Darron,
I’m not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven’t investigated the matter particularly, I’m guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.
Darron, I'm not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven't investigated the matter particularly, I'm guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.You might want to start by reading this]. GPS cannot work without accounting for time dilation: that Special Relativity stuff you dismiss as nonintuitive.
Darron, I'm not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven't investigated the matter particularly, I'm guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.You might want to start by reading this]. GPS cannot work without accounting for time dilation: that Special Relativity stuff you dismiss as nonintuitive. You can't even be reading what I post. The "non-intuitive" aspect wasn't my own original personal observation. Everyone nearly everywhere since Einstein himself has described it this very way. Watch any documentary describing Relativity and you will learn this claim is universal. And what is your point with regards to time dilation? Did I miss that inclusion in the Lorentz formula? It works. That doesn't prove whether time itself dilates or the chemistry and physics involved in translation through a fixed space slows down the observer's perception of time. The formula is still the same regardless. Only the causative explanation differs.
You did not explain how GPS works.
Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it's because we are in different frames of inertia? :coolhmm:No. Because you are extremely vague in what your position really is. From your '1 hour program example' one must conclude that the math of SR is wrong. It is an absolute miracle to me how you can derive the Lorentz transformations based on such considerations.
It's been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of "c" as the fixed speed of light.Great. That was done by Fitzgerald, Voight, Poincaré and Lorentz too: adhoc solutions for unexplainable experimental results. All of them presupposed the existence of an absolute reference frame and/or the existence of the ether. In due time the physics community chose for Einstein's solution as the simplest, most sensible, and the one with the fewest assumptions. Interesting is that you seem to choose for a dynamic solution, i.e. that the ether exerts a force on objects moving through it, while in relativity it is just the effect of a 'geometric transformation' in space-time needed to translate coordinates from one frame of reference to another.
(F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.):question: Force and energy are different things. How can you equate them? Is this supposed to be derivation?? How does this follow from your assumptions? Again, you show no understanding of basic physics at all.
I don't think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do?Clearly stating what your assumptions are, and from these derive the LT, which of course include time dilation, length contraction and Doppler effect, and not to forget, a real derivation of E=mc². And then from there, why you think a clock would be transformed to pure energy and therefore destroyed when approaching c. If you can't, it is all just hot air. And don't come with 'daily intuitions', I want a derivation from first principles: if these principles happen to be 'daily intuitions', then OK.
Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by.Honestly, I don't. I've only seen that your thinking is confused, and that you have not shown to me that you understand relativity.
I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each 'string' even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums.I see only confusion about what amplitude is. It seems to me that you think photons follow the path of a sine wave which is used to depict a light wave. But amplitude is a measure of the number of photons, nothing else. Again it all seems very confused to me.
You did not explain how GPS works.And you didn't explain the relevance. P.S. The parabolic formula I mentioned that would be used would be that of a hyperbola, not that it's even important to discuss here.
The relevance is GPS cannot work without taking time dilation into account. Yet another application where Einstein was right.
Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it's because we are in different frames of inertia? :coolhmm:No. Because you are extremely vague in what your position really is. From your '1 hour program example' one must conclude that the math of SR is wrong. It is an absolute miracle to me how you can derive the Lorentz transformations based on such considerations. There's nothing vague about what I said. Are you even being sincere?
Regardless of its origin, Einstein used this for his theory. It should at least indicate that there is some motivation to deny an aether since Einstein does not in any way disprove this. Note too, that this also shows that his Relativity theory hasn't added anything but a philosophical explanation on his part for causation.It's been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of "c" as the fixed speed of light.Great. That was done by Fitzgerald, Voight, Poincaré and Lorentz too: adhoc solutions for unexplainable experimental results. All of them presupposed the existence of an absolute reference frame and/or the existence of the ether. In due time the physics community chose for Einstein's solution as the simplest, most sensible, and the one with the fewest assumptions. Interesting is that you seem to choose for a dynamic solution, i.e. that the ether exerts a force on objects moving through it, while in relativity it is just the effect of a 'geometric transformation' in space-time needed to translate coordinates from one frame of reference to another.
Your inability to follow only demonstrates that you don't even know basic math, let alone physics, yourself -- not me. W= Fd. F=ma. Since the fastest possible acceleration cannot allow anything to go faster than it, the maximum acceleration, a, is c. Therefore, F=mc. And since the furthest that something could travel in a unit time, then d=c as well. Therefore W =mc*c or mc². This maximum possible work doesn't state that it is actually applied, therefore, it is a measure of its potential. In this ideal circumstance, we are dealing with a mass that doesn't actually move -- only its potential to do so. Therefore, the measure, E, represents a force that has a potential to be delivered in a distance c. E, as measured as mc² represents the total potential of its forces through a distance, c. E=mc² is thus a measure of force at a point as well meaning that the maximum force that that mass can apply at the instance without movement is F(max)=mc. [just E/c](F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.):question: Force and energy are different things. How can you equate them? Is this supposed to be derivation?? How does this follow from your assumptions? Again, you show no understanding of basic physics at all.
Oh, duh, I don't know...let's see...if you applied the fastest acceleration upon a mass, does a nuclear explosion come close to this description? Perhaps you are suggesting that if you could boost such a clock with a nuclear bomb, you are going to try and make me believe that the clock can still survive to be measured afterwards? Golly gee, am I stupid!!I don't think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do?Clearly stating what your assumptions are, and from these derive the LT, which of course include time dilation, length contraction and Doppler effect, and not to forget, a real derivation of E=mc². And then from there, why you think a clock would be transformed to pure energy and therefore destroyed when approaching c. If you can't, it is all just hot air. And don't come with 'daily intuitions', I want a derivation from first principles: if these principles happen to be 'daily intuitions', then OK.
I'm sure you can follow if you tried. (See, at least I give you that charity, even without knowing whether you, yourself actually have a relevant degree in physics or not.) Your confusion is not mine, own it.Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by.Honestly, I don't. I've only seen that your thinking is confused, and that you have not shown to me that you understand relativity.
The number of photons increases the intensity and is not merely a direct result of any particular amplitude of the wave form. It does become important, however, when you measure a large collection of photons from an extreme distance that appear brighter than usual since our normal close measure of any given frequency of light has its own fixed amplitude. As the wave travels extreme distances, the expansion of space is the reason why distant frequencies appear more intense. This is an example of why excepting relativity skews the actual understanding of those distant quasars because with its assumption that light travels at the true maximum speed in its direction of motion, then in Einstein's explanation, it forces us to believe that light can only expand in its direction of motion. Therefore, they presume that the amplitude of the wave doesn't change and so what they are seeing (the unusual high intensity of quasars) proves that those objects differ from ordinary galaxies. Taking my assumption, it says that those distant objects are still ordinary, everyday galaxies. So who is really doing the fudging? By eliminating the full assumption of consistency in time (The [non-perfect] Cosmological Principle), we are always assured to judge our evidence as supporting a Big Bang Theory, and it also assures us that we can never disprove it, since it is unfalsifiable. As for your demand for first principles, which I am all on board with, why is it allowed that time itself should have a God-like essence of being able to be (A) insufficiently defined as an entity with powers to alter physics; (B), granting this entity to omniscience of being able to know a particular instance of a volume of space is in an altered inertial frame and thus alters its physical characteristics to assure that those in that frame perceive reality just so; (C), allowing the origin of the Universe to be in an actual different form that we do not actually experience in our normal empirical reality like a God that can be argued to have formed reality in lieu of our inability to experience such powers first hand; and (D), incapable of disproving under these assumptions. Assuming the consistency of time is not an extra additive and unessential assumption that can be sloughed off by claiming that the Cosmological Principle has one less assumption than its Perfect form. If simplicity of the assumptions alone is relevant, then why assume anything at all? Zero is less than any other quantity of assumptions. It seriously raises suspicion to me that what I have even proposed has not been properly recognized. It is absurdly more reasonable on logical grounds, not only doesn't deny any empirical observations and is even more powerfully supported by the evidence than the status quo because it doesn't abort, nor contravene the normal capabilities of our senses that the traditional view does. It's no surprise to me that Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a priest proposed the theory either. While you try to discredit my capacity to reason with bias, how is it that you would grant this priest with more credibility to lack such biases? I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn't require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead. ;-)I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each 'string' even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums.I see only confusion about what amplitude is. It seems to me that you think photons follow the path of a sine wave which is used to depict a light wave. But amplitude is a measure of the number of photons, nothing else. Again it all seems very confused to me.
The relevance is GPS cannot work without taking time dilation into account. Yet another application where Einstein was right.No, just because it is assumed that time itself is dilating rather than that the time only appears to be the case is merely a matter of labeling it with a term that attempts to bribe one into assuming that the real cause of the effect is actually time, and no other cause. It blurs the distinction between reality and perception to be one and the same. I don't propose to stop using it just because the originators chose a word to associate this with their ideology or belief. It is still an absolute properly mathematical means to solve real practical applications. Its derivation isn't absolutely dependent upon one unique description of the actual nature of reality. The logic is no different than Anslem begging us to label our conception of absolutely everything as God. And then declare, therefore that God exists. He's logically consistent but uses the fact that we use the same words, its symbol of the definition, to force us to use it, knowing that the association with the other definitions using the same symbol, will take hold in the minds of its users. They are homonyms if one accepts its use and effective at psychological transference.
I’ll stop here. I am flabbergasted how somebody can think he has a flawless, logical argument, and then produce such nonsense as you write here. You are mixing up energy with force, velocity with acceleration, you have not shown even a single one correct derivation etc. etc., you show you have no idea what relativity is really about.
I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn't require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead. ;-)You are not a threat. Nobody will really listen to you concerning your physical ideas (expect maybe a few other crackpots). On good, scientific, on logical grounds, as every physicist can immediately see. I am afraid your only future comfort regarding your theories will be that true geniuses go unrecognised... I have my own thoughts about it.
I'll stop here. I am flabbergasted how somebody can think he has a flawless, logical argument, and then produce such nonsense as you write here. You are mixing up energy with force, velocity with acceleration, you have not shown even a single one correct derivation etc. etc., you show you have no idea what relativity is really about.And your light is on, but nobody is certainly home. Right back at you. You still didn't declare your superior wisdom with a qualification to back it up. But regardless, every scientist is humanly fallible. I am just one such scientist. But no doubt, you think that the diploma is the only certainty to the title. And attempting to label me as a crackpot to diminish others from taking me seriously or actually read what I even say makes you a real the real ass, an abuser of the highest sort.I have raised the issue in another post that most people cannot handle the truth in a very real and dangerous way. This suggests a real and strong political motivation to advance the Big Bang philosophy by adjusting the premises of proper scientific and philosophic foundation to save the psychological and social upheavals should we be able to undeniably demonstrate that reality doesn't require any preference for humanity and makes morality absolutely fictitious. If this is the case, I recommend that those of you who find me a threat, please make my life a LOT easier by distracting me with a big bank account that I can use to shut up and live a life of pleasure instead. ;-)You are not a threat. Nobody will really listen to you concerning your physical ideas (expect maybe a few other crackpots). On good, scientific, on logical grounds, as every physicist can immediately see. I am afraid your only future comfort regarding your theories will be that true geniuses go unrecognised... I have my own thoughts about it.
You still didn't declare your superior wisdom with a qualification to back it up.I told what my background is here]. Part of my study was 'introduction special relativity' (enough to understand the LT, Doppler effect and the equivalence of mass and energy), and history of physics.
But regardless, every scientist is humanly fallible.Sure. But we do not have relativity just because of Einstein. His theory was extended and improved by many others (e.g. by Max Planck and Minkowski). It passed all tests until now.
I am just one such scientist.Sorry, you are not. Your mentality shows that very clearly: hubris, accompanied with a total lack of support from the scientific community.
But no doubt, you think that the diploma is the only certainty to the title.No I don't. But I can recognize a little if somebody knows what he is talking about. Your case is clear.
Your credentials do not fit. Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn’t fulfill any more credibility than I do. With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I’ve had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read? Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity. The ‘scientific community’ is not against me. The fact that I chose to dismiss scienceforums.net doesn’t displace my credibility to all scientists, either! I dismissed them on the basis of the way the organizer of that particular site operates. He, not all scientists, nor all the potential good ones who may use that site, are to blame for his activity. His decision to create a virtual ghetto for those that he deems personally unfavorable to his idea of the preservation of the scientific status quo, is vile. Wasting time there would only assure that he’d assign me to the furnaces eventually. …Especially, if I actually began to make sense to others!
It should also be noted that while one person claimed there that, “science” is not a democracy when I pointed out the insult of classifying me in a “for-nuts” section, he was wrong. “Truth” is not a democracy. Science is merely a set of studies meant to determine that truth. Not all scientists are equal or relevant to any given subject to discussion either because science is not a simple ideology that belongs to one kind of discipline or authority of wisdom sacrosanct from criticism from others. I posted under, “Physics: Relativity” but they sent me to an area for as the very scum of the earth they predetermined I was. It is an insult to scientific integrity and process of inquiry.
I mentioned before this even occurred that I didn’t waste time on most Christian forums because they maintain the same type of moderation, “You may write as freely as you choose as long as you do not threaten the integrity of the Christian faith as we understand it.” All posts are moderated where appropriate.
Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn't fulfill any more credibility than I do.Hmmm. Personal contact with a professor and practising mathematical exercises under assistance of a tutor cannot easily be replaced by self study. Except if you are a genius... ;-P OTOH, I don't know what you have been reading, but I found many non-university books about relativity with errors. E.g. I once found a book that in its examples were dependent on a rocket flying in the same direction as the light. If you supposed the rocket would fly in the other direction however, time would speed up. Somehow reminds me of your '1 hour tv program' example...
With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I've had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read?No, quite the opposite. Your fanaticism to prove your theory blocks your correct understanding of relativity.
Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity.Then tell me, and clearly separated: - What is the traditional interpretation of relativity? - In what does my interpretation differ from this interpretation? - In what does your theory differ from this interpretation?
The 'scientific community' is not against me.No, no, of course not. The truth is: they do not even notice you. Be sure, there are regularly letters from Einstein-deniers coming in at the physics department. (And sometimes the philosophy department, while people think relativity is philosophy.) Get your article published in an acknowledged physics magazine. But I assure you: you won't get through, especially if you say that you are not ready with the math... (This is a very clear symptom of 'crackpotism'. As is your publishing your 'theory' on fora like this, or scienceforums.net.)
His decision to create a virtual ghetto for those that he deems personally unfavorable to his idea of the preservation of the scientific status quo, is vile.Hmmm... Shall I ask the moderators to put this thread under the 'Pseudo science' forum? %-P
...Especially, if I actually began to make sense to others!Yes, especially to the scientificaly educated... (Careful: irony!)
I posted under, "Physics: Relativity" but they sent me to an area for as the very scum of the earth they predetermined I was. It is an insult to scientific integrity and process of inquiry.scienceforums.net is not the scientific community. It is at most a small outskirt area of it.
Your understanding of relativity within the context of a subsidiary study doesn't fulfill any more credibility than I do.Hmmm. Personal contact with a professor and practising mathematical exercises under assistance of a tutor cannot easily be replaced by self study. Except if you are a genius... ;-P OTOH, I don't know what you have been reading, but I found many non-university books about relativity with errors. E.g. I once found a book that in its examples were dependent on a rocket flying in the same direction as the light. If you supposed the rocket would fly in the other direction however, time would speed up. Somehow reminds me of your '1 hour tv program' example... I don't condemn education of any sort. Whether you learn by another person or not doesn't guarantee either way that you learn effectively (or internalize it, appropriately). But, even within the system, I am certain that those who have a self-driven motivation for learning has an advantage over others due to their sincerity in wanting to learn. I already know that I don't know everything and that all of what I could put forward will likely have errors. I also do recognize as you point out that authors of the best intent make errors in books (including texts) and to be cautious regarding them.
I recognize that this is possible as well. I'm not going to dwell on the possibility if it means that I don't put myself out there for fear of rejection, though. As to whether I understand relativity, I naturally assumed (and probably falsely) that others already understood it as I do. However, I still haven't seen you or some of the others present any argument regarding to relativity that demonstrates that I understand it any different. What I have seen is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what counts for a proof or disproof. I see that I am being called to provide evidence that is irrelevant to my proof and that what I did provide is not considered valid without proper warrant or particular reference to what you see I've erred in. All theses do not require the same identical procedures for certification. It is false, for instance, to insist that for every proposed theory, a new experiment must be required to test it. Why? Because the particular argument may be one that merely presents an error in another logical thesis; because the particular argument may also propose a resolution to another one's theory that simply demonstrates how the same experiments confirm a different theory with equal force. I'll be back for your next question in a bit.With one main exception: that I have a particular interest with the subject in regards to my theory, would it not follow that I've had an even stronger motivation to learn the details over one such as yourself who just trusts the material you read?No, quite the opposite. Your fanaticism to prove your theory blocks your correct understanding of relativity.
Relativity uses two hypothesis that I already provided for at post #103]. I demonstrated there what the problem with those in that post and the others that follow. I don't need to give you a full lesson on Relativity. Nor should I be obliged to provide you with a course on logic. But since these two postulates are essential to the foundation of the theory that follows, if any of the postulates are shown wrong, as I did, there is no need to go further! If you can't follow this reasoning, tell me what you are holding back on the particular error of my ways. You're pretending that I didn't present a case. You are either stuck on the idea that Einstein can't be wrong especially coming from someone like myself. I urge you to read the argument carefully or stop declaring that I didn't prove anything because you desire a mathematical formula and a suggested experiment to put forth that is new. This is not necessary here.Not to mention the fact is that you, not I, have misinterpreted Relativity.Then tell me, and clearly separated: - What is the traditional interpretation of relativity? - In what does my interpretation differ from this interpretation? - In what does your theory differ from this interpretation?
It will eventually be published in its full version when I am prepared. You are just demanding that I SHUT UP here. Your insistence that I didn't prove my case and that I continue to play in to your demands is distracting from the argument at hand. Stop trying to poison the well.The 'scientific community' is not against me.No, no, of course not. The truth is: they do not even notice you. Be sure, there are regularly letters from Einstein-deniers coming in at the physics department. (And sometimes the philosophy department, while people think relativity is philosophy.) Get your article published in an acknowledged physics magazine. But I assure you: you won't get through, especially if you say that you are not ready with the math... (This is a very clear symptom of 'crackpotism'. As is your publishing your 'theory' on fora like this, or scienceforums.net.)
But since these two postulates are essential to the foundation of the theory that follows, if any of the postulates are shown wrong, as I did, there is no need to go further! If you can't follow this reasoning, tell me what you are holding back on the particular error of my ways.Sorry Scott, there is nothing unclear about:
The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).Classical mechanics and Maxwell's laws just don't fit this principle (e.g. an observer in rest against an electrical charge only sees an electrical field, but somebody moving in respect to the same electrical charge also observes a magnetic field, which means they would observe completely different phenomena, e.g. that two equally charged particles do not move from each other as fast as for the observer in rest, or eventually move to each other). Further, as you undoubtedly know, with Maxwell's theory of the electric-magnetic fields, one can derive that waves must exist, which velocity is 1/sqrt(με) (see here]). So more specifically 'The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another ' means 'when all observers measure the same values of μ and ε, they also find the same speed for light'. And, once again, frequency does not appear in this formula. To fit this, also empirically established, fact, the Galilean Transformation must be changed into the Lorentz Transformations. This all has nothing to do with 'the early universe' If you think what you write there is flawless logic, then you live in another world... Same with your critique on the second postulate, that of the constancy of light.
“Light", here, is again improperly quantified.This means you need replacements for the Maxwell equations too. Light is perfectly defined, as are its frequency, wavelength and speed. Sorry Scott, this all is not even serious, it is not even fringe science: it is crackpotism.
It will eventually be published in its full version when I am prepared..You will never get this published in any serious scientific publication. And if you get it finished (which I doubt, you will stumble on the math), you won't get it published. I say because it is nonsense, you will say because the scientific community is too much attached to relativity.
You are just demanding that I SHUT UP here.No! I demand that you bring your theory in a logically and mathematically correct form. Your criticism on the postulates of SR however, are simply a joke.
Just to add: on the ‘Maxwell pages’ you also find this]:
Maxwell's correction to Ampère's law is particularly important: it shows that not only does a changing magnetic field induce an electric field, but also a changing electric field induces a magnetic field. Therefore, these equations allow self-sustaining "electromagnetic waves" to travel through empty space.So no need for an ether. It is interesting to read a little further:
The speed calculated for electromagnetic waves, which could be predicted from experiments on charges and currents, exactly matches the speed of light; indeed, light is one form of electromagnetic radiation (as are X-rays, radio waves, and others). Maxwell understood the connection between electromagnetic waves and light in 1861, thereby unifying the theories of electromagnetism and optics.Special relativity unified mechanics with electromagnetics, General relativity then unifies special relativity with gravity and non-inertial systems. And I could go on a little longer. What you underestimate tremendously is how all these theories are completely 'hardwired' with each other, and how they are confirmed by experimental evidence. You cannot just remove one screw, or exchange it with a completely other one.
I’m trying to be patient with you because I’m not sure if you are being serious with me or not. First of all, I am not sure why you continue to insist on insulting me rather than keep your emotional feelings out of it. It suggests that you are possibly using it as a motivating mechanism for the argument because you are at a roadblock to find a better logical argument against me.
1) Do you not see that scientific theory evolves as natural selection just as any cultural phenomena, like religion? What I mean by this is that instead of restructuring anything from scratch, the way society takes on new ideas is with what works in the present environment, not necessarily what is better or superior. Instead of completely abandoning the previous ideas completely, we tend to limit change to what is tolerable to the present environment. Even with the “scientific revolution” being as revolutionary as it was, revolution was merely an acceptable phase within Newton’s age of the Enlightenment. After our social discovery of how the development of relatively extreme change through revolution, we have been turned down from it after WWII. Once we saw how revolution creates such extreme political problems, we went back to a accepting a gradual evolutionary pattern.
As functional as natural evolution operates in our biology, it isn’t necessary now since we recognize the superiority of observation and logic to enable big changes in more suddenly. What tends to happen is that we don’t abandon the old but build on them by re-interpretation, redefinition, and inductive reasoning as more relevant than pure deductive logic instead. In another post, I gave a secular interpretation to Genesis as a possible and sensible explanation for what may likely be true of the past. I represented it as our early form of science to show how in time, cultural evolution hides the original meaning because we lose the original vocabulary in contemporary settings. Just as what likely was secular history turned into religion with apparently strange conclusions of interpretation, modern science uses the same thing.
My point here is to suggest that what was originally meant to the minds of the scientific theories of even the recent past, they are subject to their cultural, political, and religious climate. Even if Einstein, for instance, doesn’t specify or even recognizes how other environmental theories of his time affected him, they did, and are hard to avoid. The aether is one perfect example. It was still relatively novel that a vacuum could be something real. So when all the scientists of that era developed their ideas, they based them on things that to them were odd while today we easily take them for granted. When they ‘determined’ that no aether existed, they had the belief that coordinates without apparent content themselves is just as equal as nothing itself. To their early understanding for instance, they learn that a vacuum has the potential to pull two items with only suction cups in contact. It suggested to them that a vacuum in its purest sense has zero volume. Because of this, trying to understand outer space as having this property, regardless of the logic, was easily misplaced because they ignored addresses as having any meaning whatsoever without any other physical properties to measure from.
From my learning of electronics and computer engineering, including various languages, I noticed that you could create the very same output (program) using many different logical constructs. Though the logic all have a common foundation, the way that the electronics are set up, you can create a new logic on top of that infinitely with an infinite set of languages. This shows that for every reality, there are many more than simply one way to get to the end result. Thus, in scientific theory, we can just as easily set almost any set of postulates that we want and get the same results that are all true but have different programming languages.
Intel architecture is another good example of evolution rather than a simpler logic itself. Instead of restructuring chips to a more reasonable and simpler instruction set, they evolve on the last chip design because they want programs created to have backward compatibility so that people with older computers can run most of the programs with the same logic AND the new computers to be able to use the older programs on the newer machines. It has real practical justifications because they don’t have to throw away the whole plant setup and start from scratch each time; It would increase cost significantly and delay the progress because it requires time to restructure everything.
I think that you should see from this that avoiding total restructuring in science from time to time to fit with the contemporary realities will assure that it gets overly and unnecessarily more complex in time. This is and has occurred. In contemporary quantum theories, most recognize that space void of anything isn’t actually empty of reality. Yet these understandings are forced to be contrary or contradictory to the original theoretical forms. For this reason, you should at least understand why we cannot discourage someone like myself proposing a total restructuring from the earlier premises.
2) The Principle of Relativity is not unclear to me. It certifies that to their contemporary ‘frame of reference’, that they could not actually make sense of the idea that an empty space (a geometric volume), represents anything if it doesn’t have resistance, or means to alter reality. So they presumed that since they couldn’t find such a ‘resistance’ in ordinary measures, they chose to create their theories with some alteration of postulates that ‘fit’ with a definition of space (a vacuum) if and only if nothing within such volumes contains anything the causes change in other forms of recognized reality (matter & energy). The theory was basically a story that came before the evidence could justify anything. They didn’t wait for the observations before they were allowed to theorize. Yet, to me, you’ve placed this burden on me. Why?
So, they rehashed the normal presumptions of our present capabilities by denying that time should have to be consistent, just all other physical phenomena. Think of how we compress computer data like pixels for in order to reduce memory space. A non-lossy process is one in which when you compress the information, you must be able to ‘undo’ it without losing any complete information from the original data. For instance, if you have data like this: 100001110, you can create a program that counts repeats in some type of algorithm to reduce the data. In this example, we might do something like have an algorithm that recognizes a change in digit, and then count its repeats so that you have something like 1x1,0x4,1x3,0x1 to represent the data. If it is maximized to four repeats, you would have a compressor program that allows for just two digits to represent all multiples (up to four) by re-recording the information as 001, 100, 011, 001. At this point in this example, four repeats isn’t enough to summarize the expression in something smaller. But you should be able to see how it becomes effective as you increase this limit.
What is my point here? Well, the way space was and is understood by some is like a compression factor. They use space as a numerical presentation of repeated zeros with a count to summarize (compress) their conception of nothing to be presented and think that this resolves the issue without recognizing that in order for us to actually understand its essence, we must decompress it to its original form. That is, they treat space have being consistent of merely a numerical operation between reality, as if only ones represent true reality. It is this same kind of error that prevented the digit zero from being recognized as a real number until the Enlightenment gave us the Arabic number system.
[I’m doing this in parts so that I can be as explicit as possible. So there is more to come.]
I think that you should see from this that avoiding total restructuring in science from time to time to fit with the contemporary realities will assure that it gets overly and unnecessarily more complex in time. This is and has occurred. In contemporary quantum theories, most recognize that space void of anything isn't actually empty of reality. Yet these understandings are forced to be contrary or contradictory to the original theoretical forms. For this reason, you should at least understand why we cannot discourage someone like myself proposing a total restructuring from the earlier premises.While a lot of what you write here does make some sense (to be very explicit: your historical description about the 'cultural reasons' from abandoning the ether do not belong to this category), in the context of this thread, where you present yourself as a 'scientific revolutionary', your flood of words is greatly exaggerated. You forget that the scientific revolutions was the work of people who thoroughly knew what the then present, intrinsic problems in science were. Relativity was scientifically intrinsically motivated by incompatibility of Newton mechanics and Maxwell theory on one side (and Einstein knew both very well!), and inconsistency of some experiments with the then present theories (Fizeau experiment, light aberration). Except conflict with 'daily intuition', you did not mention one intrinsically theoretical problem with relativity which would make a revolutionary change necessary. Your reference to 'the cosmological principle' does not make any sense: there is a huge explanatory gap between it and your ideas, especially when you say that the math of relativity is correct. I do not get how your ideas would solve any scientific problem, when nothing in the calculations changes.
2) The Principle of Relativity is not unclear to me. It certifies that to their contemporary 'frame of reference', that they could not actually make sense of the idea that an empty space (a geometric volume), represents anything if it doesn't have resistance, or means to alter reality. So they presumed that since they couldn't find such a 'resistance' in ordinary measures, they chose to create their theories with some alteration of postulates that 'fit' with a definition of space (a vacuum) if and only if nothing within such volumes contains anything the causes change in other forms of recognized reality (matter & energy). The theory was basically a story that came before the evidence could justify anything. They didn't wait for the observations before they were allowed to theorize. Yet, to me, you've placed this burden on me. Why?I think your use of the word 'they' shows your pre-occupation with some conspiracy-like agreements of scientists to stick to the present ideas because they have no better, even if they know that the ideas are wrong at a deeper level. They are just afraid to confess that to the outside world. And of course they don't like it when some layman, like a certain Scott Mayers, comes and exposes their errors. So here comes GdB as first outpost of the scientific community to defend science by ridiculing you! No, no, Scott. I am very serious: your argumentation is deeply flawed, incomplete, and shows you are miles away from the knowledge and mathematical competence you need to even understand what relativity is about. Instead of writing such long postings, in which you try to justify your position on cultural and philosophical grounds, you should concentrate on making your ideas rock solid. If you succeed, you can be sure to get the Nobel price. If you don't, then please accept it, and use your energy for more useful activities. Also remember what you are doing here: you try to convince some forum member, with a basic education in physics, of the correctness of your ideas. What for? I have no shorter communication line to the Nobel price committee, Stephen Hawking or Ed Witten than you. If you see it as a first test of the acceptance of your ideas, then OK, but don't be insulted when your ideas are not accepted. If you are sure of your ideas, then there is only one conclusion: you cannot present them yet in a form that convinces a forum member with some background in physics. So you just should do better. But a long aggrieved exposé about your own role in a scientific revolution does not contribute to your credibility.