Mac's Final Relativity Thread

WOW. Thanks for the morning laugh. Now lets go over these points.

******************************************************
Relativists have these virtually universal characteristics:

1. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of common folk that raise logical questions of their faith based system of physics.

2. They insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important proving their view even though the discovery may have numerous alternative explanations. That is the data is not exclusively correct to only their view..

3. They NEVER acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

4. They love to talk about their own beliefs, often interjecting inappropriate or negative innuendo about their challenger, they are bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

5. They have No discernible sense of humour.

In addition, virtually all relativits.

1. seriously misunderstand the opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,

2. stress that they have proven their ideas for over 100 years, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, thousands of higly educated experts cannot all be wrong.

3. compare themselves with Einstein, implying that the mere "Counter Intuitive" nature of relativity is in itself evidence of plausibility, and the basis for others incapable of their elevated intelligence to understand.

4. claim that their ideas are being attacked ONLY by people that are cranks, , ignorant, in complete disregrd for the individual education, experience and achievement. That is the minute a physicist turns on relativity he becomes labled and shunned.

5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique intelligence.

Relativists always,

1. exhibit a marked lack of common sense and ability to think outside the mainstream box and are limited to reciting mere theory,

2. misunderstand or fail to use standard logic or common sense,

3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding any alternative belief.

Acknowledgments:

James R poster on SCF

Note: this comment is applied to posters James R, Billy T and others here that have merited recognition for slander, dogma, rhetoric, negative innuendo, distortion, off topic and irrelevant posts that NEVER address the issues raised, it sounds very appropriate don't you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A SHORT POINT ABOUT RELATIVITY

Assuming that time does in fact dilate with speed, reaching light-speed would not only violate the laws of relativity, but also laws of thermodynamics. At light-speed, time freezes and so does molecular motion. To an observer this would very much imply absolute zero, with 0 thermal radiation and/or molecular movement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not a problem for thermodynamics, but rather quantum mechanics.

And, yeah, Relativity and QM are known to be incompatible as-is. Figuring out how to reconcile them is a big open problem in physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand your argument but do not think it correct. I think you must, of necessity, speak only of the limit as your mass of molecules at temperature T (say T is the melting point of lead with half the mass liquid and half solid in equlibrium) approaches the speed of light. I contend that T does not decrease even at 99.99999999999999999999% of speed of light as:

(1) In some some other frame, the one moving so fast wrt to you, that half liquid / half solid lead is at rest and still at T or half liquid and half solid. The same material can not be all solid (less than T) or all liquid (greater than T) in different frames. Point (1) Summary: Temperature does not change with speed, not even in the limit as speed of light is approached. Physics is the same in all inertial frames, even ones moving very fast wrt you. That means the melting point of lead is the same as handbook printed temperature in all frames. (and a lot of other things related to SR, such as cesium energy levels and thus cesium clock tick rates in their own frame, etc, but I am no longer posting on that here - leaving the thead to the SR rejectors.)

No one can say what would happen if the mass of lead were taveling at the speed of light - perhaps it turns to gold or green chesse?
We will never know as it will never happen.


(2) From an atomic POV, T being the average KE, which is related to the square of (dx/dt) their speed, both dx and dt of the lead's rest frame described in terms of your frame's meter and seconds have changed but the same factor so that in all frame the speed of each and every molecule or atm is unchanged. I.e. from this atomic POV also T is unchanged.

PS
Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

 

Firstly it isn't 'faith' if you've got empirical evidence. Secondly, can you name one person in the last 100 years whose contributed to theoretical physics in a major way who didn't have a formal education in science, aka 'common folk'.

A flat out lie. Just because you are not in the physics community doesn't mean you can just assume what you like about how we operate.

Patience soon gives way to exasperation when cranks resort to lying and simply making up claims about how physicists and physics works. If you're in the right you shouldn't need to resort to lying, yet you just did.

Again, just because you don't know any of us personally doesn't mean we're humourless robots. Your only interaction with us is to say "You're an idiot for believing 100 years of relativity, it's obviously wrong" and being immune to any and all rational discussion. If someone walked into your place of work everyday and just threw insults at you about how crap you are at your job and you're a sucker if you have put in any effort to learn any skills for your job would you be jolly with them? Don't piss on people's shoes and then expect a hug.

Again, you lie, either through ignorance or bias. Relativity has been experimentally verified to be very very very close to how Nature behaves, such as to 1 part in a billion for some phenomena. That is not the same as proving relativity is how nature behaves, that's impossible due to the limits of experimental observations. If you don't understand the distinction, don't make ignorant claims. If you do grasp the distinction, don't lie.

You won't find many physicists who think they're comparable to Einstein. The vast majority of the leading people in theoretical physics are very humble. Green, of string theory fame, will not call the result he's famous for 'The Green-Schwarz mechanism', even though every textbook, paper and conference proceeding call it that, he called it something innocuous like "The string anomaly cancellation method". Cranks mistake confidence for blind arrogance. It's not that we believe we're all knowing, just more knowing than cranks. And noone claims the counter intuitive nature of some physics is a reason to believe it, only that it's naive to expect all physics to be intuitive.

Not true, it's just that the vast vast majority of people who turn on relativity never understood it in the first place and attack things which are easily defended. 999,999 times out of 1,000,000 the person who is attacking relativity doesn't know much about it and attacks what is basically a result of their ignorance. The few learned people who turn on relativity seem to split into 2 groups, utter nuts (and plenty of people do go a little nuts later in life) or a valid methodology. MOND or Horava gravity are two areas which have received considerable interest. Infact, Horava gravity was 'the big thing' last year on ArXiv, it got more papers written about it than many mainstream ideas.

So again, you simply make a claim you either haven't tried to check or have and are willing to simply lie.

Again, cranks mistake confidence for blind narcissism. I know a decent amount about quantum field theory, enough to answer pretty much any qualitative question a layperson could ask. This ability doesn't mean I believe I'm all knowing but it will seem to the layperson I know more than I actually do because they don't know enough details to probe into areas of QFT which I don't know so much about. Invariably cranks attack or whine about pretty well known areas of physics, after all if something isn't well known outside the science community a crank won't know about it since they refuse to do any learning on their own. Hence almost any issue a crank brings up can be easily addressed, which the crank might view as us thinking we are omniscience. No, we just have more knowledge and experience on the topic to address anything a layperson can ask. If cranks spent less time whining and more time reading they'd find plenty of actually relevant and open questions about the validity of various parts of physics, but they never so.

So by your logic the last 90 years of scientific advancement, with all the technology it's brought, was a fluke? This is another thing with cranks, because they are always so uninformed about pretty simple, basic concepts in a theory they are constantly being corrected on them, discussions never get to topics at the 'bleeding edge' of research (where out of the box thinking is done by mainstream people) because cranks don't know enough. Cranks are generally sufficiently ignorant that the only things they ever grasp or learn anything about are so simply they've been part of the mainstream for decades, which means their conversations centre on such topics. Kaneda, over in the astronomy forum, complains I never tell him anything he couldn't read in a book, but that's because he's so ignorant of cosmology he's failed to learn what's in a book so I need to keep telling him. Any offer to discuss my research with him, to show I've got a creative side to my physics ability, is refused because he won't understand it. If he knew quantum field theory and GR we could discuss my work. But instead we're stuck with me having to tell him that there's more evidence for the big bang than just the CMB, despite that being information he could get from Wiki, if he only tried. The bottle neck in discussions when it comes to progressing to more imaginative and new work is the crank.

 

They are synchronized to read the same before they separate!
In the future, use a dictionary, and refresh your comprehension skills!

This sounds like you are saying the moving A-clock runs slower.

I recommend you not be so presumptuous.

The example is: the fact that the A-clock physically reads less time, demonstrates a physical process altered it while moving. This is in contrast to your comments about clocks not being physically altered. The fact the clock runs at the same rate in its own frame, is the observer is altered by those same processes.

Thanks for a non answer.

 

AlphaNumeric;2342149,

Thank you for helping me make my following points:

1. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of common folk that raise logical questions of their faith based system of physics.

2. stress that they have proven their ideas for over 100 years, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, thousands of higly educated experts cannot all be wrong. ”

True but you deliberately ignore the assertions of SR that have not been tested and cannot be tested which falsifies SR as valid theory.

reason to believe it, only that it's naive to expect all physics to be intuitive.

5. They have No discernible sense of humour.

You pathetic fool. I responded to James R's baseless attack on me with a tit-for-tat and you get offended. Well to damn bad. Perhaps I need to add your name to the list at the bottom.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And your re-writting the scenario such that it doesn't work also is useless.

I stipulated that each frame had a control and if that control saw detonation that was NOT simultaneous then it triggered the gun shot.

Now by your own calculations one frame sees the detonations as simultaneous and hence the ovserver survies the physical test.

But in the other frame you admitted that the observer sees the detonations as NOT simultaneous because of contraction such that the observer gets killed.

Clearly if he gets shot then he is shot in all frames but the issue is that the physicas are different in the two frames causing conflict as to if he gets shot.

Now address that conflict and stiop trying to rewrite your way out of this pickle.

 

You will find that Billy T flip-flops all over the place. He says one tricks slower but then tht tehy all tick the same. Then he says time dilation isn't real but an artifact of lorentz contraction. That is since the traveler went less distance he accumulates less time while all clocks are ticking equally.

Basically he loves to hear himself talk and pretend to teach. He never listens however.

 

Now for a bit of clarification.

How many times have you seen James R swear there are no such things as preferred frames?

How many times have you seen him assault me when I suggested that perhaps the CMB might be such a frame?

To many to count. You bet.

How many times have you seen him attack me for posting a paper from a "Rag", a non-mainstream journal properly peer reviewed according to him.

Virtually every thread.

That is the easy way out after all, just ignore all evidence that is in disagreement with your intrenched ideas.

Well the following is from one of his preferred journals that has peer review. From Princeton:

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/hardy_prl_68_2981_92.pdf

******************** Extracts ***********************
Consequently, if we consider a run of the experiment for which both D+ = 1 and D- = 1, then the trajectories calculated in frame F+ contridict those calculated in F-............

The way out of this is to have a preferred frame of reference...................

However it should be pointed out that, although the gedanken experiment we have discussed suggests a preferred frame of reference, it canot be used to tell us which that preferred frame is. ..............................

One posible candidate for this special frame of reference is the one in which the cosmic background radiaton is isotropic. ...........................

However, other than the fact that a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics requires a preferred frame and the cosmic background radiation provides us with one, .....................

******************************************************

Now he is going to cry foul because this has to do with quantum mechanics, not Special Relativity. But I point out that while I agree SR asserts "No Preferred Frames", that is entirely different than James claiming "There are no preferred frames".

I in fact have attempted to make that point. That is that because preferred frames ARE being used it is no longer SR but LR.

When he recites SR as proof of SR he is placing SR into a position of being uncontestable and is ignoring the reality of the physical world around him and in turn assaults those that suggest he is being narrow minded.

It seems QM is the more recent advance in physics as of this date and QM requires preferred frames. So if preferred frames exist it is assinine to continue to swear they don't exist just because Einstein thought so.

It is time to acknowledge that they shift from SR to LR when they consider "Frame Switching" to eliminate the reciprocity inherent in SR. It is time to acknowledge that the ECI frame used by GPS is a preferred frame inconsistant with the application of SR.

 

The problem is not that he is shot . He will be seen to either survive or die in all frames but the issue is the physics for him getting shot (at least in my automatic controls scenario) the equipment has the same rules of engagement and in one frame he is shot and in the other he is not.

i.e. - The physics are NOT the same in all frames.

 

Not true. They did not say "may" they said "required". Further I really don't need to fully grasp all details the issue is the existance of preferred frames which you deny exist and for which they have determined are required for viable views of QM.

I am not surprised that you and others resist such new work but the key point here is that what I have said is no more incorrect than some mainstream work that is published in your acceptable journal. To them you merely say it is skeptical but to me you like to assert ignorance. I suggest that is unsupported bias in your attitude.

False. I linked the full paper for anyone wanting to review it. I shortened the extracts to the key point of my claim and added ....... to alert readers of the paragrph being cropped. That is about as honest as you can get without posting the entire lengthy paper which this site discourages.

While I have repeatedly attempted to make the point that the GPS ECI frame IS a preferred frame and hence SR is NOT used, you have consistantly spouted off the SR rhetoric that there are no such things as preferred frame.

That is simply a lie. Any frame that provides a preference of function is a preferred frame. In the ECI the orbit cannot claim to be at rest. That IS a preferred frame and is not allowed by SR. I have no objection to your correctly stating that SR prohibits preferred frames. I have said that masy times myself. But you are extending that to all physics and proclaiming there are no preferred frames; which is simply a lie.

Even your application of the "Frame Switching" standard to time dilation calculations establishes a preferred frame such that you are actually performing LR and not SR. When you stipulate who switched frames you stipulate who has the velocity and you ignore the relative velocity between frames and never try to invoke SR's reciprocity to the resting frame.

Correct and I did print that qualification. So what is your point. Real scientist discuss use and possibility of preferred frames but according to you you know there are none. That simple fact is you don't know that at all and establishing a preferred frame is rather easy to do and is done in GPS.

And you futile attempt to mitigate being caught with your hand in the cookie jar is also telling. I'm not the one that said "There are no preferred frames". When in fact there are many. I'm the one that raised the issue about the CMB being a possible preferred frame and you jumped all over that suggestion.

The simple truth is you do not like persons attacking your pet view and will say and do anything to save face. Well this time you have fallen on your own sword.

My advice is that you take a deep breath and prepare to have egg surgically removed from your face. And realise that yuo are the one showing your ass.

 

Following PS has been added to post 804:

PS
Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

Valid physics is NOT self contradictory.

 

What about english do you not comprehend? I have clearly stated the controls in each frame monitor each frame. If eitehr control sees a detonation that was not simultaneous then it reacts (pulls the trigger). Now if you rteally want detail I can design such a system giving you circuit diagrams and part number of components of the shelf but you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

You are simply nuts and talking BS. You have proven nothing.