theories are still very relevant and useful notwithstanding SR and GR.
Not necessary. But science is unfortunately a more complicated business than simple logical intuitions. And pity enough, relativity is against all daily intuitions, and therefore all layman that thought to have found some error in relativity have failed miserably. And that has nothing to do with conservative scientists that are in power. If that were true then we would have never had any scientific revolutions. If proof of errors accumulates, new theories will break through in the end.
The scientific establishment, regrettably, has become like this: From http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology
Scientists who make empirical observations or reach conclusions in this field that are contrary to those that support the contemporary orthodox cosmology may well find themselves ostracized from mainline science (Maddox 2001). Also, unfortunately, taking an unorthodox position can end one’s career: “Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge were once among the most celebrated astronomers in the world. They now live in relative obscurity" because of their heresy (Panek 2005, p. 49). Edinburgh Royal Observatory astronomer Michael Hawkins notes that it requires almost suicidal courage to leave the herd and challenge the authority of the astrophysical establishment. Typically, papers expressing genuinely new ideas are refused publication by referees of reputable scientific journals on the ground that they undermine the generally accepted principles of physics. Those who persist in writing such papers are usually sidelined from the astronomical community by their peers (Hawkins 1997, p. 29). Burbidge claims that the censorship is so severe that researchers who “find evidence contrary to standard cosmology" are denied telescope time, their papers are “denied publication for years or are blocked by referees," and they are even denied academic positions (Burbidge 1992, p. 120). The situation, Burbidge stresses, “is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the Big Bang model is seriously flawed."
The same situations were narrated by Lee Smolin in his book "The Trouble with Physics" wrt String Theory. Whither progress in science in such an environment?
Another thing: without the right thinking tools, it is impossible to really understand what relativity and QM are all about. I have the basic understanding of both, which helps to see what is nonsense, premature, speculative, or established science. Scott and you show a terrible overestimation of your capabilities to understand what it is all about. On the other side, knowing how complicated everything is, I have no pretension that I can give new theories, so yes, I let this to the experts.
Charming, GdB. What are the right thinking tools to understand relativity and QM? I am not asking you for new theories. All I am asking is for you to try and explain the anomaly of the quasars with SR.
No, that is not what I do. I have a degree in philosophy, and had subsidiary subjects physics, astronomy and mathematics. And I still read books. And I am grateful for the the chance I had to study philosophy, in a time I had to find my own sources for essays and articles in libraries and bookshops. It made me better prepared for the internet age, where for laymen it is nearly impossible to filter science from nonsense. In the internet you find everything on equal footing.
Neither do I rely solely on the internet for information. However, the internet does provide one with articles, essays and papers etc. which are free. Of course, I read books etc.
For the rest it still seems that for you googling some opinion is 'having an open mind' or a replacement of 'thinking', simply because all your postings are build up as chains of quotations. And thereby you are highly selective in favor of deviating standpoints (that also can be found abound on the internet), without showing any real understanding of the subject.
Prejudice, GdB. In a lighter vein: http://universalcurrents.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/there-aint-no-cure-for-those-redshift-blues/ There aint no cure for those Redshift Blues :lol:
53
They are also highly preposterous concepts which no human has ever experienced.
Say no more... Measuring does not count?
The scientific establishment, regrettably, has become like this:
Of course, those things happen. But not forever.
Whither progress in science in such an environment?
If a scientific program does not make progress new ideas will break through. Ed Witten will die, just as Planck did...
Charming, GdB. What are the right thinking tools to understand relativity and QM?
Well, start with the Susskind lectures on youtube on special relativity, on general relativity, and on quantum mechanics. They are really good! If you understand some advanced math, like differentiating and integrating, and a little goniometry they are really understandable. If you do not have this basis, then I am sure you never knew what you were talking about anyway... So if you discover where he makes an error, let me know!
I am not asking you for new theories. All I am asking is for you to try and explain the anomaly of the quasars with SR.
Maybe the same way as was discovered why neutrinos were faster than light? I don't know. And you don't either. Let's wait and see. String theory and a lot of cosmology is highly speculative, so there the risk of 'schools' is bigger than in basic theories as SR and QM.
Neither do I rely solely on the internet for information. However, the internet does provide one with articles, essays and papers etc. which are free. Of course, I read books etc.
Then start reading good books on relativity. And when you understand the basics, you might have some basis to ask critical questions. The way to understanding is definitely not to half read some articles, then discover somebody who might have found an anomaly, and then tell us that SR is not correct, or call its basic principles 'preposterous'. So you just make a clown of yourself.
54
GdB-And I still read books. And I am grateful for the the chance I had to study philosophy, in a time I had to find my own sources for essays and articles in libraries and bookshops. It made me better prepared for the internet age, where for laymen it is nearly impossible to filter science from nonsense. In the internet you find everything on equal footing. For the rest it still seems that for you googling some opinion is 'having an open mind' or a replacement of 'thinking', simply because all your postings are build up as chains of quotations. And thereby you are highly selective in favor of deviating standpoints (that also can be found abound on the internet), without showing any real understanding of the subject.
This is well stated. I don't have any expert opinion on the subject of this discussion(Einstein's Relativity/Light/Physics etc...)other than I too, thought the topic was kind of brash. What really piqued my interest was GdB's comments here. I have mentioned this in other threads too. I feel it is a potential serious issue with ramifications that will be(are being) huge. It remains to be seen if the ramifications will be bad, good or neutral, but it is definitely changing the paradigm of information and communication.
55
Neither do I rely solely on the internet for information. However, the internet does provide one with articles, essays and papers etc. which are free. Of course, I read books etc.
Then start reading good books on relativity. And when you understand the basics, you might have some basis to ask critical questions. The way to understanding is definitely not to half read some articles, then discover somebody who might have found an anomaly, and then tell us that SR is not correct, or call its basic principles 'preposterous'. So you just make a clown of yourself. Particularly when he links to Answers in Genesis in a discussion about science, and especially considering the AiG author is also a known opponent of evolutionary theory. If you want to read how sensible scientists present their unorthodox views see A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe], and note the conclusion:
As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.
Paul Steinhardt is practicing science they way good scientists have for centuries. He is not claiming to overturn tested theories, he is seeking to refine them using the scientific method.
56

Maybe the OP was talking about Norman Einstein.
“The word “genius” isn’t applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein.”
–Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

57
Say no more... Measuring does not count?
It does, but we must be clear what we are measuring and interpret the measurements without prejudice or unjustified assumptions. For instance, when we purport to measure time with a clock, we are actually measuring the motion of an oscillating object, not time per se although the period of oscillation is related to time, but it is not time. OTOH, have you or anyone experienced time dilation, length contraction or travel anywhere close to the speed of light?
Of course, those things happen. But not forever.
The fact that those things happen and still do is outrageous. It is tantamount to persecution, coercion to conform to the status quo and willful blindness to dissent.
If a scientific program does not make progress new ideas will break through. Ed Witten will die, just as Planck did...
Are you saying we have to wait for that to happen?
Well, start with the Susskind lectures on youtube on special relativity, on general relativity, and on quantum mechanics. They are really good! If you understand some advanced math, like differentiating and integrating, and a little goniometry they are really understandable. If you do not have this basis, then I am sure you never knew what you were talking about anyway... So if you discover where he makes an error, let me know!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind#Lectures Father of String Theory:
Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory, having, with Yoichiro Nambu and Holger Bech Nielsen, independently introduced the idea that particles could in fact be states of excitation of a relativistic string. He was the first to introduce the idea of the string theory landscape in 2003.
Smolin–Susskind Debate:
The Smolin-Susskind debate refers to the series of intense postings in 2004 between Lee Smolin and Susskind, concerning Smolin’s argument that the "Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science." It began on July 26, 2004, with Smolin's publication of "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle". Smolin e-mailed Susskind asking for a comment. Having not had the chance to read the paper, Susskind requested a summarization of his arguments. Smolin obliged, and on July 28, 2004, Susskind responded, saying that the logic Smolin followed "can lead to ridiculous conclusions". The next day, Smolin responded, saying that "If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories dominate the attention of our field." This was followed by another paper by Susskind which made a few comments about Smolin's theory of "cosmic natural selection". The Smolin-Susskind debate finally ended with each of them agreeing to write a final letter which would be posted on Edge, with three conditions attached: (1) No more than one letter each; (2) Neither sees the other's letter in advance; (3) No changes after the fact.
Susskind on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY on Demystifying the HIggs Boson: I find his lecture dry, lengthy, pedantic and boring. Notice that he assumed the gravitational field exists and is similar to the electric/magnetic fields even though there is no clear experimental evidence of the existence of the gravitational field unlike the electric/magnetic fields. This is an unjustified assumption.
Maybe the same way as was discovered why neutrinos were faster than light? I don't know. And you don't either. Let's wait and see. String theory and a lot of cosmology is highly speculative, so there the risk of 'schools' is bigger than in basic theories as SR and QM.
Tachyons, not neutrinos, always move faster than light and they are hypothetical particles which have not been found yet. Tachyons are problematic for causality.
Then start reading good books on relativity. And when you understand the basics, you might have some basis to ask critical questions. The way to understanding is definitely not to half read some articles, then discover somebody who might have found an anomaly, and then tell us that SR is not correct, or call its basic principles 'preposterous'. So you just make a clown of yourself.
I did not say SR is not correct. The underlying assumptions of SR wrt light as a constant, time dilation and length contraction are preposterous. Rather be a Shakespearean fool than be a pompous ass, GdB. :)
58
It does, but we must be clear what we are measuring and interpret the measurements without prejudice or unjustified assumptions.
OK, above you showed already that you did not understand what I meant with 'prejudice'. What I mean is that also in the hard sciences, there are no simple observations anymore. Observations are in reality complex procedures, with complex devices, often using complex theories. That means you must at least presuppose there is no practical or theoretical error in your measurement. BUT: if you do not trust your measurements at all, then you can stop doing science. So you take a theoretical risk (which I called a prejudice) to be wrong, so you can start doing science. If you are wrong, it will turn out sooner or later, when different kinds of measurements and observations lead to anomalies. As an example: without the clear concepts of Newtonian physics, we would not even have been able to talk about relativity.
For instance, when we purport to measure time with a clock, we are actually measuring the motion of an oscillating object, not time per se although the period of oscillation is related to time, but it is not time.
Yes. And we do not measure lengths, but compare it with a standard length. C'mon kkwan, don't be silly. We measure time by comparing them with regular intervals, as produced by a clock. So no, we do not measure the movement of an oscillating object, but we use the regular interval between events. That is nearly the same as you say, but not exactly, and it makes your remark vacuous.
OTOH, have you or anyone experienced time dilation, length contraction or travel anywhere close to the speed of light?
Yes. In Bern in the Natural Historical museum, there is a spark chamber that shows muons that only can reach the earth's surface because of time dilatation. Normally their halftime is too short to reach the earth surface, even with near lightspeed. But due to time dilatation, for us the half time is much longer. (BTW, from the view of the muon the halftime is always the same, the value we measure under laboratory conditions. But from its perspective, the surface of the earth is not so far away, due to length contraction). See also youtube]. Set your speaker loud, so you can also hear the muons! If you say that this doesn't count, because it is too theory loaded, then why does your SR-anomaly count, which is also heavily theory loaded, and above that, not repeated and researched so extensively as this muon experiment?
The fact that those things happen and still do is outrageous. It is tantamount to persecution, coercion to conform to the status quo and willful blindness to dissent.
Why the anger? You do as if your life depends on it. Why are you so much interested in the deviant voices in (and outside) science? Why not start to understand the basics, so you know what you are talking about? Your reaction on my suggestion to follow the Susskind lectures on SR, GR and QM shows that you do not understand what it is all about, and are not even interested in understanding physics. You quote a few discussion topics in the area of cosmology and string theory where due to lack of empirical data there is still much open to discussion, and so suggest that Susskind is worthless when it is about the basics, about the 'theoretical minimum'. You gave a perfect example of 'googling instead of thinking' (or 'googling instead of understanding') That you think the lectures are boring, just shows that you are not really interested in physics. These Youtube lectures are the best presentations of physics since the acclaimed Feynman lectures]!
Maybe the same way as was discovered why neutrinos were faster than light?
Tachyons, not neutrinos, always move faster than light and they are hypothetical particles which have not been found yet. Tachyons are problematic for causality.
Of course you did not get that I referred to the neutrinos-faster-than-light anomaly]. It was obviously irony above your head...
I did not say SR is not correct. The underlying assumptions of SR wrt light as a constant, time dilation and length contraction are preposterous.
Hmm... preposterous: Absurd, or contrary to common sense. Synonyms: absurd foolish irrational nonsensical The principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move at constant relative speeds is absurd, foolish, irrational and nonsensical? The constancy of the speed of light, time dilation and length contraction follow from this. They are not assumptions of SR, they are conclusions from this one simple principle. Again you show you don't know what it is all about.
Rather be a Shakespearean fool than be a pompous ass, GdB. :)
Your insult misses any ground.
59

,u.

60
OK, above you showed already that you did not understand what I meant with 'prejudice'. What I mean is that also in the hard sciences, there are no simple observations anymore. Observations are in reality complex procedures, with complex devices, often using complex theories. That means you must at least presuppose there is no practical or theoretical error in your measurement. BUT: if you do not trust your measurements at all, then you can stop doing science. So you take a theoretical risk (which I called a prejudice) to be wrong, so you can start doing science. If you are wrong, it will turn out sooner or later, when different kinds of measurements and observations lead to anomalies.
Quite so, but what you wrote this in post 50 was:
It is not uncommon in knowledge theory that you first risk some prejudices:
GdB, you have redefined prejudice in the English language to mean something else like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the looking glass", which is preposterous.
Yes. And we do not measure lengths, but compare it with a standard length. C'mon kkwan, don't be silly. We measure time by comparing them with regular intervals, as produced by a clock. So no, we do not measure the movement of an oscillating object, but we use the regular interval between events. That is nearly the same as you say, but not exactly, and it makes your remark vacuous.
The regular interval between events is wrt to a standard clock which measures oscillation of an object. From the wiki on the metre:
Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
So, length is defined in terms of the length traveled by light in a vacuum during a miniscule fraction of a second which means time is crucial and that time is measured by clocks, but they only measure motion (oscillation) of an object in it, not time directly.
Yes. In Bern in the Natural Historical museum, there is a spark chamber that shows muons that only can reach the earth's surface because of time dilatation. Normally their halftime is too short to reach the earth surface, even with near lightspeed. But due to time dilatation, for us the half time is much longer.
I hear and see sparks in the apparatus. That is not the issue. Have you personally experienced time dilation instead of listening to an apparatus?
If you say that this doesn't count, because it is too theory loaded, then why does your SR-anomaly count, which is also heavily theory loaded, and above that, not repeated and researched so extensively as this muon experiment?
Mike Hawkins has observed nearly 900 hundred quasars over 28 years.
Why the anger? You do as if your life depends on it. Why are you so much interested in the deviant voices in (and outside) science? Why not start to understand the basics, so you know what you are talking about?
Not anger, but incredulous that you should consider them as deviant voices, with prejudice.
These Youtube lectures are the best presentations of physics
Sorry, I don't share your enthusiasm for them.
neutrinos-faster-than-light anomaly]. It was obviously irony above your head...
Without citing the above link when you wrote in your last post, don't expect me to read your mind wrt your devious intention of irony.
Hmm... preposterous: Absurd, or contrary to common sense.
Absurd, or contrary to common sense.
The principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move at constant relative speeds is absurd, foolish, irrational and nonsensical? The constancy of the speed of light, time dilation and length contraction follow from this. They are not assumptions of SR, they are conclusions from this one simple principle. Again you show you don't know what it is all about.
How does the constancy of the speed of light, time dilation and length contraction follow from the simple principle which is an assumption?