PDA

View Full Version : The Theory of Relativity is Wrong.


galexander
10-28-2009, 02:05 PM
These days it would appear that the Special Theory of Relativity was beyond any form of doubt however I have a theoretical proof that would strongly suggest that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Indeed the proof is so straight forward it is a wonder so many supposedly acute minds have previously overlooked it. The proof runs as follows :

If an observer with velocity v heads towards a beam of light one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the light beam would have been c + v. However according to the Special Theory of Relativity because time slows down and length decreases with velocity, the measured velocity of the beam would still be c. In other words a change in space and time for the observer slowed the new velocity of c + v back down to c again. However if the observer now heads in the opposite direction with the same velocity one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the beam without any relativistic effects, would now be c – v. But on this occasion a change in space and time for the observer would have to increase the measured velocity of light, the exact opposite of the case with c + v. But how could this be if time slows and length decreases with velocity, for the opposite to occur one would have expected that time would have needed to have speeded up and length increased? However both cannot be the case so therefore the speed of light could not remain constant when an observer’s velocity changed with respect to either magnitude or direction.

QED.


The origin of this scientific red herring lies with the famous (though some may perhaps argue infamous) Michelson-Morley experiment. It was conducted by the two Americans whom it was named after in 1887 in order to prove or disprove the existence of ‘aether’, the enigmatic substance thought to be contained in a vacuum upon which a light wave was able to move upon. The apparatus consisted of two beams of light meeting at right angles at an interferometer. If the Earth’s speed effected either of the velocities of the light beams then the interference pattern obtained would change. However it was found that the speed of the Earth about the Sun did not appear to effect the interference pattern in any way and it was upon this observation that Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity.

However just the briefest look at the exact set-up of the apparatus used by Michelson and Morley clearly reveals that the experiment could never have worked anyway. Indeed the logic supporting it is so flawed it is a wonder that no-one appears to have ever noticed. The two light beams which meet at the interferometer first travel away from it and at equal distances are reflected back again to the same half-silvered glass it started from. However because each light beam exactly doubles back on itself each time, it is obvious what the light beam would have gained as a result of the Earth’s velocity in one direction, it would exactly lose on the way back again in the opposite direction, and vice versa. Indeed the experiment would never have proved or disproved the existence of the aether either.

Since the proof stated above clearly shows that the Special Theory of Relativity could never work, it must also be the case that a large part of the General Theory of Relativity is equally unsound since it is entirely based upon the Special Theory. As a consequence it would therefore appear that a significant part of twentieth century physics needs to be re-thought since the Theory of Relativity is intimately interwoven into it. Indeed Einstein’s theory is so well established these days that it is even included in many of the physics text books.

Out of the Box
11-03-2009, 03:53 AM
Check out EinsteinHoax.com (http://einsteinhoax.com/).

JazzRoc
11-24-2009, 11:22 AM
Check out EinsteinHoax.com (http://einsteinhoax.com/).
That's very interesting. I'm thinking about it. Give me a year. :)

Pruner Man
01-31-2010, 11:44 PM
Could the Theory be maybe relatively right?
Like not quite wrong?
sorta?}:

JazzRoc
02-01-2010, 12:45 PM
At the time that Einstein came along there were already big holes appearing in Newtonian physics and it is no secret that many brilliant minds were poring over them. Einstein was one of them and he made his contribution to it.

But to just sit and say so ignorantly that his contribution was not attributable to himself because others were also wondering about similar things though not able to prove it, is wacky. And the anti-Jewish undertones unspeakable.

The heart of relativity is actually not in the equation E = m c^2

The heart of it is, as I am sure most nuclear physicists know, in the space-time metric

s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2

Pruner Man
02-01-2010, 07:58 PM
YouTube - The Attributes of God & the Borderlines of Reality p.1 of 2
interesting vid on the concept

JazzRoc
02-02-2010, 04:11 AM
YouTube - The Attributes of God & the Borderlines of Reality p.1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfttQ24L-fY)
interesting vid on the concept

I completely disagree. It's just a polemic snatching at the quantum world to spin up an imaginary friend. It's complete rubbish.

Pruner Man
02-03-2010, 10:48 AM
I completely disagree. It's just a polemic snatching at the quantum world to spin up an imaginary friend. It's complete rubbish.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. :)

JazzRoc
02-03-2010, 01:05 PM
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned
by modern atheists to be a controlling meme invented by a wild-eyed magic-mushroom-eating Essene scribe and approved later by a fifth-century convocation of priests to be a suitable aphorism to confer opprobium upon anti-religious thoughts at that time.

Such behaviour. being an attempt to overcome the natural ethos and morality evolved within primate social behaviour over the course of at least twenty million years, is of course DEEPLY, DEEPLY UNSPIRITUAL.

(Spits). :(

Pruner Man
02-03-2010, 01:19 PM
by modern atheists to be a controlling meme invented by a wild-eyed magic-mushroom-eating Essene scribe and approved later by a fifth-century convocation of priests to be a suitable aphorism to confer opprobium upon anti-religious thoughts at that time.

Such behaviour. being an attempt to overcome the natural ethos and morality evolved within primate social behaviour over the course of at least twenty million years, is of course DEEPLY, DEEPLY UNSPIRITUAL.

(Spits). :(

read and heed
or doubt and go without!
dumps]:(

JazzRoc
02-03-2010, 01:28 PM
read and heed
or doubt and go without!
dumps]:(
The latter. I have no use for the fear of imaginary deities. Nor have I use for someone who apparently gets a charge from attempting to manipulate this fear. Buzz off.

Pruner Man
02-03-2010, 08:52 PM
The latter. I have no use for the fear of imaginary deities. Nor have I use for someone who apparently gets a charge from attempting to manipulate this fear. Buzz off.
for someone who likes big words you have a pretty small mind:)
I guess that's what comes from being on a 'circle' tour:cool:

BlueAngel
02-03-2010, 09:33 PM
by modern atheists to be a controlling meme invented by a wild-eyed magic-mushroom-eating Essene scribe and approved later by a fifth-century convocation of priests to be a suitable aphorism to confer opprobium upon anti-religious thoughts at that time.

Such behaviour. being an attempt to overcome the natural ethos and morality evolved within primate social behaviour over the course of at least twenty million years, is of course DEEPLY, DEEPLY UNSPIRITUAL.

(Spits). :(

Ha, ha!

JazzRoc
02-04-2010, 06:15 AM
for someone who likes big words you have a pretty small mind:)
I guess that's what comes from being on a 'circle' tour:cool:
That's funny. It tek's one ta noo one. I think your more the tourist than I - curiosity led me here. Didn't expect to find YOU here.

Pruner Man
02-04-2010, 11:23 PM
That's funny. It tek's one ta noo one. I think your more the tourist than I - curiosity led me here. Didn't expect to find YOU here.
its a small whirrled:D

BlueAngel
02-04-2010, 11:29 PM
its a small whirrled:D

Obviously, JazzRoc and Pruner Man march to the beat of a different drummer and speak a language only they understand.

BlueAngel
02-04-2010, 11:30 PM
Anything to add to the forum other than nonsense?

JazzRoc
02-05-2010, 07:38 AM
Anything to add to the forum other than nonsense?
Sorry, Blue, nope.
I was searching for insight into the TOE, but I don't believe I have to go through an anti-zionist doorway to find such "enlightenment".

Here's something bolt-out-of-the-blue---

7T0d7o8X2-E (http://www.youtube]7T0d7o8X2-E)

Pruner Man
02-05-2010, 12:41 PM
Obviously, Jazz Rock and Pruner Man march to the beat of a different drummer and speak a language only they understand.
Eat yer heart out BA!:D

Pruner Man
02-05-2010, 12:45 PM
Anything to add to the forum other than nonsense?
Nonsensical to you that is. You are yearning for discussion when all you post are put downs? You shouldn't be lacking for company anyway;)
Apparently only small children and physicists understand quantum physics

Pruner Man
02-05-2010, 12:48 PM
Sorry, Blue, nope.
I was searching for insight into the TOE, but I don't believe I have to go through an anti-zionist doorway to find such "enlightenment".

Here's something bolt-out-of-the-blue---

7T0d7o8X2-E (http://www.youtube]7T0d7o8X2-E)
Say Jazz you dont even know what Zionism is and you rush to pigeon hole it as anti?
Of course you would already know the path of knowledge wouldn't you- pity.

JazzRoc
02-05-2010, 03:00 PM
Nonsensical to you that is. You are yearning for discussion when all you post are put downs? You shouldn't be lacking for company anyway;)
Apparently only small children and physicists understand quantum physics
If you ever found me in a worthwhile discussion you'd find otherwise.
But it wouldn't be in your company.
So whatever you say will be forever true.
But serve you little.
What about the second part of the experiment?

Pruner Man
02-05-2010, 08:10 PM
Bolt out of the Blue
Interesting phenomenome he discovered- maybe lasers interacting with gravity waves

BlueAngel
02-05-2010, 08:32 PM
Nonsensical to you that is. You are yearning for discussion when all you post are put downs? You shouldn't be lacking for company anyway;)
Apparently only small children and physicists understand quantum physics

Please familiarize youself with my posts/threads.

They are anything but put-downs.

You are right.

This forum is in dire need of discussion and not nonsense.

BlueAngel
02-05-2010, 08:36 PM
Eat yer heart out BA!:D

Why?

BlueAngel
02-05-2010, 08:38 PM
Sorry, Blue, nope.
I was searching for insight into the TOE, but I don't believe I have to go through an anti-zionist doorway to find such "enlightenment".

Here's something bolt-out-of-the-blue---

7T0d7o8X2-E (http://www.youtube]7T0d7o8X2-E)

Too bad that you don't have anything to add to the forum except nonsense.

We, do, however, appreciate your apology.

Pruner Man
02-05-2010, 08:39 PM
Please familiarize youself with my posts/threads.

They are anything but put-downs.

You are right.

This forum is in dire need of discussion and not nonsense.
Hiya BA
did I say that >/?
please forgive me
say where do you live anyway?
have you been raised in the west?
do you like good coffee and a fun chat?
Have you been here long and what do they pay you here?
actually what pays for the lights?
just curious as I have been using a lot of bright shiny smilies
yrs
pm

BlueAngel
02-05-2010, 08:55 PM
Hiya BA
did I say that >/?
please forgive me
say where do you live anyway?
have you been raised in the west?
do you like good coffee and a fun chat?
Have you been here long and what do they pay you here?
actually what pays for the lights?
just curious as I have been using a lot of bright shiny smilies
yrs
pm

What do they pay you for posting here?

JazzRoc
02-06-2010, 03:38 AM
Too bad that you don't have anything to add to the forum except nonsense.
We, do, however, appreciate your apology.
Why was the enclosed video "nonsense"?
Perhaps you didn't watch it to the end?

galexander
02-13-2010, 10:09 AM
Sorry, Blue, nope.
I was searching for insight into the TOE, but I don't believe I have to go through an anti-zionist doorway to find such "enlightenment".

Here's something bolt-out-of-the-blue---

7T0d7o8X2-E (http://www.youtube]7T0d7o8X2-E)

But what is the moral of the story JazzRoc with this particular video?

Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

JazzRoc
02-13-2010, 10:54 AM
Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......

No. That isn't the inference that can be drawn here. It is very interesting, but actually the apparatus is very sensitive to strain, and there is a profound risk that STRAIN is what is measured here, namely the gravitational loading on the apparatus goes through a complete sinusoid for each rotation.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

Nor am I responsible for your failure here. YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so. You are plain wrong, and at such a fundamental level that, well, domestic science may be an option for you, but no other sort of science will. Here's a hint:

eUB4j0n2UDU

JazzRoc
02-13-2010, 11:03 AM
Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......
The apparatus is measuring the changing strain due to gravity as it rotates in the vertical plane. The "scientist" claims nothing and proves nothing.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

You haven't noticed the piece is anti-Zionist through and through (and probably anti-semitic).

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

I remember well. You are a physics FAIL right now.

eUB4j0n2UDU (http://www.youtube]=eUB4j0n2UDU)

galexander
02-14-2010, 06:17 AM
Doesn't the scientist in question claim to prove that because the interference pattern produced by the Michelson-Morley interferometer changes as the apparatus rotates that the speed of light cannot be the same in all directions? Hence suggesting that the Theory of Relativity is wrong.......

No. That isn't the inference that can be drawn here. It is very interesting, but actually the apparatus is very sensitive to strain, and there is a profound risk that STRAIN is what is measured here, namely the gravitational loading on the apparatus goes through a complete sinusoid for each rotation.

And why does disbelieving in Relativity make you an anti-Zionist?

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Come on JazzRoc. Don't you recall my thread which pulls apart Newtonian physics concerning work and energy?

Nor am I responsible for your failure here. YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so. You are plain wrong, and at such a fundamental level that, well, domestic science may be an option for you, but no other sort of science will.

I must admit I have my doubts about the experiment myself. For example what do we know about the experimenter and have others ever reproduced the same results? Its one thing putting something on YouTube..........

I am not responsible for you failing to note that the whole tenor of the piece was profoundly anti-Zionist and possibly anti-semitic.

Nonsense JazzRoc. I criticised Newton and Newton was a Christian so does that therefore make me anti-Christian? The logic is unsafe.

YOU will never obtain a qualification in physics, and deservedly so.

I don't deny this but only because the whole science appears to be fatally flawed and doubting Thomas' like myself are unceremoniously chucked out.

JazzRoc
02-14-2010, 08:39 AM
But what is the moral of the story JazzRoc with this particular video?
That the way science looks to you is a reflection of the way you look at it.
Commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science, but that's because science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience.
Once you understand more of it, it becomes less threatening. So don't reject it. :)

galexander
02-14-2010, 08:59 AM
[quote=galexander;65049]But what is the moral of the story JazzRoc with this particular video?[quote]
That the way science looks to you is a reflection of the way you look at it.
Commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science, but that's because science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience.
Once you understand more of it, it becomes less threatening. So don't reject it. :)

Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguements are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism.

Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity.

If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things.

All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time:

YouTube - RDF TV - Baloney Detection Kit - Michael Shermer

JazzRoc
04-03-2010, 04:05 AM
"Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguments are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism."
YOU are arguing from "commonsense". That won't work. The only argument that works in science is a scientific argument - that is one which is working using the common conceptual framework in that scientific field, that specific terminology, that specific understanding. To do anything other than that is to piss into the wind. What you believe to be a coracle in a stream is in reality an ocean liner in mid-ocean.

"Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity".
Only by a coracle user. The "veil of obscurity" is your projected "veil of ignorance". If you "knew" the context and had something new (and correct!) to say about it, then you would suddenly know everyone, and they you.

"If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time"
I do.

"and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer"
I don't.

"is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things. All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time"
It ill behoves you, in your parlous state of ignorance, to do this.

You have already clearly misunderstood me. Bone up on English comprehension.

jane doe
04-03-2010, 10:45 AM
http://www.teslasociety.com/theoryofrel.htm

How much did Einstein scientifically understand?? The above link presents a separate knowledge base.

galexander
04-04-2010, 04:43 AM
"Just because 'commonsense is being particularly picked apart by science' and that 'science has extended the parameters of commonsense outside of direct human experience' doesn't necessarily mean that its arguments are therefore entirely valid and beyond any form of criticism."
YOU are arguing from "commonsense". That won't work. The only argument that works in science is a scientific argument - that is one which is working using the common conceptual framework in that scientific field, that specific terminology, that specific understanding. To do anything other than that is to piss into the wind. What you believe to be a coracle in a stream is in reality an ocean liner in mid-ocean.

"Physicists can be accused of hiding behind a veil of obscurity".
Only by a coracle user. The "veil of obscurity" is your projected "veil of ignorance". If you "knew" the context and had something new (and correct!) to say about it, then you would suddenly know everyone, and they you.

"If you believe small particles of matter can be in two separate places at the same time, can travel back in time"
I do.

"and are subject to psychic interaction with the observer"
I don't.

"is entirely your own business and I won't bother you at all with your freedom to think such things. All I can do is recommend that you watch the following again but a little more closely this time"
It ill behoves you, in your parlous state of ignorance, to do this.

You have already clearly misunderstood me. Bone up on English comprehension.

Your ploy JazzRoc appears to be to hide yourself behind a cloud of philosophical utterances.

The main point we were discussing seems to have been left behind some time ago......

galexander
04-04-2010, 04:44 AM
http://www.teslasociety.com/theoryofrel.htm

How much did Einstein scientifically understand?? The above link presents a separate knowledge base.

Don't fully understand the question.

If you aren't sure of Einstein's personal scientific background then GOOGLE IT!

jane doe
04-06-2010, 09:26 AM
Don't fully understand the question.

If you aren't sure of Einstein's personal scientific background then GOOGLE IT!


If you think Einstein created/understood all published "thoeries" with his sole name on them, you aren't well informed.

galexander
04-07-2010, 01:09 PM
If you think Einstein created/understood all published "thoeries" with his sole name on them, you aren't well informed.

Still don't understand where you are coming from jane doe.

Out of the Box
04-07-2010, 04:08 PM
Still don't understand where you are coming from jane doe.

She's pointing out that Einstein is a phoney and plagiarised his famous "discoveries" from his girlfriend Mileva Maric and other authors.

Was Albert Einstein a hoax?The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
It was during the period that Albert Einstein worked in the patent office that he produced the greatest works of genius in the history of humanity. Does this not strike anybody as strange?
The claim is made that by working in the patent office, Albert Einstein had access to secret documents submitted by the leading scientists of his day. Albert Einstein essentially cut and pasted together these secret documents and published them as his own work. The scientists could hardly complain, as they had patent applications pending in his patent office.

Source (http://www.anusha.com/einstein.htm)

We are taught that Einstein is the author of the Theory of Relativity, yet evidence has come for the proving that the real author was Mileva Maric, Einstein's first wife.

Einstein had a reputation at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zurich of being a man with poor work habits and was often reprimanded for laziness during all his school years, including the University. He developed a romance with classmate Mileva who helped him with his math. His autobiography says "In my work participated a Serbian student Mileva Maric who I married later." She had an illegitimate daughter in 1902, which they gave up for adoption. They got married in 1903, separated in 1912 and divorced in 1919. This is when Einstein married his cousin Elsa. The original manuscript of the *The Theory of Relativity* submitted for publication had Maric's name on it as co-author.

Source (http://www.subversiveelement.com/firefromsky29.html)

jane doe
04-07-2010, 07:38 PM
Out of the Box, thank you.

galexander
04-10-2010, 04:38 AM
Come to think of it Newton's background doesn't come across as that impressive either!?

An illegitimate son of a farmer, an unsuccessful shepherd by profession and then alchemist who had probably poisoned himself with mercury in the process before finally trying his hand at science.

Some claim Newton had plagiarised Robert Hooke as far as the Law of Universal Gravitation was concerned.

Also a number of mathematicians in Europe were dabbling in calculus before Newton got there.

However I'm sure its not just Einstein and Newton either and that much the same could be said of all the great scientists and even all the great politicians, generals, saints etc, etc there have ever been.

JazzRoc
04-10-2010, 05:42 AM
However I'm sure its not just Einstein and Newton either and that much the same could be said of all the great scientists and even all the great politicians, generals, saints etc, etc there have ever been.
But no-one with understanding would listen for even a moment.
The questions are "Did they alter your world?" - Yes - and "Will your gossip alter anyone else's world?" - No.

Out of the Box
04-10-2010, 07:31 AM
But no-one with understanding would listen for even a moment.
The questions are "Did they alter your world?" - Yes - and "Will your gossip alter anyone else's world?" - No.

The difference between folks like Newton and Tesla is that they actually DID change the world, whereas Einstein did not. He just got the credit for other people's work. It doesn't really matter what degree they have, but it does matter what they actually accomplished. Einstein accomplished nothing of value and is just a figurehead for Jewish radicals who want to promote the myth that Jews are smarter than gentiles.

JazzRoc
04-10-2010, 09:01 AM
Einstein accomplished nothing of value and is just a figurehead for Jewish radicals who want to promote the myth that Jews are smarter than gentiles.
Oh. I thought the thread was "The Theory of Relativity is Wrong".

I'll return to this thread at some time in the future when I might discuss the true topic with something other than an untrammeled limbic system.

Out of the Box
04-10-2010, 09:52 AM
Oh. I thought the thread was "The Theory of Relativity is Wrong".

Both theories circulate on the net. I'm insufficiently schooled in quantum mechanics to judge the theory of relativity from a physics point of view, but I do believe there are valid reasons to suggest that Einstein plagiarised at least some of his work.

JazzRoc
04-10-2010, 11:35 AM
Both theories circulate on the net. I'm insufficiently schooled in quantum mechanics to judge the theory of relativity from a physics point of view, but I do believe there are valid reasons to suggest that Einstein plagiarised at least some of his work.
Every scientist does that. "Shoulders of giants", etc., etc. There wouldn't be many practising scientists if science had to be derived from a cave-dwelling existence.

The important point (that seems to have escaped you entirely) is that he was accepted and honored by his peers and professionals in many related fields. He and the body of his work was known by a community of talented people, any one of which would have given their eyeteeth to make the distinctions he made and draw the conclusions that he drew.

He was a Nobel prizewinner. He "won". Everybody else "lost". But we all won as a consequence.

galexander
04-11-2010, 04:46 AM
Can I just add here that even if Einstein were a plagiarist or not, does it make any difference?

Suggesting Einstein may have plagiarized someone else's thinking is a subtle way of giving credibility to the idea that was plagiarized.

Why bother plagiarizing someone if the idea was pure nonsense anyway?

JazzRoc
04-11-2010, 07:44 AM
Can I just add here that even if Einstein were a plagiarist or not, does it make any difference? Suggesting Einstein may have plagiarized someone else's thinking is a subtle way of giving credibility to the idea that was plagiarized. Why bother plagiarizing someone if the idea was pure nonsense anyway?
You're right. It's sort of beside the point. We all went to school and plagiarized subjects, didn't we? We did that in order to learn and understand the subject, really in order to discover the ability to think within and practise the relevant discipline.
In the case of physics and engineering this DOES involve considerable work and a certain fluency with mathematics. Einstein may have had a tendency to avoid work, and maybe was no mathematical genius, but he networked constantly with the top physicists and mathematicians of his day until he had produced something which NOBODY had been capable of, something which even now remains the bedrock of physics and cosmology.

It's not the person. It's his ideas. And they are hardly wrong at all. Except that they aren't a Grand Unified Theory.

How wrong is Science? This vid makes important distinctions with respect to "wrongness".

2tcOi9a3-B0

Of course you have a right to be wrong. You may play the following in YT - embedding has been disabled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHVSptF3_G8

jane doe
04-16-2010, 10:16 AM
It is possibly very wrong.

Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers (http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html)

Sentrynox
04-18-2010, 10:10 PM
Partially wrong but not all wrong!
Traditional physics do have limitations since in Quantum Mechanics nothing works as read in the books!! So everything is really relative to a scale in some ways!
But I do not personally believe that a Unified Theory of Everything is likely to exist! I do rather believe that we will have to settle to a Universal theory of unpredictability!

http://themindtraveler.blog.com/files/2010/03/space-time-prediction-chart-wiprogress-1024x585.jpg

Universal Law of Unpredictability: My “Mystical” Theory | The Mind Traveler (http://themindtraveler.blog.com/2010/03/26/universal-law-of-unpredictability-my-mystical-theory/)

Out of the Box
04-19-2010, 10:13 AM
But I do not personally believe that a Unified Theory of Everything is likely to exist! I do rather believe that we will have to settle to a Universal theory of unpredictability!

Maybe "relativity" and "unpredictability" are nothing but man's inability to see the whole picture. Maybe in the future we'll end up with a Newtonian absolute and predictable universe again by adding just extra parameters that are currently unknown. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

jane doe
04-19-2010, 10:31 AM
The science man understands or seeks to understand constantly changes. Understanding is only relevant to the laws which govern. On another planet with different laws of gravity and time, scientifuc methods and formulas are different. Science is another language meant to define a world to understand and control that which is ultimately uncontrollable by man.

The more we know, the less we know.

Out of the Box
04-19-2010, 10:42 AM
On another planet with different laws of gravity and time, scientifuc methods and formulas are different. Science is another language meant to define a world to understand and control that which is ultimately uncontrollable by man.

I disagree. Formulae may use different symbols (different syntax), but their actual content should be the same if both cultures have the same level of insight since the laws of nature are the same all over the universe and objective study will lead to the same results everywhere. Like a Japanese person will use a different word to refer to a book, the meaning of both the English word "book" and the Japanese word remain the same. A use of different symbols does not imply a change of content.

jane doe
04-19-2010, 12:57 PM
Interesting, out of the box. Even with mathematics, potential vision and hearing differences between species, one would have the same conclusion of a changing environment/cosmos? I always thought science was strictly relevant to the theory being presented.

I appreciate your use of the object 'book' to define your pov, but a book isn't unlimited as the theory of relativity. just a thought.

Out of the Box
04-19-2010, 01:41 PM
Interesting, out of the box. Even with mathematics, potential vision and hearing differences between species, one would have the same conclusion of a changing environment/cosmos? I always thought science was strictly relevant to the theory being presented.

In exact science, there is but a handful of highly logical and apparently self-evident axioms and everything else is logically deducted from those few axioms. When aliens start with different axioms their science may appear very different, but it would still just be a different way to describe the same thing.

I appreciate your use of the object 'book' to define your pov, but a book isn't unlimited as the theory of relativity. just a thought.

Scientific formulae are nothing but subjective ways to describe objective reality, much like words. The symbols used may be different but (if the science is done correctly) the meaning remains the same.

Sentrynox
04-19-2010, 03:02 PM
No it won't EVER work like this, as our Universe is Dynamic, and changes every second! We can hardly feel it here, since our time is relative to our little blue planet, but out there it is a different world that do not settle on anything just yet!
So when energies are of a whole new scale level, laws as we know changes in VERY unpredictable ways!
I guess it will be so until the end of this Universe, if he has one...

It is also, why I do not see sciences taking over the Universe, as much as it has overtaken our little blue planet! It will have limited influence over there, and peoples with real intuitions will have more rooms than on here! Anyhow, thats my opinion!

Out of the Box
04-19-2010, 03:07 PM
No it won't EVER work like this, as our Universe is Dynamic, and changes every second!

Any advanced science is familiar with those changes.

We can hardly feel it here, since our time is relative to our little blue planet, but out there it is a different world that do not settle on anything just yet!

The laws of physics remain the same all over the universe.

It is also, why I do not see sciences taking over the Universe, as much as it has overtaken our little blue planet! It will have limited influence over there, and peoples with real intuitions will have more rooms than on here! Anyhow, thats my opinion!

Intuition is emotional and thus irrational. Science is (supposed to be) rational. I fail to see how an irrational understanding of the universe is supposed to be superior to a rational understanding of the universe.

Sentrynox
04-19-2010, 03:08 PM
Maybe "relativity" and "unpredictability" are nothing but man's inability to see the whole picture. Maybe in the future we'll end up with a Newtonian absolute and predictable universe again by adding just extra parameters that are currently unknown. It wouldn't surprise me at all.

I do not think that will be possible! Our Universe is a dynamic one where Huge energetic phenomenons are taking place! Those can change everything around them and the Universe is never in the same state at any time! We might really get confuse but here on Earth we are kind stuck on a close system that might make us feel confident that an order is also governing the Heavens... But thats not the case!

Our perspective is not yet complete enough to really understand what is out there! But hopefully we will see that science won't be capable to grab the complexity of the Universe as much as they were successful grabbing the Earth complexity. Those 2 things are not similar at all!

Sentrynox
04-19-2010, 03:23 PM
Any advanced science is familiar with those changes.



The laws of physics remain the same all over the universe.



Intuition is emotional and thus irrational. Science is (supposed to be) rational. I fail to see how an irrational understanding of the universe is supposed to be superior to a rational understanding of the universe.

Out of the box, you can assume those things but you haven't been there at all! Scientists do like to believe that they can predict everything happening out there, but its getting less and less true! So your assumptions are based on the fact that YOU believe that we know ALL laws of physics, which isn't true at all! There are phenomenons happening there, that shouldn't even exist!
As for intuitions, you underestimate this very much! Investigators, even doctors are often using their guts feeling to get the job done!! In space, it will be even more so, because you won't have time to elucidate phenomenons before they hit you! So intuitions will replace scientists big time!! Because you won't be capable to afford losing a life because a scientist calculation didn't have time to reveal a threat!

Over there, energy is stored in potentials, and can arise everywhere unexpectedly! Quantum physics is also all over the place, which we do not really understand, and it is why your assumptions that all physical laws are ruling this Universe, do not make much senses! Since we do not even know how Quantum physics is working and even less how its laws interact with the Universe itself, on any scales actually!

jane doe
04-19-2010, 03:43 PM
I'm willing to accept numerous theories relative to relativity being defined or unlimited in scientific formulae, ie. definition. More than one reality is just as theoretical. Truth be known, math is my children's language, not mine.

What can change the speed of light? Does not the VSL provide a basis for The Theory of Relativity as wrong?

Variable speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light)


edit to add: Perhaps the electron spin would create a varaible equasion relevant to multiple theories of the creation of the cosmos as well.
nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) Discoveries - Breakthrough in Electron Spin Control Brings Quantum Computers Closer to Reality - US National Science Foundation (NSF) (http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116456&org=)

jane doe
04-20-2010, 09:58 AM
Perhaps Einstein designed the Theory of Relativity to preserve his academic life support. Would his Theory reflect the same method applicable to our universe? Perhaps our Universe follows 'Einstein's' Theory of Relativity, but other Universes do not. Every organism has a defense mechanism, to preserve itself; each Universe would maintain their uniqueness and defense mechanism if in fact each Universe had it's own differing Theory of Relativity. Thus, the laws of space travel could not be the same from one universe to another. Comparing two universes is like comparing a plant to an animal.

Out of the Box
04-20-2010, 10:10 AM
Comparing two universes is like comparing a plant to an animal.

Again, I disagree. If you have two iron swords made by two different cultures (eg. a Japanese katana and a viking longsword), these swords will look different and will contain different characteristics, but the iron atoms will still be the same. The laws of nature are universal. It's just their application that differs depending on different circumstances.

BlueAngel
04-20-2010, 09:26 PM
Thank goodness for this thread and all the members of this forum who are quantum physic scientists and have responded therein.

Don't know what we'd do without ya' all.

superted
04-21-2010, 02:06 AM
quantum physicists blueangel

jojogun
05-25-2010, 10:47 PM
I wouldn't know, I'm blinded.... by science.

superted
05-27-2010, 04:03 AM
I assume lots of things in life blind you....

FallaciesAbound
05-28-2010, 11:45 AM
I read an article recently that said that many physicists are starting to expect that many fundamental "laws" of physics may be quite different in different parts of the Universe. As for the little debate on different universes, it seems quite likely that different universes in the multi-verse would have radically differing properties. Some would likely be the same, some would likely be close, and most would be far different from ours.

jane doe
05-28-2010, 04:33 PM
I read an article recently....

Which publication do you refer? Was it theory or did it have actual data?

FallaciesAbound
05-29-2010, 09:11 AM
Oh right, because this site is soooooo concerned with actual data. lol

No, im pretty sure like all theoretical physics....its theoretical. Since we dont have ships out there yet researching these things. Maybe we should ask the Reptoids about it? I did find the idea intriguing though. Fairly certain that it was Scientific American I read that in though. I'll see if I can find the article again, since Im sure its in my helmet bag somewhere.:)

jane doe
05-29-2010, 02:23 PM
don't shake it out for me. the human factor equal to my imagination was interesting.

FallaciesAbound
05-29-2010, 06:26 PM
Lol that made sense.

Sentrynox
07-05-2011, 02:10 AM
Intuitions aren't emotionals... Intuitions are feelings from the subconscious. A kind of 6th senses in itself. Intuitions is called to take a greater role in space travels than rationality, which requires measures and analysis in order to take a decision, but in a Universe which has a different time scale that dwarf Human life expectency, the experience of gathered inside a single Human life, won't be enough to tackle the events occurence happening inside our Universe. Since the time scale of events is so huge, current models and predictions can't be made accurately, so in the occurence of such event, that occurs once every million years or so, a rational model won't calculate the risk fast enough to takle the event appropriately. So a good Intuitionist, will assess the risk just in time and make the proper decisions in time to avert potential consequences or after shocks...

Its not really emotions as with animals, its more like a bird that sense the magnetic field of the Earth to find the north pole in its migrations. Our brain as the same abilities and even more so. It is why science is poised to take a back seat in the area of space explorations...

peacekeeper1982
12-01-2011, 01:55 AM
I don't think anyone on this forum is smart enough to form a logical opinion on this topic. It sounds bogus and made up, however I'm not smart enough to know either way. But keep up the good work, if all else fails baffle them with bullshit!:D

Ian Moone
12-03-2011, 01:07 PM
I disagree that no one here is smart enough!

I happen to agree with G Alexanders first post that Einsteins special theory of relativity is wrong, and his explanation is refreshingly simple and original - tho not quite as well detailed as my own.

It surprises me that unfortunately the OP (original poster G Alexander) didn't participate in this later thread.

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f53/what-time-exactly-14123.html

Entitled - what exactly is TIME - wherein I disprove Einsteins special theory of relativity and give a lot more details about the inadequacies of the Mitchellson Morely experiment and later the Sagnac Morley attempts with rotational analogue experiment.

Its a shame no one had the physics ability to continue the OPs post discussions with himself and they he didn't participate in the above thread.

Again I say it - essentially he is 100% correct n that Einstein was wrong with e=mc^2.

There is ONLY one value, for speed of light (universal constant C) that makes e=mc^2 correct - and that is infinity!

The speed of light is infinite

Infinity squared is infinity - no messy negative root solutions (i.e length contraction, time dilation etc etc required).

Simply, Einstein got it wrong.

The OPs first post was most excellently done & I concur with his findings.

Cheers!

EireEngineer
12-23-2011, 08:08 PM
The speed of light cannot be infinite since it is quite simply measurable, unless you are merely dithering over the semantics of the word infinite, which is an abstract concept anyway.

Ian Moone
02-05-2012, 12:28 PM
The speed of light cannot be infinite since it is quite simply measurable

The above statement (as usual with EE, zero supporting explanation or attempt at proof) suggests that Mitchellson Morleys LINEAR light speed experiment results, upon which Einstein built his proof for e=mc^2, were correct.

As the original poster of this thread so eloquently pointed out, the entire experimental design was flawed from the outset. (Note that my proof is mathematically correct also).

Clearly the intention with the MM linear light speed experiment was originally designed to determine the effect of any of the passage of light thru the ether of space was constant and whether the direction of spin of the earth had any effect upon the measured velocity of light in the vacuum of near earth space.

Experimentally sending one light beam in the direction of the earths spin and one against the direction of the earths spin, the exact same distance to an interferometer - should have proven or dis-proven this theory!.

The experimental design error was that after splitting the beam of light thru a 50% silvered angled mirror, to get two beams of light and sending one beam in a measured direction with the direction of spin of the earth and one against the direction of the spin of the earth to try and measure any effect of the earths rotation thru the ether of space, the experimenters Mitchellson Morely made the fatal design error, of then reversing the direction of travel of each of the two beams of light off 100% silvered mirrors directly BACK against the direction they were sent - effectively balancing out any increase in speed for the direction with the earths spin and conversely also balancing out the direction against the earths spin for each beam of light before them measuring their velocity over distance at the interferometer.

By doubling the light beam back on itself effectively reversing ts direction against or with the earths direction of spin - there was no observable difference in the measured velocity of the two light beams & the incorrect assumption was then made that there was no ether of space and that the speed of light must be constant and the measured velocity of 186,000 miles per second or 3 x 10^8 meters per second.

This error in turn lead to Einstens error with e = mc^2 where he ignores totally the negative root speed of light which when squared gives the same result as the positive root speed of light squared - because a negative squared yields a positive outcome.

In Essence what Einstens equation wrongly asserts is this:-

That a positive photon of light traveling East at 3 x 10^8 meters per second, can also at the exact same time - be a negative photon of light traveling West at the same 3 x 10^8 meters per second!.

This is a clearly paradoxical outcome (how can the same photon of light be traveling in tow opposite directions at the same time at the same speed? suggesting a false premise to start with!

In Einsteins E=MC^2 case the paradox was known as the twin paradox and even Einsten himself acknowledged his error before his death.

Suggesting that a single photon of light can perform that neat trick of traveling in two completely opposite directions, at the same time, is akin to suggesting that;-

If All dogs have 4 legs
&
All 4 legged animals are Cats
Then
All dogs are cats
& all cats are dogs!

Clearly a paradoxical outcome (from starting with the false premise number 2 that "all 4 legged animals are cats") is the only possible outcome of cmmencing with a false premise and that's what Einsteins E=MC^2 by his own admission with "the twin paradox" (google it) proves!

Just as Mitchellson Morleys experiment was deficient in design to prove or disprove the existence of an ether.

There is only one possible velocity for the speed of light that would make e=MC^2 correct mathematically and that is infinity - because infinity squared is infinity.

Also if the velocity of light is infinite - then could not a single photon of light travel both East & West at the exact same time & speed - since if its velocity is infinite - then it can travel positive East or negative West (infinitely large or infinitely small) at the same time - because it is infinite after all!

Paradox solved.

There is only one possible speed/velocity for light and that is infinite.

Let me give you a 2 dimensional "similie" for you to be able to understand the above clearly and see the big picture here.

The Mm experiment was designed to ether prove or disprove the existence of space ether which it did not do due to the described experimental design flaw at the outset.

Assume for just a few moments that MM were wrong and there is a space ether.

Lets imagine that ether is the ocean that surrounds our planet.

Floating in that Ocean (ether) is a boat called appropriately enough "photon of light"

The boat called "photon of light" is making way in the ocean in a westerly direction at a velocity of 10 knots to make it easy! The velocity of vessel "photon of light" then is westerly at 10 knots!

Imagine now if you will.

The same vessel "photon of light" - traveling in a westerly direction at the velocity of 10 knots, encounters a strong tidall influence of the water in that ocean (Space ether) traveling EAST at a rate of 20 knots!

Here we have... a single "photon of light" (vessel), making way thru the ether (ocean) in a westerly direction, at the same time that the ocean water (ether) is traveling itself because of tide in a Easterly direction at 20 knots!

The net "speed over ground" of vessel "photon of light" is at the same time it is making way at 10 knots Westerly is actually minus 10 knots Easterly!

Thus a single vessel "photon of light" is traveling both West (positive) at 10 knots and also east (negative) at 10 knots AT THE EXACT SAME TIME!

Thus also - the speed of vessel "photon of light depends entirely what velocity the vessel has on due to her engine pushing her - plus (or minus) the velocity & direction due to tide of the ocean (ether) thru which the vessel "photon of light" is passing!

When the vessel..."photon of light" travels with the tide, it adds to its velocity and when it travels against the tide it subtracts from its velocity.

The vessel might always be capable flat out of say a theoretical still water velocity of 50 or 100 knots - but speed over ground will always vary with the tide of the ocean as to what its measured velocity over ground will be - dependent on the velocity of the tide and it's direction.

So it is with the speed of light and the ether of space!

Indeed this is what we observe with red phase shifting of light from distant galaxies - where currently scientists and physicists are at a loss to explain this red phase shifting of light from distant galaxies. Some have suggested that "the photons get tired after such along trip!"

The reality is that it depends what space ether currents the light wave encounters on its trips thru galaxies and past planets etc as to what wavelength it is phase shifted toward when it arrives - just as a ship in the ocean is affected by the forces of wind and tide as to the course and speed it attains and thus the duration of its journey from point A to point B.

Imagine if you will that, the ether of space is like say molasses, ad any planet that spins about its own axis as Earth does - drags along with it a "space blanket" if you will, of near earth space - that orbits along with the earth about its axis at the same rotational velocity but that the effect reduces the further away from earth you travel...

I find this a useful way to describe the phenomena of space ether and speed of light - most people can imagine a boat/ship in the ocean and the effect of tides and wind on a vessels course and speed thru the water and also over ground and this the infinitely variable duration of the journey.

So it is with photons of light in space.

Our experience with vessels in the ocean, should have been all Einstein and Mitchellson / Morley needed to know they were wrong with a constant speed of light, and e=MC^2

Its not so difficult when you think it thru to a logical conclusion really!.

The speed of light is thus truly infinite - both mathematically and logically!

It is the ONLY answer that actually works.

For all intents and purposes, the speed of light in near earth space, where the ether of space travels at a velocity approximating that of the earth in its spin about it's own axis and the same orbital velocity of the earth about the sun, the speed of light seems to approximate 186,000 miles per second, or 3 x 10^8 meters per second - making MM and Einsteins work "seem correct" in near earth space! Our experience with probes now traveling outside our solar system and phase shifted light from distant galaxies however seems to suggest that in the wider universe the speed of light is truly & definitely infinite and a function of the relativistic velocity of the space ether thru which it travels.!

Clear as mud to anyone with a logical brain! ;)

P.s. EE, your claims would be far more believable, if you supported them with even a hint of logic.

PP.s - Far from a cut n paste job that was all my own work straight off the top of my head so no doubt some here with the attention span of a gnat will be seeking the cliff notes as they never learned to read or compose anything longer than a text message! :D

Cheers!

ragavang43
03-14-2012, 02:15 PM
being an attempt to overcome the natural ethos and morality evolved within primate social behaviour over the course of at least twenty million years, is of course DEEPLY, DEEPLY UNSPIRITUAL.

Ian Moone
03-14-2012, 09:48 PM
You chose that for your very first post?

God help us - perhaps the mods should ensure it's your last post - is spirituality really appropriate in the science forum?

No wonder there are no active posters left at this forum. :rolleyes:

Cheers