Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity
Pentcho Valev
> I have been reading messages in this group for some time now, hoping to
> learn about relativity. All the texts I have read are based on vague and
> sometimes unrealistic assumptions and are very hard to follow, so I need
> help.
> It appears that the theory is still very controversial and that most
> contibutors here don't think it is correct. Certainly those who support it
> rarely even try to defend it intelligently but simply resort to ridiculing
> anyone who doesn't accept it.
>
> From what I have read, there are clearly more sound arguments against
> Einstein's theory than there are for it. It seems little different from
> Lorentz's ether theory.
>
> Maybe there is a medium that carries light waves just as Maxwell predicted.
See this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e57ef431c2a3dc05
THE WAVE MODEL OF LIGHT AND EINSTEINIANA
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Benj
> On Jul 4, 2:34 am, 2+2=5 <two@.....> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > I have been reading messages in this group for some time now, hoping to
> > learn about relativity. All the texts I have read are based on vague and
> > sometimes unrealistic assumptions and are very hard to follow, so I need
> > help.
OK. First there are two relativities: Special (SR) and General (GR).
The former has to do with observations between observers and objects
moving at constant velocity. The latter mostly has to do with
Gravity. Special Relativity follows from two basic assumptions: The
first is called the "principle of relativity". It was first enunciated
in 1632 by Galileo. That states that there are no observations or
experiments that can distinguish between motion at constant velocity
and a state of rest. The other is the assumption that ALL measurements
of the speed of light no matter what the velocity of the experimenter
always give the same value. All else follows from there. Although it
is important to know that some things which are widely thought to be
relativistic effects (changes in the apparent shape of objects when
observed in motion, etc) are in fact actually electromagnetic effects
due to retardation.
> > It appears that the theory is still very controversial and that most
> > contibutors here don't think it is correct. Certainly those who support it
> > rarely even try to defend it intelligently but simply resort to ridiculing
> > anyone who doesn't accept it.
The "controversy" stems from those who have incorporated illogical
nonsense into the theory which is in fact not part of it. I refer to
such nonsense as wave traveling through "nothing at all" and objects
changing shape (not just appearances, but ACTUAL sizes!) just due to
the motion of the observer and on and on. Since these ideas are
illogical, "believers" have turned the theory of relativity into a
religion. Thus, like any cult they cannot tolerate any criticism and
feel compelled to attack anyone questioning their faith and dogma. Let
us hope their faith gives them comfort!
> > From what I have read, there are clearly more sound arguments against
> > Einstein's theory than there are for it. It seems little different from
> > Lorentz's ether theory.
The actual facts of SR are pretty well established. This is important
because virtually all of the arguments against aether theory are
usually made on the basis of pointing out the holes in the Maxwell era
aether theory. In those pre MMX days, the assumption of the constancy
of speed of light measurements was not yet established. So large
arguments ensue over whether or not the speed of light changes with
the speed of the observer doing the measuring. Such arguments are
nothing but a bunch of wanking. Any viable aether theory essentially
starts with the observed facts of relativity and then creates a model
(usually along the lines of Maxwell which proposes some kind of
superfluid filling all space which creates fields of all types,
explains all electromagnetics, provides a medium for waves, and gives
empty space it's properties.
> > Maybe there is a medium that carries light waves just as Maxwell predicted.
And maybe not. One can still get away with arguing that Electric and
Magentic fields might be created by some kind of wave phenomena, but
there is a problem with light. Light is observed to NOT be waves! The
photo electric effect transfers energy MUCH too fast for classical EM
waves to be involved. The tiny photon particles can actually be
observed and counted. But oddly if you collect enough of them, the
STATISTICS of where they land turns out to be solutions of the wave
equations!
So the data goes like this: You've got a machine gun spewing bullets.
You are shooting at a couple of slits in a steel plate. Behind the
plate at some distance is a target. At first you just get a couple of
holes in the target. But if you keep shooting long enough amazingly
the pattern on the target develops that is identical to a wave-
produced diffraction pattern. The bullets are not waves. So how does
this happen? It's a mystery! And of course real machine guns don't do
this so clearly photons are not "inert" bullets. Trying to invent a
structure that does this is the fun!
But to the person in the lab with a laser, the photons are not
visible. The laser seems to clearly be spewing some kind of light
waves, that are just like radio waves only higher in frequency. And if
one applies wave theory to your observations, just like Quantum
Mechanics you find the theory gives correct results. This "success" of
course leads persons to believe that light actually is waves. But
understanding a mathematical model is not the same as understanding
reality.
However, the dogma that an "aether" does not exist, is of course just
religious nonsense. SR could give a rat's ass if there is some media
causing effects or not. Einstein didn't prove a medium does not exist,
he simply showed that the assumption of it wasn't necessary to his
model to obtain viable answers. Which then leaves the final question,
that if there is a medium for wave propagation, then what exactly is
it's nature so as to provide all the various observations of SR? The
medium transmitting effects and creating properties isn't needed for
mathematical physics results. It's needed for philosophical logic to
be maintained. For without a sane and logical foundation, the
mathematical results must be accepted without question on "faith"
alone. And that is pretty much the current state of affairs.
gabydewilde
http://google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/t/ba5f828f530b3984
On May 2, 1:12 pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There was an interesting article on nytimes.com some years ago about how people perceive things.
> When people are very young, kids, they see something and ask their parents
> 'what is that?', and the parent will reply with their concept of it.
> That forms paths in the brain of the kid, who then forever does not analyse
> himself, but uses that now hardwired surrogate of reality when he sees that thing again.
> This is how our learning process works, and a bit later the same thing happens in school:
> Einsteinian crap is dished out to a simple question about Doppler.
> The pupil stores the answer, and is now for the rest of his life a disabled
> thinker as far as logic is concerned.
It'z teh Pagan god model! O GAWD!
Santa Clause
The Tooth fairy
Jesus
Donald Duck
CNN
Chuck Norris
Bart Simpson
Batman
The Hoff
Albert
Sacha Noam Baron Cohen
hanson
>
Poster "2+2=5" <two@.....> wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
I have been reading messages in this group for some time now, hoping to
learn about relativity. All the texts I have read are based on vague and
sometimes unrealistic assumptions and are very hard to follow, so I need
help.
It appears that the theory is still very controversial and that most
contibutors here don't think it is correct. Certainly those who support it
rarely even try to defend it intelligently but simply resort to ridiculing
anyone who doesn't accept it.
>>
From what I have read, there are clearly more sound arguments against
Einstein's theory than there are for it. It seems little different from
Lorentz's ether theory.
>>
Maybe there is a medium that carries light waves just as Maxwell predicted.
>
See this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e57ef431c2a3dc05
THE WAVE MODEL OF LIGHT AND EINSTEINIANA
>
Pentcho, even better would be for the poster "2+2=5" simply
to learn by reading the Torah, Bible or the Koran. It contains
the same basic fabulations that you have to take on FAITH.
>
Tell the poster that Einstein himself refuted his own theory in
1954, in a letter to Besso, just a year before Albert folded his
relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked the bucket & finally
puffed, Einstein wrote:
>
::AE:: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
::AE:: on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
::AE:: case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, [my]
::AE:: gravitation theory included." --- Alberts Einstein
>
Einstein's final take is reflected in the real world where one can
see by 4 simple lines where they laugh about Einstein's shit
and where they still hang onto it, like:
>
= mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
= *.edu and grantology ...................."does use REL, No shit"
= Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
= Jews defend it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
So why even "learn" Rel-shit unless he is fishing for a grant which
I doubt that the poster is in a position in to do so.... But if he gets
into Rel-shit he will be able to post into ***arxiv.org *** which is
epitomized and characterized by this post here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.5539
which appears to be intellectually arresting to Einstein's Dingleberries:
::: Schrodinger's cat versus Darwin -- by author: Z.K. Silagadze
::: Sun Wu-k'ung, an immortal Monkey-King of Chaos learns modern
::: physics from the Patriarch Bodhi and questions the Darwinian
::: evolution. He finds that the modern physics indicates towards the
::: intelligent design as a vastly more probably origin of humans than
::: the random evolution by mutations and natural selection.
::: Comments: 52 pages, 18 figures.
>
Thanks for the laughs... hahahaha...ahahahanson
Mike
> The other is the assumption that ALL measurements
> of the speed of light no matter what the velocity of the experimenter
> always give the same value.
NO crank.
"Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates
with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body." Einstein
He later refutes this to show that simultanmeity does not apply
between stationary and moving frames.
Actually, Einstein proved that the constancy of the speed of light is
incompatible with Galilean relativity.
That is all he proved. A not remarkable result. He did not prove
however that simultaneity is relative. Actually, he proved the
opposite: if constancy of the speed of lighgt is assumed, simultaneity
is absolute. This is why Minkowski ( a smart man unfortunately died
young)asked him to change the name of his theory to "Theory of
Absolutes" (speed of light, simultaneity, etc). He refused, because he
was afraid of losing popularity, as the word "relative" was very
popular in social sciences and underground movements.
This is one reason you get paradoxes in SR, i.e. the fact that
simultaneity is absolute and you also have the principle of
Relativity.
There is a way to fix this but results in a theory that is not related
at all to the erroneous Einstein Relativity and it demands significant
sacrifices to be made in terms of observables.
Now, cranks go away. If you do not udnerstand what I wrote, it's
necause your IQ is less than that of a tomato.
Mike