Why do you believe relativity is true? it basically tells us that our universe is menaingless and nothing is ever known. this is simply not true. Even Einstein lamented that his theory had this effect on the general populace and science on large. the theory of relativity is now the go-to "scientific" proof for theists, communists and all form of moral relativists who think humans can never do anything and that the universe is just menaingless and we have no role to play in it except die.
I shall now be posting about Stellar Abrasion and how it disproves relativity.
Stellar aberration is one of the most well known problems with relativity but as usual, the least understood. I will attempt to explain how this phenominon is irreconsilable with relativity. Other sources such as Wikipedia can supply the basics to give you a running start. Fo the sake of brevity I will assume the reader has some basic knowledge of the effect and will try to elaborate.
Stellar aberration is the effect well known by astronomers to cause stars to shift up to 20.5 arc seconds in their location in the sky. The amount of apparent positional change is governed by the time of year and location in the sky with regard to the Earth's orbit around the sun. This number also mathmatically correlates perfectly with the earth's speed around the sun compared to the speed of light. So far, all relativists are in agreement with me.
The problem however lies in the human predilection to arbitrarily pick a preferential point of reference. Almost every glossed over flaw in relativity can be attributed to this. Unfortunately, what makes this even more confusing is the fact that it is the overall correct thing to do. I say that there is a preferential frame of reference that can be used and it is called Aether. However, the defenders of relativity are not allowed to use this but when they use their common sense they cannot help themsleves. Allow me to demonstrate.
Ryan Johnson
If you understand relativity you should have immediately picked up on the fact that the light between an emitter and an observer should have absolutely no relation with some third object. Yet we find that stellar aberration is perfectly related to a third object: Our speed with respect to the sun. They have picked the sun as the center of a preferential reference frame and have no idea they did it. If you simply pick some other third object as a reference for the Earth's speed you could give the earth any heading and any speed conceivable. If there is no absolute or preferential frame of reference then stellar aberation would be the same regardless what direction and speed the earth moved in regard to the sun. Stellar aberration would not exist as it is observed.
Below I will explain stellar aberration and and how it relates with Aether drag or entrainment. Mainstream scientists claim that it disproves the entrainment theories when it in fact niether proves nor disproves drag but it does prove the existence of Aether. There are problems with the specific embodiment of Stokes' and Fresnel's models of Aether drag but larger areas of entrainment easily overcome the problems associated with those embodiments of the theory.
The largest problem with mainstream understanding of entrainment or drag is the thought that "total entrainment" would result in no stellar aberration, this is very easily refuted.
Gavin Sanders
Aether drag happens on multiple scales, as it would in a fluid and there is very likely some interaction with gravity.Though, the size and intensity of entrainment could very well correlate with the Earth's field of gravity, we will examine drag on a global bubble scale.While I propose that the transition would happen a little at a time instead of at a specific border, we will use a bubble analogy for ease of understanding. On this global scale, the aberration happens at the transition between non-entrained space and entrained space. The light is merely transferred into the entrained "bubble" around the earth which then faithfully carries the modified angle of incedence directly to the observer. This can be visualized by imagining billiard table cut in half with another gigantic half billiard table the size of a football field that is the same height as the first. These two tables then have their open ends put together and the smaller table is slid along the larger table. See pic related:
Kayden Morales
If a ball on the larger table is rolled perpendicular to the edge with the correct timing to hit a ball on the smaller table, the ball on the smaller table will move in a straight line but not strike the rear of the smaller table at the same angle the energy started in according to that frame of reference. To make the ball enter a tube placed at the center of the far end of the small table, the tube would have to tilt forward of the actual point of origin.
Jack Baker
Unfortunately for the relativists, their logic won out over their adherance to relativity. Their common sense comes through in their arguments and conflicts with the theory. The very basis of relativity is that light speed never varies in regard to any observer. There is no difference in the relation between the "detector" and the speed of light ever. The relative velocity between the earth and the photons should be exactly C. By trying to make sense of nonsense they always accidentally slip in a preferred frame of reference. They have neglected the fact that by using the sun as a reference point they have opened up the possibility for 2 different interpretations of the speed of light. The distance traveled by an idividual photon can be calculated down one of the legs of the triangle or the hypotenuse. Two different distances in the same time gives two different speeds.
Levi Long
Massless Particle
We are told that light is pure energy and massless however we are told it is a particle (which infers mass). The term “packet” is used to diffuse the inference of mass somewhat I suppose. The photoelectric effect shows an example of the transference of energy but the Compton Effect shows an actual mechanical interaction where "Photons" mechanically interact with electrons much like billiard balls. This is shown by the incident angles produced in the effect. A force is required to accelerate the electron out of orbit. If F= MA then we've got a problem. How can energy be mechanically applied to electrons if the “particle” has 0 mass? A massless particle would not be subject to inertia and would instantly stop and transfer no energy upon striking a particle with mass. We have only the generic explanation that energy is mechanically applying the energy. The problem lies in the thought that energy is a thing all by itself. If ever present "Aether Particles" are substituted for photons the problem disapears.
Austin Garcia
Wave with No Medium
Using a little logic and perhaps a touch of Occam ’s Razor we have to ask why would an EM signal behave exactly like mechanical compressions waves yet there be no medium? Why would the particles travel in a wave at all? One of the things normal humans do with logic is compare an assumption with all the other known quantities of the universe, yet here we have ignored occam’s razor and what we know about absolutely everything else in the universe and opted for the magical/spiritual explanation without actually having experimental data to validate the more complex answer over the simpler answer. (Shown in the “Experiments” section) The fact that light also has longitudinal and transversal waves like in a solid could be easily explained by an Aether with properties similar to liquid crystal. The only reason this was not thought of during the original time of debate was because there was no general knowledge or experience with liquid crystal.
William White
>confusing the physical theory "relativity" with the entirely unrelated idea of epistemological relativity or moral relativity
Troll, Poe, or legit? It's hard to tell.
Nathan Cox
I'm /sage/ing this thread, but I'll make a comment first. Relativity isn't a belief system. It's a mathematical way of interpreting observation. Your "stellar aberration" proof relies on some weird misinterpretation of the theory itself. The sun is not some "third object" as you say, it is part of our reference frame. We as observers move relative to it, so it makes complete sense that a stellar aberration would move relative to us. Relativity simply says there's no preferred reference frame, but that doesn't mean we can't have one at all. And yes, if we pick a reference frame of say, Earth's movement relative to the center of the galaxy, or any other galaxy, we could be moving at nearly any arbitrary speed. However, the object we are observing is also moving at another arbitrary speed according to that same reference point.
Relativity isn't just a new thing Einstein invented. Newton originally had the idea of objects moving in reference to each other. Einstein just expanded this with light.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is a definitive disproof of the Aether drag theory. If you don't like it, too bad, it exists, it's repeatable, it's concrete, and best of all, it is backed by rigorous proofs.
And I'm sure I don't have to explain the numerous things that wouldn't work without calculating in relativistic factors, GPS for one.
Now I'm not saying that relativity is the end all. I'm just saying that Aether theory has been definitively disproven and relativity is the best and most well functioning theory available, and is backed by numerous observations and experiments. That's science.
Ian Brooks
You do know that GR "redefines" "momentum", right? The Newtonian equation "p = m v" is only an approximation of momentum according to GR. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy–momentum_relation
> Wave with No Medium Also, do you also take a shit on quantum field theory too? Quantum field theory incorporates special relativity. Quantum theory gives testable predictions which have been verified to the highest degree of precision and accuracy of any physical theory ever. In quantum field theory, everything is a field, and there are no particles. A so-called "particle" is just a wave in the appropriate relativistic field. For example, an electron is just a wave in the relativist quantum electron field. Photons are just waves in the magnetic field and the electric field.
Asher Lewis
>>confusing the physical theory "relativity" with the entirely unrelated idea of epistemological relativity or moral relativity >implying it isn't used for that by most people
Josiah Sanchez
Uh... k. It's not used that way by anyone worth mentioning. They're completely separate concepts with absolutely no relation to each other. Conservapedia notwithstanding.
Nolan Ward
This is most obvious of all the varying paradoxes that arise from relativity because almost every human on earth has some ability with logic. If we know that speed is only relative between 2 reference points and there is no universal or third reference point, then we know that one point moving is exactly the same as the other point moving. Let me illustrate.
I've found a site that has some really fantastic explanations and diagrams of the relativistic side of the story here (casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html#dilation). I've taken the liberty of fiddling with some of his excellent images and even directly copying some text. Red and Blue construct identical clocks, consisting of a light beam which bounces off a mirror. Tick, the light beam hits the mirror, tock, the beam returns to its owner. As long as Red and Blue remain at rest relative to each other, both agree that each other's clock tick-tocks at the same rate as their own In relativity. if there is any motion between the two then relativity says one will run faster and the other slower.
Josiah Anderson
Red and Blue construct identical clocks, consisting of a light beam which bounces off a mirror. Tick, the light beam hits the mirror, tock, the beam returns to its owner. As long as Red and Blue remain at rest relative to each other, both agree that each other's clock tick-tocks at the same rate as their own In relativity. if there is any motion between the two then relativity says one will run faster and the other slower.
Michael Collins
The paradox lies in trying to pick which is travelling and which is still. If you examine the two images to the left you'll see that though this is a rocording of the exact same event, it is from two different perspectives. In one case we decide that Red is "still" and in the other case we decide Blue is. We usually make this arbitrary decision based on who we are following along with but both views are equally valid in physics. One view is not more correct than the other and selecting one view, such as the earth, as the standard is not valid. This is known as Galilean relativity. (which I do not question btw)
If the speed of light is constant, then why is it that from each stationary view the traveller's beam seems to travel further in the same period of time? The concept of time dilation came from trying to resolve this problem.
Dylan Sanders
I didn't read the rest of it, just that one.
>We are told that light is pure energy and massless however we are told it is a particle (which infers mass). Light is not "pure energy", it's massless however. The term "particle" as used in modern physics does not imply mass, I don't know why you would assume that and draw any conclusions from it.
>the Compton Effect shows an actual mechanical interaction where "Photons" mechanically interact with electrons much like billiard balls. If "by actual mechanical interaction" you mean a process that brilliantly shows the success of relativistic mechanics, then yes. If you try to calculate the mechanics of the Compton effect without relativity, you would end up with wrong results.
>A force is required to accelerate the electron out of orbit. If F= MA then we've got a problem. Force is defined differently and rarely used in relativistic kinematics. It's simply not a convenient term in that framework. Note by the way that stuff like F=ma is just an approximation of actual kinematics and bound to fail at some point. This is the point.
>How can energy be mechanically applied to electrons if the “particle” has 0 mass? Right, people thought about problems like that and SRT is the solution.
>We have only the generic explanation that energy is mechanically applying the energy. The problem lies in the thought that energy is a thing all by itself. If ever present "Aether Particles" are substituted for photons the problem disapears. You are trying to apply every day logic to pretty obscure (relatively to our daily lives) physics. Of course you will end up with a conclusion like "that makes no sense!".
Nathaniel Allen
If we examine just one view, (lets use the top image) we could say that time must be going by slower for Blue because for light to travel that far it would take a longer period of time. If you must accept that light always travels the same speed and that it travelled further then you must conclude that what seems simulataneous from Red's view must not be simultaneous for Blue. This is not my logic friends, I'm just explaining the relativists logic.
Unfortunately, you must stop your thinking there for it to make any semblance of logical sense. If you continue on to think about it and examine it from Blue's view, you will conclude a completely opposite effect. From Blue's view, time must be going by slower for Red. Both views connot be correct
So the question remains which one is moving and which is stationary without a universal reference frame? In the Twins paradox example, one twin stays home and the other travels away and then back and the traveling twin ages less. Most explanations usually give you some more complex equation or explanation about one side of it and then forget to do the same to the other side and get the paradox again. Lets go back to this excellent source (casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/time.html#dilation) hosted by the University of Colorado.
Grayson Nguyen
On his dilation page he casually explains that the paradox is taken care of with a diagram explaining simultaneity (actually the lack thereof). In his light cone diagram page he goes on to explain how time is skewed in the other plane from each of the perspectives and something that seems like it happens at the same time in one does not in another. Has anyone other than me noticed that we've not resolved whose clock will be slower when the two meet up again?
There is one other explanation that is more difficult to recognize as logically faulty that I will try to cover now. Supposedly the deceleration and acceleration of the traveling twin is the point at which the other twin's age must be calculated. First and formost, the twins paradox is only one simple example of Dingles Dilemma and acceleration is not required at all for the paradox to arise. Here's a quote from his book, Science at the Crossroads:
According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible.
Christopher Bennett
If two bodies are moving relative to eachother, they both believe themself still and calculate the other's clock as running slower. When they pass eachother, which clock recorded more time? The acceleration explanation is a perfect example of a non-reality related mathematical model. Someone using this explanation is looking at a triangle on a sheet of paper and doing. Pythagorean theorem calculations without examining if that mathematical model is reflective of reality and can actually be used to solve the problem or not. Like a grade-schooler with a word problem; though he's got a calculator and uses an equation very useful and appropriate in other situations and even comes up with the right answer for the equation he decided to use, he still has solved the problem incorrectly. He's used the wrong equasion because his logic failed.
Subsequently this acceleration explanation also means that only the change of reference frames causes time dilation, not the actual speed itself. That would then mean that regardless of the time traveled at a higher rate, the two frames would always be off by a certain amount because the acceleration is a constant. This explanation lacks internal consistency. What if the path of the traveling twin was a circle? What if a wormhole turned him around? So it isn’t speed, it’s simply changing reference frames that causes time differences eh? Ohhhh, then that must be the reason my vibrating massager’s battery runs out so quickly! All that reference frame changing! Hmmm, but what about all the relativity needed in the GPS satellites and Hafele-Keating?! (atomic clocks in planes) .
David Brown
The impasse is that the proponents of this explanation are saying that time dilation is not occurring because of travelling at a given speed it is only the transition that is the cause. If this is true then it does not matter how long the traveling twin is moving at the extremely great speed, only that the change in reference frames is causing the dilation. For example, according to this explanation, if a twin traveling at 99.9998%C did so for five years, the age difference between himself and the stationary twin (lets say 20 yrs) would be equal to the age difference if he traveled at 99.9998%C for only 1 second. They cannot use traveling at a rate for set time as any part of the equation or the twins paradox comes back. The only other option is for them to insert "proper time" which is an arbitrary universal reference frame and breaks down the entire argument.
This now leads to another problem. If acceleration all by itself causes time dilation we really have some interesting things that would be happening. There is no difference between acceleration and deceleration if there is no universal reference frame. If you use an accelerometer you will find that deceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction and it is inconsequential that you accelerated previously to get to your current reference frame. Additionally, by their explanation, it would not matter if you only accelerated half the total speed, cruised for a year, and then accelerated the rest of the way. The accelerations would be additive. Now consider for a moment all the car and plane rides in your life. Heck, consider all the times you walked to the fridge for a snack. Add your lifetime's accelerations together and, though I haven't tried to calculate it, I think we can be fairly certain you'd make it to lightspeed pretty quickly. Maybe that's why active people live longer huh?
Alexander Bennett
>if there is any motion between the two then relativity says one will run faster and the other slower. No. For god's sake, this is all covered on basic wikipedia pages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Xavier Adams
An EM wave is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. It's not a mechanical compression, it doesn't need a mechanical medium. I'm guessing you're about to disprove field theory too?
"A force is required to accelerate the electron out of orbit" Found your problem. You don't understand the concept of energy.
If the ever present "Aether Particles" existed, do they have mass? Are they subject to gravitational forces? Any forces? They must interact with some force in order to get their mysterious properties.
Does nobody know how to /sage/ on this board? I know I'm breaking rule 7 here, but this is seriously a shit thread.
Easton Powell
>Does nobody know how to /sage/ on this board? I know I'm breaking rule 7 here, but this is seriously a shit thread.
Sorry. Forgot.
Thomas Flores
I think OP left anyway. He dumped his breakthrough and moved on to the next big theory.
Jason Ross
You do know gravitational waves were detected multiple times this year?
Ryan Johnson
Only tangentially related, but how do we know how fast we're going? If we were going like a thousand miles a second, we wouldn't know unless we had some point of reference, right? So could we be going at close to light speed compared to some distant object, and thus moving more slowly through time compared to it. How does that work when you have near countless astronomical objects all going at different speeds relative to each other? Are some of them technically younger than some and older than others, because they are all moving at different rates? Sorry if I'm not very coherent, I'm just really confused by this stuff
Easton Gutierrez
>If we were going like a thousand miles a second, we wouldn't know unless we had some point of reference, right? Correct.
> So could we be going at close to light speed compared to some distant object, and thus moving more slowly through time compared to it.
In short, it is not true "time moves slower when you move faster" because there is no such thing as "faster" in an objective sense.
Rather, in the famous twin rocket example, the twins are not equal. One stays in a relatively stationary frame of reference, whereas the other one accelerates radically fast several times. That difference, plus the basic math of special relativity, explains why one is "older" than the other when they meet back together on Earth.
Noah Foster
In other words, speed is relative, but acceleration is not. There is an objective difference between "accelerating" and "not accelerating".
Alexander Rodriguez
>Yet we find that stellar aberration is perfectly related to a third object: Our speed with respect to the sun. Nope. The reference used in stellar aberration is the earth 6 months later. The velocity relative to the Sun is irrelevant, only the velocity change between two epochs will tell you the displacement. That velocity is related to the orbit of the earth but the Sun itself and the Earth's motion with respect to it has nothing to do with the light from the stars and it's observation at earth.
The Sun is not used as some preferential reference frame. In these calculations you usually use the Barycenter but nothing forces you to.
>If you simply pick some other third object as a reference for the Earth's speed you could give the earth any heading and any speed conceivable.
No, again only the change is important. The requirement for a frame of reference frame is that it isn't accelerating. It doesn't matter what reference you select to calculate velocities, the change will be the same.
It's an interesting question but you shouldn't have posted this as disproving relativity because in relativity you just don't understand the effect.
I don't have time to respond to your aether stuff.
Gabriel Davis
>My Ignorance and Inability to Understand is a Flaw in Science: The Thread
James Lewis
>implying it isn't used for that by most people It isn't. I think it's the first time I've seen someone confuse those two.
John Russell
It's the second time I've seen it for me, but the first time was a Conservapedia article and I think that's cheating.
Easton Rogers
>Also, do you also take a shit on quantum field theory too? He probably takes a shit on anything that wasn't written down by Newton himself. Not even Maxwell is safe here, because Maxwell's equations lead to relativity.
>In short, it is not true "time moves slower when you move faster" because there is no such thing as "faster" in an objective sense.
Time dilation with respect to speed was deduced by Einstein in 1905 and experimentally verified by Ives and Stilwell in 1939 and 1941. You could verify this yourself by measuring the Doppler shift of radiation emitted by cathode rays.
In 2010, time dilation was observed at speeds of less than 10 meters per second using optical atomic clocks and 75 meters of optical fiber.
More fundamentally, you would require the radial velocity of an object for the Schwarzchild solution to Einstein's field equations.
Even simply accepting the postulate of the speed of light being invariant for all observers would require a relationship between the change in proper time between observers with motion relative to each other.
Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a light pulse is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L and the clock ticks once each time the light pulse hits a given mirror.
In the frame where the clock is at rest, the light pulse traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light. From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v relative to the rest frame of the clock, the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path.
Aaron Edwards
>implying most people aren't low-functioning retards
