You nailed it, Lois. I agree completely.
Occam
Yes, Lois nailed it. We’ve spent three weeks going around with someone who thinks he can best Albert Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz and David Hilbert. I will happily eat a barbecued crow when Mr. Mayers wins the Nobel Prize for proving Einstein wrong.
Wondering that there are still others around here…
I think I am a bit crazy too, to try to convince a crackpot that his argumentation is wrong. When a layperson thinks he can correct a theory that already belongs to established science for more than 100 years, one can already be certain he left sure ground, so such a project is doomed to fail from the beginning. But it was a good occasion to refresh my memory about SR.
Darron, I don’t think Scott will invite us at his Nobel-party.
PS I realise the word ‘project’ is ambiguous in above sentence. But it fits for both meanings…
Well, thanks for the unnecessary insults, but was it meant to convince me to your way of thinking? As I see it, you guys are severely lacking credibility in that you cannot follow logic. I certainly do not accord any of you as representatives of scientific wisdom. Science is more than having the ability to pass tests that show you follow the curricula. And repeating that I lack the understanding of any of the science doesn’t make it so.
You guys have not even attempted to present what or where you presume that I err in my arguments. Instead, you have focused your attacks on irrelevancies. You have dictated to me that I do not understand the present science. You have not established that my knowledge is lacking anything in the present arguments. You have not explained the relevance of requiring me to present knowledge beyond the scope of this area. You have not reduced my arguments to an absurdity, via reasoning.
You have shown that you prefer to insult me for not supporting your common belief. I suggest you abort skepticism and atheism since I am more than certain that we are in the vast minority. You’re clearly hypocrites. Provide a reason why I must place my faith in you. You have not shown your superiority of reasoning but demonstrated your abilities to attempt rhetorical diversions.
You have shown that you do not respect logical argument and especially that obtained by premises of observation, something you only pretend that you adhere to. For instance, besides your own ignorance to the Cosmological Principles (both Perfect and Non-), you haven’t addressed how or why you would hold to the belief that time itself does not require consistency against our empirical capabilities to determine it. If it is your view that the popular view in the present paradigm is to hold, your trust in it holds the same accountability to justify it as a Christian is to their positive presumptions. If you were so much wiser than me, you should be responsible to justify your particular understanding by addressing the premises of the very contemporary science you believe in and for which I referred to in my arguments as a basis for the skepticism.
By your current attitudes and behaviors, you have demonstrated that you are no different than cyber-bullies who can hide behind anonymous display names and gang up with popular supporters. I only feel sorry for you and will not be beaten just because of it. My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable. Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don’t engage in conversation with me.
Examples:
I'm going to stop reading any post that starts out with, "Einstein was wrong." or that any other respected scientist was wrong about something essential. It usually is followed by incomprehensible blather. I would suggest that anyone who thinks a respected scientist was wrong try getting their ideas published in a peer reviewed journal. That should be the first step--well, after getting a decent science-oriented education, anyway. LoisAnd you should accept then that a religious person should ignore, "God is wrong" or "God is not real" for the same moronic reasons. Should the society that you want to encourage open skepticism not also claim how such philosophical dialectic in skeptical inquiry is just as "incomprehensible blather" to them? Should they not recommend you to their own particular church for approval because their founders were respected? And, even though they might not be aware of your own invested time reading the Bible, should they not equally recommend a 'decent' Bible-oriented education? (Since you disagree with something regarding it, it MUST be certain that you didn't actually read nor interpret it properly!)
My confidence merely indicates my motive to proceed, not the accuracy of the logic.Very well. I can confirm that...
And I only checked out that one forum (not forums) and do not know the qualifications of all the arguers that I posted with.You would have got much more out of that forum if you would have given your '1-hour-program' example, your argumentation, and then ask them for comment why it is correct or wrong. Instead you choose the header 'Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity'. You say that a theory is wrong that builds the basis of physics, of empirically proven physics. How would you expect people to react when you present yourself with 'hey, your basic ideas are wrong, and I know this. Your logic is wrong!'. You're consistently addressing how I present myself not the argument itself. I'm confused at how you think that abusive attacks of yours to my nature gives you preferential wisdom of what accounts for more appropriate behavior? Your insistence that such a lowly scum like myself should behave with more respect towards those in authority without expecting repercussions is very assuming. At least, explain to me how my title imposed an emotional and personal insult, rather than a logical claim; Why should I be beaten for having views that pose no similar or related threat? The title itself is not the actual content. While it may say, 'hey, your basic ideas are wrong...', the content provides the justification for it. Darron, you kept insisting that I have a requirement to not disprove a case (forget falsifiablity, right) but present only the kind of argument that puts forward a supported case, a mathematical equation or two for nice etiquette, create a new prediction (the old ones are not apparently capable of being wrong if they match a successful correspondence. So I guess that should make Jesus' predictions be considered true only until such a newer prediction was available?), and for Christ's sake, behave by showing my obedience to the proprietary establishments of the publication process (The Internet doesn't count since it is free and not subject to the owners of the science magazines to approve or dismiss based on their prejudices.) And those of you few who think that any forum that places establishment to uphold a particular viewpoint or be banished to the ghetto or concentration camps deserves no respect from me and shall never complain if and when it happens to them. So will the real 'crackpots' here, please stand up, ...please stand up!
My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable. Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don't engage in conversation with me.Then nothing stands in the way to publish your theories in an established physics magazine. But just to repeat: I haven't seen any single flawless argument, only a lot of misunderstanding of even the most basic physical principles. I haven't seen one logical reaction on an argument of mine.
You're consistently addressing how I present myself not the argument itself.Yes. In the first place you should present your ideas so clearly that its thread of argumentation can be clearly recognised, even by me. Secondly, if you want to be heard, you should do it that way. Your hubris is just too big compared to the quality of understanding of physics. Nobody will want to listen to you in that way. Lois is completely right.
The title itself is not the actual content. While it may say, 'hey, your basic ideas are wrong...', the content provides the justification for it.It doesn't. You just try. I gave you advise how you might get heard. If your pride stands in the way to do that, well, then let it be.
And those of you few who think that any forum that places establishment to uphold a particular viewpoint or be banished to the ghetto or concentration camps deserves no respect from me and shall never complain if and when it happens to them.!I have the impression that you exaggerate a little, my friend. I even demanded of you to bring your ideas in a more concise way, but your pride stands in the way.
As I see it, you guys are severely lacking credibility in that you cannot follow logic.As I see it you are severely overestimating your knowledge because you cannot proffer a coherent explanation of your ideas.
Science is more than having the ability to pass tests that show you follow the curricula.Passing tests to show you can follow curricula is called education. Do not confuse this with science.
And repeating that I lack the understanding of any of the science doesn't make it so.No, but your rambling, convoluted and just plain wrong expositions about your attempt to improve Einstein's ideas demonstrate ignorance of advanced physics and math.
You guys have not even attempted to present what or where you presume that I err in my arguments.Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge your errors does not make you right.
Instead, you have focused your attacks on irrelevancies. You have dictated to me that I do not understand the present science. You have not established that my knowledge is lacking anything in the present arguments. You have not explained the relevance of requiring me to present knowledge beyond the scope of this area. You have not reduced my arguments to an absurdity, via reasoning.Well, if you would give us something coherent to examine we might be able to refute them precisely, but what you have written to date is so far off base it isn't even wrong. GdB has done an admirable job of wading through your babble and pointing out errors, but instead of countering with clear explanations of why you think you are right you fire back with emotion laden accusations and more layers of convoluted reasoning.
You have shown that you prefer to insult me for not supporting your common belief. I suggest you abort skepticism and atheism since I am more than certain that we are in the vast minority. You're clearly hypocrites. Provide a reason why I must place my faith in you. You have not shown your superiority of reasoning but demonstrated your abilities to attempt rhetorical diversions.Easy there fella. You're getting close to the deep end.
You have shown that you do not respect logical argument...No, we have shown we do not respect someone who starts off saying one of the foundations of modern physics, which has passed every test for the last 100 years, is wrong and then presents a simplistic, naive and unsound hypothesis.
... and especially that obtained by premises of observation, something you only pretend that you adhere to.You repeatedly ignore observations and then turn around and accuse us of ignoring them. Can't have it both ways, Scott. Unless you are referring to the crackpot idea that the premise of observation is science's first mistake.
For instance, besides your own ignorance to the Cosmological Principles (both Perfect and Non-), you haven't addressed how or why you would hold to the belief that time itself does not require consistency against our empirical capabilities to determine it.This is why I asked you to explain how GPS works. Our little car units would send us off course in a hurry if GPS did not take time dilation into account.
If it is your view that the popular view in the present paradigm is to hold, your trust in it holds the same accountability to justify it as a Christian is to their positive presumptions.For the one-billionth time, the present paradigm is a paradigm because it has been tested repeatedly and found to work. Religion fails every empirical test.
If you were so much wiser than me, you should be responsible to justify your particular understanding by addressing the premises of the very contemporary science you believe in and for which I referred to in my arguments as a basis for the skepticism.Science works. Deal with it.
By your current attitudes and behaviors, you have demonstrated that you are no different than cyber-bullies who can hide behind anonymous display names and gang up with popular supporters. I only feel sorry for you and will not be beaten just because of it. My arguments are precise and direct at issue. The logic is impeccable.No, your logic is not impeccable. Your logic is deeply flawed.
Either address the logic and my premises which they are based on or don't engage in conversation with me.We have addressed your logic or, more precisely, your lack thereof. Your obstinate refusal to engage in honest give-and-take does not support your hypothesis. Don't forget, you are the one claiming Einstein was wrong and you can develop a better theory than one of the great scientists in history, all without benefit of academic training. As you've pointed out, your lack of academic credentials does not in itself mean your hypothesis is wrong. However, the explanations you have offered are very wrong on many levels, and demonstrate only a superficial knowledge of physics. If your hypothesis turns out to be correct you will be hailed as one of the greatest geniuses of all time alongside Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Planck. I'm betting on crackpot.
No, but your rambling, convoluted and just plain wrong expositions about your attempt to improve Einstein's ideas demonstrate ignorance of advanced physics and math.Just a minor correction, Darron: he is ignorant of even basic concepts of physics. His 'derivation' of E=mc² treats force as energy and velocity as acceleration:
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]Let's discuss how many angels fit on the point of a needle... Might make more sense %-P.
Ah, yes. I had forgotten about that.
a
But I'm wasting my time here on my inability to make sense of it so take care. Scott.Fixed that for you.
And your a moron, Darron. Thanks for your contribution to cyberbullying.
And your (sic) a moron, Darron. Thanks for your contribution to cyberbullying.My moron what?
Unless anybody else here has an actual capability to follow appropriately and want to contribute fairly to me, I'm finished with this discussion at hand.Nobody will ever be able to follow you. And where was I not fair to you? I was just a little mean so now and then. But you cannot expect another reaction when you, without proper training in physics and math, say SR is wrong.
P.S. Energy is just force through a distance. (F=ma). Since c is the fastest velocity, the only possible acceleration that can enable something to catch up to the speed from zero is c * c. Thus F=mc(squared). What you don't understand is that the origin of Energy itself is only a derived concept to help understand what the phenomena easier. In fact, a force doesn't actually exist without real acceleration which requires that it must move or act through a distance. (Instantaneous acceleration is an ideal descriptor) Adding distance to the formula helps make things easier to relate to but it is only a human mathematical tool. But I'm wasting my time here on your inability to make sense of it so take care.Is this supposed to be an example of flawless logic? There is no physics here, just a juggling with words borrowed from physics. My dear Scott, the dimension of velocity (in SI units) is m/s, of acceleration is m/s², and c² would be m²/s². You equate these units in just one sentence. And a force does not exist without acceleration??? Me, standing on the earth experience 2 forces: gravitation that tries to pull me down, and electrical force, that repulses me so I don't sag through the ground to the middle of the earth. 2 Forces, and no acceleration, sorry. And you are right that one could see energy as just a tool to describe physical processes. However, the principle of the conservation of energy already shows that energy really is something in reality, and not just a mathematical tool. With E=mc² energy got definitively the status of 'real existence', at the same level as matter. Yes it is difficult to make sense of it, because there isn't any in it. 'Not even wrong' is the correct expression for it.
Nobody will ever be able to follow you.I wouldn't be so certain.
And where was I not fair to you? I was just a little mean so now and then. But you cannot expect another reaction when you, without proper training in physics and math, say SR is wrong.I didn't require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.
This misunderstanding is only your own. "c" represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance "c"(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?P.S. Energy is just force through a distance. (F=ma). Since c is the fastest velocity, the only possible acceleration that can enable something to catch up to the speed from zero is c * c. Thus F=mc(squared). What you don't understand is that the origin of Energy itself is only a derived concept to help understand what the phenomena easier. In fact, a force doesn't actually exist without real acceleration which requires that it must move or act through a distance. (Instantaneous acceleration is an ideal descriptor) Adding distance to the formula helps make things easier to relate to but it is only a human mathematical tool. But I'm wasting my time here on your inability to make sense of it so take care.Is this supposed to be an example of flawless logic? There is no physics here, just a juggling with words borrowed from physics. My dear Scott, the dimension of velocity (in SI units) is m/s, of acceleration is m/s², and c² would be m²/s². You equate these units in just one sentence. And a force does not exist without acceleration??? Me, standing on the earth experience 2 forces: gravitation that tries to pull me down, and electrical force, that repulses me so I don't sag through the ground to the middle of the earth. 2 Forces, and no acceleration, sorry.
I didn't require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.You do not require math to state that 'the basic principle of relativity is flawed, but the math is correct'??? And you derive that objects approaching light speed are transformed in pure energy? (BTW, what is pure energy? And why can we speed up heavy nuclei close to the speed of light without them being destroyed? Do you have a calculation that shows what objects/speeds/bindings limit this effect?)
This misunderstanding is only your own. "c" represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance "c"(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?How does c * c represent an acceleration? It is not illegitimate what you do, but it does not represent any meaningful physical proposition in your context. Do you really think that the revolutionary insight that mass is one of the forms of energy can derived by putting some physical parameters together? How is your derivation related to the Lorentz transformations? How do you derive that? (Without mathematics???)
I found this great website:
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
Scott, can you give me one reason why we should take you more serious than any of these mentioned websites?
Why do physicists still successfully apply relativity in their theories and experiments, why does relativity work in technology, why can it explain so many natural phenomena (yes, even the colour of gold]…), while so many people already know for a long time ‘why Einstein was wrong’?
I didn't require using any significant math nor did I require any advanced physics here. And yet you continue to declare some imagined ignorance with respect to these subjects.You do not require math to state that 'the basic principle of relativity is flawed, but the math is correct'??? And you derive that objects approaching light speed are transformed in pure energy? (BTW, what is pure energy? And why can we speed up heavy nuclei close to the speed of light without them being destroyed? Do you have a calculation that shows what objects/speeds/bindings limit this effect?) I being somewhat elliptical in some of what I say only for simplicity and the effort to explain without writing a whole book here. That was my point in another post regarding that longer posts are required for necessary understanding. Relativity can still 'work' if it adjusts its premises. For one, if it specifically outlined its meaning of "relativity" to perception of phenomena rather than implying that the appearance of the reality IS the reality, it's math would still represent truth but not impose certain claims about reality beyond its scope. The constant representing the speed of light also is misleading in that it assumes that light's straight-line velocity is the fastest speed possible without regarding the possibility that light waves have other vector components that may be responsible for its makeup. For instance, it would be better stated that nothing (so far) demonstrates a speed faster than light but that light approaches a maximum speed, we label, c, which itself cannot be superseded. By 'pure' energy, I only meant that the translation of matter in a straight line that could approach or become as fast as the fastest speed (c), would require that the mass (matter) be transformed completely into energy. I'm pretty certain that even Einstein felt this as the name given to E=mc² is also known as the mass-energy equivalence equation. That is, mass and energy are one and the same in that mass represents the very energy, E, that it can maximally transform to. As mass moves, its translation through space is a conversion towards energy. If mass is maximized to the speed, c, it is then considered completely transformed into this ideal energy, E. In actuality, the true maximum speed, c, would destroy even its potential for even being a wave (it would be a 'wave' at infinite frequency or zero wavelength.) But this requires a more intensive explanation than here. So when a mass is translated to energy, it no longer contains the information of its former existence of matter in order to reconstruct itself without other external and more complex means.
I was being elliptical again on the assumption that anyone who follows physics would understand. The first 'c' represents the speed of light as an acceleration while the second represents the distance, c (299,792,458m). Obviously, if nothing can go faster than the speed, c, then no possible acceleration can enable anything to go farther than the distance, c, in one second. Therefore the maximum possible acceleration must be c m/s² [although once it gets to c, the mass can no longer accelerate -- it is no longer a 'mass' by then, anyways since its conversion to energy is complete]. The acceleration, c m/s², then, can only travel the maximum distance, c m, which, in mc² represents the maximum work that that mass can do. I need to create a geometric diagrams for the demonstration of the transformations you ask. I'll try to do that and get back to you here.This misunderstanding is only your own. "c" represents both the velocity c(m/s) and the distance "c"(m). This convention is well understood with physicists and I see it often used. c is the constant 299,792,458[m/s or m (understood as that constant distance that light travels in one second.] Is it somehow illegitimate for me to do this?How does c * c represent an acceleration?
I being somewhat elliptical in some of what I say only for simplicity and the effort to explain without writing a whole book here.I think it is better then to wait till your book is published. Until then you are spoiling your time with me here. You are just writing rubbish here in this thread, Scott.
The constant representing the speed of light also is misleading in that it assumes that light's straight-line velocity is the fastest speed possible without regarding the possibility that light waves have other vector components that may be responsible for its makeup.You never explained what these 'other vector components' are, Scott.
For instance, it would be better stated that nothing (so far) demonstrates a speed faster than light but that light approaches a maximum speed, we label, c, which itself cannot be superseded.Light moves with the speed of light, per definition. It is slower in media than in vacuum, that's all. c is the speed that particles have who have no rest mass.
By 'pure' energy, I only meant that the translation of matter in a straight line that could approach or become as fast as the fastest speed (c), would require that the mass (matter) be transformed completely into energy.So if I fly in a rocket that accelerates with g (9.81 m/s², so keeping my feet fix to the ground as I am used to on earth), then after about a year I would have reached c (299792458/9.81/60/60/24/365). But before that time I am disintegrated into pure energy? Can I still accelerate further? From my perspective? From the perspective of the earth? Can I keep standing on the ground in the rocket?
I'm pretty certain that even Einstein felt this as the name given to E=mc² is also known as the mass-energy equivalence equation.Please show me quotations of Einstein, texts or interviews that make you think so.
Obviously, if nothing can go faster than the speed, c, then no possible acceleration can enable anything to go farther than the distance, c, in one second. Therefore the maximum possible acceleration must be c m/s²The 'therefore' doesn't follow. It might be practically impossible to accelerate something with 299792458 m/s², but nothing in relativity forbids it. For the rest frame however it would soon decrease immensely before one second has passed; for a frame of reference that moves with the object it could do this indefinitely, according to its own 'inertia measurement'. Looking back to earth of course it would notice that it does not seem to be that fast. You might get a better understanding of this when you think about my rocket example above.
I need to create a geometric diagrams for the demonstration of the transformations you ask. I'll try to do that and get back to you here.You do not need to. I already told you you do not have the understanding of even basic mechanics to make any meaningful argument. Do not spoil your time on me. I'll wait for your book and your Nobel price party.
Maybe you’re right GDB, I’ll leave it at this until I have the work more completed in writing. At least, I’m not able to be more complete here without a better means of illustrations and lack of math fonts.
Note: Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia [I took it for granted that you’d at least know this, yourself.]
Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence [I took it for granted that you'd at least know this, yourself.]Yes. And what do you want to say me with this? That your absurd 'derivation' of E=mc² is correct?