EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Danny Milano on 14 Jul 2008 08:10 On Jul 14, 8:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Danny Milano wrote: > > On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > >> Danny Milano wrote: > >>> On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> James, > > >>>>> When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does > >>>>> your time dilate or your length contract? It never does > >>>>> in your own first person view or reference frame. > >>>>> Relativity didn't say it does. > > >>>> But the problem is it saying it does at all. > >>>> The other observer is simply not measuring > >>>> correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time > >>>> and distance if he uses relativity at all and including > >>>> a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though > >>>> all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring > >>>> the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support > >>>> a relative motion theory. > >>>> It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too > >>>> long. > > >>> What do you mean "multilple standards for time > >>> and distance"? Pls. explain. > > >> Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away > >> and come back to the same spot, it will have less time > >> shown on it. > >> A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned > >> properly. > >> But yet, they do not show the same times. > >> That means they have accepted a multiple standard > >> "second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction. > >> And length contraction is also done the same > >> way sorta except the meter comes back and > >> it is the same as it ever was and they > >> simply say the moving meter is shorter than the > >> "at rest" meter. and that make the multiple > >> standards for thier "meter". > > >> The meter problem is usually combined with > >> the clock problem so they can remove > >> the paradox occurance if you used > >> absolute measurement systems that had > >> no single "standard" for a second and a meter. > >> Clear enough? > > >> Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist > >> that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must > >> ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to > >> support the relative motion theories. > > >> And even one more stupid relativity trick is > >> the old "limited speed math" that makes all of > >> other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c) > >> + 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c. > >> So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic > >> math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects > >> to wave speeds for observational bullshit, > >> instead of actually finding true relative speeds. > >> How silly is that? > >> :) > >> If we go into outerspace and keep relativity > >> and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality" > >> we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet > >> according to our malfunctioning clocks. > >> because those planets do not care what "your" clock > >> is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth > >> said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why > >> we know what time to see things in the sky. > >> :) > > >> So, > >> The clock malfunctioned, > >> and the meter did not shrink physically, > >> and if you think such at all, you will be stardust > >> or planet dust all over again. > >> That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole > >> point particle, singularity zero point energy complete > >> utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and > >> rubber rulers. > >> :) > > >> -- > >> James M Driscoll Jr > >> Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho > > about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking. > > > Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of > > Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving > > rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes > > that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical > > laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends > > on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at > > present on how the particles and atoms behave during time > > dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles > > are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so > > many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not > > given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines > > the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of > > the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem > > to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here. > > The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes. > Until such is found, it will remain a theory. > To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find > the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down. > Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find > the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed > rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so > far. > The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are growing. > The simple lack of "physical" cause.. > IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it.. > You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and > then find out "why" and your answer can not be because > "time slowed down" because that is like saying. > The clock slowed, because the clock slowed. > Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple > standard as the cause. > It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things > for real. > :) > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - My dear, It is possible that the coupling details of quantum particles to the spacetime manifold can't be known because the spacetime parameter may be an intrinsic part of the particle like mass, charge, spin, etc. What is spin? What is charge? There may be no newtonian correlate just like spacetime parameter of particles. So be ready for a lifetime of frustrations and despair. D.
From: John Kennaugh on 14 Jul 2008 09:29 Sue... wrote: >On Jul 14, 5:16 am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >wrote: > > >> >> >> >Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined >> >> >until absorbed. >> >> >> No they are simply particles with mass and some sort of dynamic >> >> structure which gives rise to wavelike phenomena. >> >> >> > They are not a model of light >> >> >propagation and don't even know how to move in >> >> >a straight line. >> >> >> Of course they do. Otherwise my digital camera wouldn't give a nice >> >> sharp picture the right photon having found its way with unerring >> >> accuracy to the pixel on the chip. >> >> >You might try removing the lens and >> >see if your logic still holds. >> >> It would work perfectly well as a pin hole camera illustrating that >> photons travel in straight lines. > >It shows that only the adjecent paths are constructive >if a pinhole is necessary. What are you on about? Try explaining your problem rather than being cryptic. >You don't need a pinhole to shoot a bird. >...Unless the bird is shooting back at you. >> >Are photons divisible? >> >> I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical >> reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons. >> Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can >> detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the >> conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy >> and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon. >> >> If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that >> you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument >> requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some >> sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them >> and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that >> game if you have a point you wish to make then make it. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_theory > >http://www.eso.org/projects/vlti/ > >The VLTI does not help you decide if photons are divisible? Explain! I'm not going to trawl URLs trying to guess what your point is. > >And if thay are, is there a little fairy >out in space that knows the VLTI needs >four pieces so the fairy quarters them >on the fly? Very cryptic! > >> >> >Isn't that a pion experiment ? >> >> Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the >> collimator. >> >> > >If it did the experiment may be a candidate for a Nobel prize/ >I will stay tuned. As a pion, if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x 10^-17 s it was not what was expected to find its way down the barrel of a gun. >> >There is also some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will >> >change energy states. It can be much more predictable >> >than lightning strikes with a path integral. >> > >> >> >If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you. >> >This, because the classical path is a part of the probability >> >amplitude. >> >> Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation. >> They are both essentially metaphysical. > >You were grasping for the term "probability amplitude" >so you can interpret as you please. It is not vadid >argument for the abandon of statistical analysis. I never said it was. Call it what you will probability says what happens it is not a substitute for and understanding of what causes something to happen. >> >> There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular >> >> direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got >> >> enough information about a particular photon to predict the result. >> >> >We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't. >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html >> >> If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about >> the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits. > >As many slits as you like: > >http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/jpgpics/slotted-x-b >and-waveguide-antenna-040304.jpg >http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html > >The same rules apply. Explain! I'm not going to trawl URLs trying to guess what your point is. >> >If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on >> >your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna >> >for scrap metal. >> > >> I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal >> probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a >> machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and >> imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory >> you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal >> sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that >> causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to >> analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and >> ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness. > >Whether you call it mysticism or something else we DO have >to enter the realm of classical EM if we want correct >probabilities for atomic absorbtion. all that says is that at the moment that it is the only mathematical model which works. I'm sure the same was said of the Ptolemaic system until a better one, more firmly based on reality, gave the same results with simpler mathematics. >> >if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more >> >certain. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >(you have nearly clarified that later in your >> >> >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take >> >> >it personally ) >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html >> >> >> >The assumption that photons move on any particular >> >> >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some >> >> >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not. >> >> >> What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has >> >> mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer. >> >> >Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go >> >perhaps need to rethink that a bit. >> >> If you have a point you wish to make then make it. > >No...Your third self delusion convinced me you are >a self mutilator. I want no part of it. :-) > >> >> >> >> >> ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate >> >> >transformation will convert electric or magnetic >> >> >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, >> >> >but no transformation mixes them with the >> >> >gravitational field. >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html >> >> >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It >> >> does and it is. >> >> >It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~. >> >> >i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between >> >the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,>> >> >> >See equation 511 >> >"Retarded potentials" >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html >> >> "We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most >> fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought >> of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which >> instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some >> time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person >> possibly believe in this stuff. > >Indeed... many blame their insanity on the rigours of >studying Maxwell but none offer anything better. Try assuming a photon has equal positive and negative charge and rotates [1] and see what that offers! No one is going to do that because it has been decided that a photon has 'no internal structure' (quoting Tom Roberts) and while that doctrine is accepted it ensures that no particle model can encroach upon the terrain of EM theory. [1] "The spinning photon" R A Waldron Spec in Sc & Tec. Vol 6 No 2 (1983) > > >> >> Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz" >> e.g. > >http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908e.htm >http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/rtzein2.htm > >The VLTI at paranal ? >The need to polish mirrors to nanometer accuracy ? > >The Ritz dog don't hunt. Very cryptic - You will have to explain the relevance of the VLTI and what you think it proves. -- John Kennaugh
From: Spaceman on 14 Jul 2008 11:03 Danny Milano wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:50 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> Danny Milano wrote: >>> On Jul 13, 11:40 am, "Spaceman" >>> <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: >>>> Danny Milano wrote: >>>>> On Jul 13, 9:54 am, "Spaceman" >>>>> <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: >> >>>>>>> James, >> >>>>>>> When you can fly at say 95% the speed of light. Does >>>>>>> your time dilate or your length contract? It never does >>>>>>> in your own first person view or reference frame. >>>>>>> Relativity didn't say it does. >> >>>>>> But the problem is it saying it does at all. >>>>>> The other observer is simply not measuring >>>>>> correctly because he is using "mutilple standards for time >>>>>> and distance if he uses relativity at all and including >>>>>> a limited speed that is actually "relative" even though >>>>>> all relativists say it can't be, then they are also ignoring >>>>>> the relative motion of the lightwaves just to support >>>>>> a relative motion theory. >>>>>> It is a nice little trick they pull and have pulled it far too >>>>>> long. >> >>>>> What do you mean "multilple standards for time >>>>> and distance"? Pls. explain. >> >>>> Two clocks will be compared, one clock will fly away >>>> and come back to the same spot, it will have less time >>>> shown on it. >>>> A typicle relativist will say that both clocks functioned >>>> properly. >>>> But yet, they do not show the same times. >>>> That means they have accepted a multiple standard >>>> "second" just to ignore the clock in motions malfunction. >>>> And length contraction is also done the same >>>> way sorta except the meter comes back and >>>> it is the same as it ever was and they >>>> simply say the moving meter is shorter than the >>>> "at rest" meter. and that make the multiple >>>> standards for thier "meter". >> >>>> The meter problem is usually combined with >>>> the clock problem so they can remove >>>> the paradox occurance if you used >>>> absolute measurement systems that had >>>> no single "standard" for a second and a meter. >>>> Clear enough? >> >>>> Another stupid thing about the typicle relativist >>>> that has been brainwashed is the fact that they must >>>> ignore the "relative speed of light" in order to >>>> support the relative motion theories. >> >>>> And even one more stupid relativity trick is >>>> the old "limited speed math" that makes all of >>>> other math basically prove that 186,00 mps (c) >>>> + 186,000 mps (c) does not equal 2c. >>>> So they use basic math/algebra, to prove basic >>>> math/algebra is wrong when they limit objects >>>> to wave speeds for observational bullshit, >>>> instead of actually finding true relative speeds. >>>> How silly is that? >>>> :) >>>> If we go into outerspace and keep relativity >>>> and the malfunctioning clocks as a "reality" >>>> we will be crashign into planets that are not there yet >>>> according to our malfunctioning clocks. >>>> because those planets do not care what "your" clock >>>> is doing. but they do care about what that clock on Earth >>>> said.. and seem to follow it wonderfully and that is why >>>> we know what time to see things in the sky. >>>> :) >> >>>> So, >>>> The clock malfunctioned, >>>> and the meter did not shrink physically, >>>> and if you think such at all, you will be stardust >>>> or planet dust all over again. >>>> That is "reality", not this silly time travel,wormhole >>>> point particle, singularity zero point energy complete >>>> utter bullshit based upon malfunctioning clocks and >>>> rubber rulers. >>>> :) >> >>>> -- >>>> James M Driscoll Jr >>>> Spaceman- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> I was reading a material by supreme anti-relativist Pentcho >>> about Harvey Brown and got me into thinking. >> >>> Brown says that relativists believe the geometrical structure of >>> Minkowski spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving >>> rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow while Brown believes >>> that spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical >>> laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends >>> on the structure of the laws. Yet we don't have causal laws at >>> present on how the particles and atoms behave during time >>> dilation and length contraction and no laws how these particles >>> are coupled to spacetime. This I think is why there are so >>> many anti-relativists because the dynamic laws were not >>> given in details. So does Minkowski geometry determines >>> the dynamic laws of the atoms or do the dynamic laws of >>> the atoms recreate the Minkowski geometry?? We don't seem >>> to know the definite case. Hope PD can assist here. >> >> The laws are only there when you find "physical" causes. >> Until such is found, it will remain a theory. >> To find the laws of physics in motion, one must find >> the causes of such effects like the clock slowing down. >> Find the physical cause of the "frequency rate change" and you find >> the real reason it changed rate.. just saying it actually changed >> rate because it "changes rate" is all that relativity has done so >> far. >> The circular cause bullshit is why the "anti-relativists: are >> growing. The simple lack of "physical" cause.. >> IF you wish to look for the physical cause and find it.. >> You will first have to admit.. the clock screwed up. and >> then find out "why" and your answer can not be because >> "time slowed down" because that is like saying. >> The clock slowed, because the clock slowed. >> Relativity is a circular cause theory based upon a multiple >> standard as the cause. >> It is a joke to anyone that knows anything about "timing" things >> for real. >> :) >> >> -- >> James M Driscoll Jr >> Spaceman- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > My dear, > > It is possible that the coupling details of quantum particles > to the spacetime manifold can't be known because > the spacetime parameter may be an intrinsic part of > the particle like mass, charge, spin, etc. What is > spin? What is charge? There may be no newtonian > correlate just like spacetime parameter of particles. > So be ready for a lifetime of frustrations and despair. No lifetime of fristatrations to me, only to those looking for the "easter bunny" for causes of such. "spacetime" is like an easter bunny, it is made up of totally abstract thoughts. Maybe you should realize that spacetime is the joke to begin with. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: Spaceman on 14 Jul 2008 11:33 PD wrote: > On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: >> PD wrote: >>> Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is. >>> Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real >>> physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep >>> in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make >>> things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in >>> structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade >>> math about length, area, volume, and duration. >> >> LOL >> metal touching metal? >> LOL >> Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a >> coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs >> and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the >> actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running. > > That would be material acting on material, no? Matter causing other matter to move. Yes. It works wonderful Someday you might find out how wonderful. -- James M Driscoll Jr Spaceman
From: PD on 14 Jul 2008 11:51
On Jul 14, 10:33 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 14, 10:01 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: > >> PD wrote: > >>> Be sure to ask spaceman what he thinks a "physical cause" is. > >>> Spaceman is a rare breed of goon. He believes that the only real > >>> physical causes are material things acting on material things. Keep > >>> in mind he's an auto mechanic, used to metal touching metal to make > >>> things go. He does not believe in fields, he does not believe in > >>> structure of space and time other that what he learned in 7th grade > >>> math about length, area, volume, and duration. > > >> LOL > >> metal touching metal? > >> LOL > >> Apparently you think cars don't use fields such as when a > >> coil pack uses to produce high energy sparks to sparkplugs > >> and you must have missed the fact that a gas explosion does the > >> actual pushing of the metal that gets the engine running. > > > That would be material acting on material, no? > > Matter causing other matter to move. > Yes. > It works wonderful Yes, it does, when it applies. The fact that it works beautifully where it applies in no way demands that this is what nature does in all cases. Now, you are free, I suppose, to *imagine* that it *might* be true in all cases. But because this isn't OBVIOUSLY so, then what a scientist does is ask, "OK, so how would that work, exactly?" and "What kinds of implications does that have that I could look for experimentally?" and "What do we already know that might rule out some of the scenarios?" And then the scientist sets to work on gathering answers. The criticism I have for you in particular is not that you consider that this *might* be so, and it is not that you don't have the foggiest idea how to ask or answer those questions, but instead that you insist that it IS so rather that it MIGHT be so. You insist this even though you don't know what you're talking about -- and that is worthy of ridicule. PD > Someday you might find out how wonderful. > > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman |