This topic has nothing to do with religion, so keep it out of it. If you wish to make comments like these or discuss religion, make a thread in Great Debates or the Pit.
Sorry, but I have 2 questions.
1 - Why is everything always rotating in your thought experiments? Do they have to be rotating? Does the speed of light hold true when sensors, clocks, observers aren’t rotating? It seems needlessly complicated.
2 - How do you accept time dilation and length contraction and not the constant c? That’s the entire point. How would you explain time dilation and length contraction without relativity/c? And without math?
The reason we don’t measure a difference in the speed of sound depending on which direction in Earth’s rotation or revolution we measure is that the air is rotating and revolving with the Earth.
So the Aether is being fully dragged along with the Earth?
Except how does that work?
The only way a dragged Aether could match our observations is if the dragging extends out to infinity. Is that what you think happens?
And of course Einstein didn’t prove that the speed of light is constant by his theory of relativity. His theory of relativity was supposed to explain the OBSERVATION that the speed of light was observed to be constant, by, you know, experiments like Michelson-Morley.
It wasn’t like Physicists woke up in 1903 and decided “Hey! I know! What if we just assume that the speed of light is constant. I mean, we have no reason to believe it is, but what if we just assumed it is? Then what would happen?”
Rather, we had a lot of experiments that seemed to show the nonsensical result that the speed of light didn’t change no matter what speed the detectors used to measure it were going. It didn’t matter if the Earth were traveling toward the light source or away from the light source, there was no difference in the velocity of light. How the heck could this be? It makes no sense, as you have pointed out repeatedly.
Einstein’s theory was a way to try to make sense of this observation, and every time we try to measure what actually happens in the actual world, we confirm that his theory is correct. So to disprove Einstein, you’d have to show that your theory explains our observations better than Einstein’s. This could be by doing things like explaining flaws in the MM experiments. Not by saying things like “If c is a constant then we have to accept all sorts of bizarre things like time dilation as a consequence, therefore c cannot be a constant”. Rather you have to explain why all our observations have the same systematic error that leads us to erroneously conclude that c is a constant, thus demonstrating that c is not constant.
Stop trying to prove that Relativity doesn’t make sense. Of course it doesn’t make sense, this is why everyone hates Relativity and has been trying to prove it wrong for 100 years. Instead start trying to prove that we actually see variation in the speed of light, if only we eliminate the systematic mistakes that experimentalists have been making for the last 100 years. The way to do that is to understand the experiments that we’ve actually done, and figure out the mistakes they’ve made. This is likely to be difficult, since a lot of people have spent a lot of time trying to find those mistakes and haven’t had any luck.
It certainly is true that by the 1930s people were starting to think that the invariance of c was pretty much proved and there was no use looking for experimental error. So since professional physicists haven’t spent much time since then on refuting Einstein, and every experiment with lasers and so on that we do nowadays lines up pretty much exactly with what we’ve been taught, the field is wide-open for amateurs like you.
Again, argument from incredulity won’t work. Attack the observations, not the theory. If we can disprove the observations the theory will evaporate like a soap bubble.
I think you probably realize just fine that I was saying that Relativity can become a religion of sorts.
At least it can be an apt comparison, at worst it could be considered to become essentially true.
The point of me making these comparisons is to hold a mirror up to people so they can see it looks an awful lot like they are taking things on faith, daring not to challenge authority, being intellectually dishonest, close minded, fuzzy in thinking, disconnected from reality and truth, appeasing the status quo, making people and theories sacred, and acting like understanding is not needed or not possible, or only possible if you have qualifications or that logic is trumped by math which is mystical sounding. As if math can make something impossible actually possible and not merely help establish the various intensities of each effect.
I have had people say that Relativity doesn’t have to make sense, sounds like a religious answer to me.
If people don’t want to be called zealots worshipping at the alter of relativism, they should stop acting like it.
In the same way, if I was using all caps and ranting about aliens and conspiracies and being vague, you would be very valid to consider I am likely a paranoid nut.
Despite Aliens being almost certain according to science and conspiracies are often proven, the relevance to the discussion would be nil.
If my spelling was poor, my logic easily broken, I used no caps you could easily call me an arrogant fool. Imature, stupid, etc…
Instead I seem to be making sense, mostly intelligent, only lacking math skills and holding maverick/dissenting ideas. So all you can do is assume I am mistaken, you just don’t see how. Or that I am right. And at minimum one has said they think I am.
You can correctly also accuse me of running on a bit, being in my own head, ranting, sometimes poor proof reading, replying to everyone (obsessiveness), not always perfectly clear, ADD, and just possibly a bit of megalomania, being insulting (especially in this email) and disrespectful to the status quo.
I guess you could call me a dick, a geek without the most vaunted geek skill (math).
You can choose to misinterpret my statement about religion and take a cheap shot.
You can call me wrong, but you can’t show me wrong!
You must accept that my argument is logical, even if you do not accept the conclusions.
No one has flawed any portion of it even. It is flawless.
Please Prove me wrong! Show me up the only way that won’t look like you are making a distraction so SR can escape while everyone’s looking the other way.
Please Prove me wrong!
Wait! I can prove you wrong.
Here goes: when we try to measure the speed of light, all our observations measure it to be exactly the same speed, regardless of the motion of the observer or the source of the light. This occurs even if the source of the light is really really far away, like outside of our galaxy even.
People have done so in this thread, repeatedly. You don’t understand physics well enough to understand that.
Were you metaphorically trying to make the point that you really enjoyed his post?
I just got confused by the instructions.
Does anyone else get the feeling that mythoughts might somehow be related to Otis Eugene Ray of Timecube fame?
This is the approach used by many relativity doubters: they attack the MM observations. The fascinating thing about many of them (not, I hasten to mention, anyone in this thread) is that they seem to imagine the the experiments were done only once, a century ago, and have never been repeated. You very often read, in crackpot websites, “If they were done today using modern instruments, they would certainly observe a difference in the speed of light.” It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the experiments have been repeated, tens of thousands of times, using interferometers vastly more accurate than Michelson and Morley ever dreamed of.
They also often say, “How come the experiments have never been performed in space?” Which is silly, because, of course, they have.
(I wish crank.net were still being updated! Damn fine reading!)
Good question!
The reason I often use rotating is because this brings in the expected effects caused by motion and acceleration, while not having something move far away or the anomaly only occurring for an instant.
Once things get some distance the issues with simultaneity, length contraction, and probably more. Doppler effect make it very hard to make the anomaly obvious. Things get very very messy and honestly hopeless, this is what SR likes things moving away or toward each other.
But with rotating nothing ever moves away even though it is moving, and you are at the side of a rotating disk it’s moving appearance can be stopped with a strobe.
But I also use linear motion provided the 2 frames of motion are in essentially the same location, see the train version of the experiment which is included in the first message of this thread.
But with linear motion it is a one shot and it’s over, the paradox exists but only for a moment. They are only in the same location for a moment.
2 spaceships with a passing with a relative velocity at near C should expect to see a big time paradox as they look at the other ships experience of time, it is impossible but lasts for what? A few atto seconds if they are close? Longer if they are far, but then you lose simultaneity.
This can be solved by turning the 2 space ships into infinitely long trains on parallel tracks moving in opposite directions, this gives continued opportunities to compare relative time rates, but the lack of simultaneity in each train makes it hard to argue that this definitively changes anything.
Additionally everything that rotary motion can do can be done with vibration and in some ways it is even cleaner since you get acceleration and a proper inertial frame momentarily with even less motion, however the issue with vibration is that is is hard to imagine it being to a significant speed of light, even though theoretically it could be and even though relativistic effects kick in and can be observed at low relative velocities, the name of the game is not pointing out that something that is illogical is illogical, you want it to be as dramatic as possible.
So that is why I like rotation, it isn’t the only method I use but it is promising.
But it is key to note that the anomaly (none of them) need any particular style of movement to be shown up, but rotation is the most in your face one.
The only thing consistent in ALL of my thought experiments (I think) is that observation is orthogonal to remove issues with the Doppler effect causing apparent time and length distortions, varying degrees of simultaneity (what a word) and the like.
Ok, firstly it is not specifically that I accept them but because others accept them, it is that I am using them to prove SR is flawed, turning SR against it’s self.
Secondly length contraction and time dilation as used by Einstein is SR were actually created initially by Lorentz (Lorentz contraction) as an explanation of why light could be measured to be C when it isn’t actually moving at ‘C’ to the observer due to motion through the Aether (Ether).
In other words, before Einstein decided that apparent was the same as actual, the speed of light wasn’t though to be actually constant.
Scientists were just trying to explain why it appeared that way since they wanted to think that the earth moves through the aether rather than brings (drags, entrains) it’s reference frame with it.
Of course this would have been untenable anyway since you would have a thing called stationary that would exist for pretty much nothing in the universe, and plenty of stars would be moving very quickly through a static aether.
So if I believe that the aether is entrained by the earth and hence do not require time dilation or length contraction to explain null M-M results, then why do I still think it is plausible if something moves though the aether it is distorted by it with time and length contraction?
Because it makes a lot of sense and there is experimental evidence of it.
Actually I believe all matter is made up at a very tiny fundamental level of some form of activity (vibration, vortex, smoke rings, nodes etc) in a fluid aether.
If matter moves through aether or visa versa, the effects can cause more weird effects that time dilation and length contraction IMO.
Noble Prize wining Physicist Frank Wilczek has got some great lectures of how matter seems certain to be a form of ‘music’ of the void, other times in his recent book (the lightness of matter) he gets bother and mentions the aether, and aether condensates.
Could you provide a diagram of your experimental setup? I’m having a hard time following what you’re saying in your OP.
Thanks for not including me.
But to say it quickly, if the same experiment was done for sound, would the same results not be found, that the speed of sound is always the same no matter how the earth moves through space, no matter how the source of the sound move toward or away, no matter if you perform the experiment on plane, train or automobile.
But the speed of sound isn’t constant!
Same observations.
Secondly it wasn’t assumed that the speed of light was or could be constant before SR, and he didn’t argue how it could be just assumes it is…
AND the Lorentz transformations, the same ones re-appropriated for SR try to explain the results if the earth moved though an aether.
In other words if you prove Lorentz is wrong about his transformations for an aether theory, then they don’t explain it for SR either.
Because Einstein basically said “if we assumes Lorentz was right, but didn’t go far enough and the apparent is made real, then the speed of light can become actually always the same”.
So you can’t use the M-M to prove anything EXCEPT that we aren’t moving through the aether if Lorentz’s effects aren’t real.
This means that it is a 3 way tie between SR, Lorentz with a static aether and an entrained aether…
Until you point out that Lorenz contractions can’t explain the consistency of the measurements, which means that Einstien’s Axiom on which SR is based is, well baseless.
So the second you kick the faulty leg from under Lorentz stool, Einstien comes tumbling down with him and only an entrained aether can stand as plausible and consistent with the evidence.
I want to say prove me wrong, but that is a bluff, not because you can. That is impossible.
But because if the only replies were ones that did, there would be none.
So I am instead going to ask, please bring up new faulty arguments not just the same old ones.
Or if you want to bring up the same old ones, then what would you disagree about the above?
Relativity is counter intuitive on the surface. Which is why it is probably the most scrutinised theory in history. Yet it’s still here and still being used to send large vehicles down narrow country lanes.
The thought experiments you’re putting forward are nothing new and have been refuted decades ago. But to fully understand the solutions you need to put actual numbers into actual equations. If you insist on ignoring the maths, very few people will ever take you seriously. As you are finding out. The maths is really not that hard!
Relativity is the best explanation we have to date. One day it may well be replaced by something else. But whatever that is, it will need to explain what relativity does at least as well. But it will also explain things that relativity can’t. You’re attacking relativitys strengths rather than looking for it’s weaknesses. And those strengths have been tested thousands of times in real experiments in real labs by real geeks like me.
Please do point this out. Lorentz derived the transformation to explain the consistent velocity. It’s the whole point of them. Why do you think he came up with it?
I’d like to nominate this as “post that is a reasonable response to most other posts in this thread”.
Here you go: ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs
I hope that is sufficiently explanatory.
If you have any questions ask away.
I appreciate someone actually considering the thought experiment!
Also if you don’t think it is odd that the light or matter should be seen to exceed C by the time dilated frame I can explain that too.
Thanks
Hear Hear! Well unless you mean me, then I guess I only agree very slightly.
He came up with equations to explain the consistency of the measurements.
Now they fail miserably in one important aspect, they can only solve the problem in one direction but make it worse the other direction (think about it).
Unless you imply something can become simultaneously longer and shorter and accelerated and slowed in time simultaneously relative the the same frame.
And at any rate that argument was never made, the accelerated time and lengthening side of things were never included.
But back at it, he did not say light always moves at C relative to us, he said we have trouble measuring lights true speed due to distortions in our ability to measure.
In other words Lorentz said 'This Ruler IS short" and “This clock IS slow”. (in an absolute sense that even we could agree with if we were not affected too)
Hence they read things incorrectly, they were deformed instruments.
I know the difference seems subtle, but it isn’t.
If you could find a clock that wasn’t slow and an ruler that avoids distortion the speed of light would be as expected.
With Lorenz the distortion of these things was essentially a material issue and an absolute one, if you did not move relative to the aether it would not happen.
Einstein made these symmetrical transformations of space where everyones measurements were both right and wrong simultaneously, and declared that we were not measuring light with flawed yard sticks, our yard sticks are fine, light is just C.
But wait wait wait, back up there.
Lorenz never even showed that his theory IMO could correct for light going both faster from Relativity.
I guess that is part of what explains how this all happened, Einstein based his theory on a shaky ground assuming/hoping/bluffing it was solid , never even examines it in his theory, it is just an axiom that the speed of light is constant.
And then builds a castle with fun house mirror mazes for walls.
After a while the guests end up so dazed and confused they don’t know what is real anymore and feel that reality is the thing that is distorted.
And why is that mass of contradictions and unexplained constancy the the speed of light more attractive than the M-M finding what you would expect if light moved at C though a medium the earth drags?
You know what I am going to assert something.
Everyone who asks me anything other than details of the thought experiment or has anything other than an argument about it secretly believes I’m right.
They don’t want me to, it might not be conscious, it might not be that they are certain.
And they may hold disbelief at the whole situation.
They may want me to prove it with a physical experiment, wish I could prove it with math (Or prefer I fail).
But their brain has said “you know what, I think he’s right”'.
Of course that is assuming they have read enough of what I have written and are capable of coherent thought and visualization.
At this point it is all a case of dealing with cognitive dissonance of something that is both logically right, but obviously (in a societal sense) wrong. After all who am I to question such a hugely popular and successful theory!
But science isn’t about status, it is, or MUST be about truth, and logic.
Otherwise it is just a game of gaining status and influence.
And the truth and logic is on my side, well actually no, I am on theirs.
SR is built on distortion and bluffs (AKA axioms).
It is counter intuitive on the surface initially, once you come to understand it out, a lot can seen to make sense, I was there once.
You see before I understood it I could easily make arguments about it.
Then I understood it, I realized easily the flaws in my old arguments.
When I tried to find new ones, now I was ‘mesmerized’ by it’s distortions I couldn’t find any questions it couldn’t answer.
I thought I had wrapped my head around it, but I had warped my head around it.
Eventually I was able to find things it could not solve, not just I couldn’t solve but NO ONE could solve.
Now if I went back in time and tried to tell my past self, the one that had the heady rush of believing such a fun house mirror theory and I tried to tell him…
He would stop me and same probably precisely the same words that you said.
Yes, it seems contradictory ant first.
Then it seems genius.
And if you work at it like enough it looks idiotic.
Most people, especially with careers to protect don’t want to spend the whole time bringing down the house that they are meant to be helping build.
Therefore while some will have the odd doubt about it, many won’t and if no one does anything it keeps on keeping on.
No, quite the opposite:
What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein’s theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein’s relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.)
If you can find one the same as any I have produced, then please show me.
And if there is no solution to it then it proves my point if it has been around for ages and none can assail it.
And IF it has a resolution, then I’ll admit that I am mistaken. Provided I can show the resolution if flawed or inconsistent with SR/GR.
Ah, No!
The actual experiments would not give you equations, it would just inform you what actually happened.
Everything in GR and SR works for and velocity, time dilation from GR doesn’t not exist and then kick in.
None of this needs to be calculated unless you want to know what magnitude each influence will have at a given velocity.
And if I gave examples at a given RPM, distance, linear velocity, clock type and rate, then people would say that I should be using a different rate etc…
That is just not picking, you do not need to be specific.
If you have accurate enough time pieces the sensors and clock could rotate at 1 RPM and give a result especially if the distance was increased.
And the result would be the same as if you rotated till the linear velocity of the censor was .99c
Not the same in the sense of the magnitude of the effect, but the results give the same magnitude.
But hey, if you could read the math and be sure it is correct you could probably just as easily do it yourself!
Scientific equations are like a secret language, not many people are able to read and solve proficiently to fault them. And you have to be very careful when working with numbers that you don’t end up with a physically impossible abstract answer.
If they are it’s strengths how come you, obviously able to do the math yourself can’t solve my thought experiment?
If you want details for the RPM, diameter, length I can easily provide numbers that should show the effect.
You can choose if you want to apply GR time dilation or not, SR time dilation or not etc…
And if you lay it out really clearly step by step I will even be able to follow them making it likely I will agree with you as to the results.
But you won’t do this if you are making an objection so factious as that.