jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (283 posts)

For The Anti-Relativists

  1. Beelzedad profile image60
    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago

    Firstly, we look at Special Relativity and it's postulates. I would welcome any anti-relativists, (you know who you are) to refute the postulates as they see fit. Please remember to use mathematics where required in your proofs. smile

    1. The Principle of Relativity:

    The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

    2. The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum:

    The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Here you go.  The maths already been done:

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/b/8/ab8e4bb834ee8982c4f1a9bb124ce42d.png     


      http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/a/1/0a1c02498125a255a2f5b0e58908a8ae.png

      U=mV < c^2 or EPIC FAIL!

      < 1.616252(81)×10^-35 EPIC FAIL!


      Where's your math to prove otherwise? smile

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, the troll is here right on time with nothing to add as usual but troll bait. smile

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No need to resort to name calling.  A simple I don't have anything to refute the math will suffice. smile

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You didn't put anything there that had anything to do with the question, hence it is nothing but troll bait, as usual. smile

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, the consistency , or lack there of for Minaswki Space time, and the transition value of gravitational potential energy from Special to General Relativity has nothing to do with the original question.  lol

              But, actually, I could see where it might cause a little confusion because I didn't include the metric tensor.  smile

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Good for you. Will you attempt to refute the postulates now or go on with your trolling? smile

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I'll just continue to watch you butcher Einstein's theories with your Philosophy. smile

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And, I'll just continue to ignore your trolling.  smile

    2. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
      Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am not against Relativity ... but Theories, and Biased Theoreticians..

      Because, Theories are personal Postulates, supposedly based in a person's Observations or Experimentation.

      Talking of the Special Theory of Relativity, postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905 ... referred only to non-accelerated [inertial] frames of reference, and Einstein compensated this lag, ten years later, by coming up with the General Theory of Relativity.

      The Special Theory was based in two, postulates, I call assumptions,
      1. That Physical laws are the same in all inertial frames of reference ... and,
      2. That the Speed of Light in a "vacuum" is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of source, or the observer.

      Now without going into details ... lets take the Relatively's more familiar equation ... E=mc2 ... one commonly used in promoting Einstein, as a virtual god ...

      So I begin with the Philosophical Question ... the question, "Why go into all this Mathematics, and Theoretical Physics ...  of Defining the Inter-convertibility, of Matter into Energy ... and the Transitional Changes in the involved Forms; Transiting from the State of Matter, into Energy.

      Reckon, the Truth is ... That the Mathematico-Empirical "exercise" was essentially for the Bomb ... as history proved it ...

      Because, Peaceful use of Nuclear Energy,  is still in the "phase" of coming ... don't tell me about safe Reactors ... tell me about the Nuclear Waste being dumped at night into Pakistani sea waters ...  killing all Marine life !

      The Practice, of such knowledge, makes the Reactor, a Moral Question ... but since nuclear wastes "dumping" is a very "profitable" business ... I do not look forward to finding any supporters.

      Anyway, coming back to Postulates ... The fact, that Basic to any Scientific Postulation, is, Exactitude ... It is, manifest in a Postulate's Reliance on Fact ... I mean, you cannot just put an "x" as a hypothetical value, and get on with Proving the unknown, Reality ... Mathematically !

      In Modern Physics thus, Relativity, there are three such Assumed Values involved ... all based in the assumption of a Reactive nature, of Forms, in the state of Nature, these are:

      1. Matter ... in state of an Unstable Isotope ... Plutonium.
      2. Mass ... as a Physical State of Matter, viz. Uranium. and
      3. Energy ... Light, or the one Released in  Fission, or Fusion Reactions.

      In this context, I have the Following to say:

      1. Matter, in the Quranic Law, is the Universally Paired State of Created Forms, thus, the Totality is Existent in state of Paired Singularities, Composed of the Ideal and the Physical, Bonding within the Human Mind unto Existential Reality of the Form ... In, God's Granted Human Awareness !

      The olden day Elements; fire, air, water, and earth ... are now redefined by Science in State of Matter, and Energy, Composing, what in Theory are "Self-Existent Forms" Existent in an Infinite Emptiness, earlier called the emptiness of Space ... some Physicists, including Einstein, now throw in Plasma and the Fourth and Fifth Dimensions for the heck of Confusion.

      The Truth, of Matter, Is ... that Forms, Exist, of The Ordination, In, the Human Mind ... and In Manifesting, Generate, their Existential's Related Matter, Space, Time and Energy... These Constitutors of Form are not External to the Existent Form, but Generated by the Form, in Manifestation. 

      Thus, Physics needs to Redefine the Concepts of Matter, Time, Space and Energy ... as per Quranic Law,  if at any point of time, in future, it wants to Proactively Exist with Creation ... and manifest, such Energies, as Cold Fusion for human wellbeing.

      2. Regarding the Empirically presumed Constant, of the Speed of Light, the Truth Is, that the currently held Speed of Light, as a mathematical distance, light travels through Space in a year ... is a grossly imprecise approximation of 9.460 5 X 10 raised to the power of 15 ... plus or minus a few billion miles @ 1,86, 000 miles per Second velocity, under "Ideal" Conditions ... meaning, a Mathematically determined approximation of velocity, in "total" vacuum !

      The Truth of Energy is, that all Energies are Generated, in the Manifestation of Form, Unto Human Awareness, and vary, from object to object, in terms of the Objectives varying wavelengths.

      Thus, all calculations about the Distances traveled by Light, in a second, or a Light Year, based, in the present assumptions are way off the mark, thus, wrong.

      Regarding "Space" ... presumed earlier, as an utter vacuum, and now, a self Existent emptiness, filled with Dark matter ...

      The Truth is, the Each and Every Form ... In manifesting Unto human Awareness, in State of the Existent, Generates, its own "Existential Space" I often cite the example of a seedling, which In Manifesting unto our Awareness ... grows over time, into the Giant Redwood Tree ... 








      ,

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, theories are not personal postulates. Please try to understand how science works before making spurious comments.



        lol

        1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
          Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for the comment ... I would be incorrect, if I commented without fully understanding the workings ... of a thing, or a subject.

          Regards and Goodbye.

    3. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you've never heard of Moffat's theory? T=0 no singularity.

      you really are in need of new textbooks.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I have, and understand what he's saying, but I suspect from your comments and the fact you posted it here, you do not. smile

    4. billgaede profile image85
      billgaedeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "refute the postulates"
      .
      Very easily. General Relativity claims that space is warped. That's all of what GR is about. That's how Einstein 'explained' gravity: the geometry of space. Here is GR in a nutshell...



      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4834864_f248.jpg



      Hoever, space is not a physical object. Space is 'that which has no shape'. We're done! You can talk about a banana being warped or about warping a hammock. These are physical objects. You can't warp 'nothing' any more than you can warp love or justice or other concepts. A relativist is an individual who has never learned the difference between an object and a concept.
      .
      .
      "Please remember to use mathematics where required in your proofs"
      .
      In Science, specifically in Physics, we don't use Math and we certainly don't prove anything. In Science, we just explain.
      .
      .
      "inertial frames of reference"
      .
      Opinions are off limits in Science. Testimony is a part of Law and of religion, not a part of Science. What the drunk mathematician believes he saw or measured and the conclusions he draws are of no concern to Physics. It may be to psychiatry, though!
      .
      .
      "The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c"
      .
      'IN' a vacuum???
      .
      Since when is 'the' vacuum an ocean you can swim through like a fish?
      .
      But the funny part is that relativists invented wormholes to circumvent the Universe's speed 'limit' and tell you that if one photon travels away from another while space expands in between, then all bets are off on little c. It would be nice if relativists could at least get their story straight on the speed of light once and for all.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Uh, this thread is not about General Relativity. Funny how you even quoted the OP without reading it.



        That's your refutation? lol




        lol

        This can't be you, can it Bill? Are we in the presence of the notorious Bill Gaede?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede

        "Intel terminated Gaede’s employment in June 1994.[25]  However, before Gaede was fired, he managed to film the entire Pentium process database from his home, ironically, using a terminal provided by Intel. He placed a camera and filmed the specs as they rolled on the screen. Shortly after, Gaede fled to South America and began to peddle the technology through the embassies of China and Iran.

        Charges against him:

           1. National Stolen Property Act – US Code Title 18 Section 2314
           2. Mail Fraud – US Code Title 18 Section 1341"

        smile

        1. billgaede profile image85
          billgaedeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "this thread is not about General Relativity"
          .
          I thought SR was just a special case, a subset of GR? Isn't SR the case of GR in Flatland?


          "Funny how you even quoted the OP without reading it"
          .
          There wasn't much to read, Beel, except for some BS about the 'laws' of 'physics' and the speed of light. There are no laws in Physics, and despite that the speed of light is a constant governed by c = ƒ λ according to their own religion, relativists clean their butts with c. So I guess c is irrelevant anyways in GR, which as we all know includes SR,

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope.



            Ah, so you deny mountains of hard evidence.

            In other words, Bill, if you don't understand it, it must be wrong.



            lol



            That's merely the standard equation for any wave. So what?

            speed = distance / time

            Instead of the speed of light for c, you can put any speed you wish.



            lol

            1. billgaede profile image85
              billgaedeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "you deny mountains of hard evidence"
              .
              In Science, we have no use for evidence. Evidence is used to persuade the juror that a theory is true. True theories and evidence belong to religion. Science will have no part in them.
              .
              .
              "if you don't understand it, it must be wrong"
              .
              In Science, there are no right/wrong or correct/incorrect theories. In Science, there are rational and irrational theories. Einstein's ludicrous Warped Space Theory is irrational. Space is not a physical object that can stop Mercury from flying away.
              .
              .
              "Instead of the speed of light for c, you can put any speed you wish."
              .
              Perhaps in the religion of Relativity, not in Physics! In Physics, if frequency goes up, wavelength goes down and vice versa. c is ALWAYS a constant. It doesn't travel slower. It doesn't travel faster.

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol



                Actually, the frequency is inversely proportional to the wavelength, higher frequencies, shorter wavelengths, lower frequencies, longer wavelengths.

                We can easily see this in the difference between microwaves and radio waves.



                That's the first sensible thing you've said thus far. smile

                1. billgaede profile image85
                  billgaedeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "the frequency is inversely proportional to the wavelength, higher frequencies, shorter wavelengths, lower frequencies, longer wavelengths."
                  .
                  That's the description of a rope, Bee! And so is c = ƒ λ ! There is no other physical configuration that can simulate that equation.
                  .
                  youstupidrelativist  com/06QM/04Light/02Freq  html

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Would that be a manila hemp, hemp, linen, cotton, coir, jute, sisal, polypropylene, nylon, or polyester rope. lol

                  2. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hilarious crackpot site!

                    "I believe that all mathematical physicists should be hanged
                    from the highest trees and telephone poles available."

                    lol

  2. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    It is my understanding that quantum physics tosses item one out the window…

    Sorry. smile

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't be sorry, just explain the claim. How does that field theory refute the first postulate of relativity, exactly? smile

      1. paradigmsearch profile image91
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My favorite recollection of something I read is as follows:

        Something to do with Tau…

        A “source particle” spinning left.

        A “mate particle” also spinning left.

        The mate particle is relocated to somewhere (anywhere) else.

        The source particle is induced to spin right.

        The mate particle immediately does the same.

        What’s up with that? smile

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Can't you tell me? That doesn't really look like a refutation of the first postulate.  Please explain how that works? smile

          1. paradigmsearch profile image91
            paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My post was an inquiry, not a refutation. smile

            I’d really like to know. smile

            1. paradigmsearch profile image91
              paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Follow-up.

              The recollection is several years old. Imagine the communication-technology possibilities. Why have they not come to fruition?

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There is a problem of information moving faster than light speeds. The particles in your example do not carry information from one to the other faster than c. smile

                1. paradigmsearch profile image91
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Agreed.

                  How in the heck do those particles “instantaneously” respond to each other? Do you know the keyword in reference to this? I don’t and I would like to know. It is something I would like to follow up on.

                  1. paradigmsearch profile image91
                    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    In other words, has a name been assigned to this phenomenon?

                  2. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Entanglement? EPR Paradox? smile

                  3. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
                    Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    paradigmsearch

                    I Refer to The Word of God ... Stated in Koran ... Chapter 36, Verse 36 ...
                    I quote:

                    "Praise Thine Lord Hath Created in Pairs the Totality " ...
                    Unquote.

                    You see, Creation, Transcends the Physical and Ideal States, what I, a believer perceives of the Existent Reality, of any Form.

                    Science thinks, Matter, hence, Elementary Physical Forms... Particles ... are Uni-Moitial Singularities, composed of what to them is a purely Physical Reality ... Whereas, The Truth Is, That the Particle, In Creation, Is a Paired Form ... Manifest in State of a Paired Singularity, Composed in the Bonding of Paired Moitial structures.

                    Thus, Behaviorally, one Moiety of The Ordained Paired Form of a Sub- Atomic Particle ... can be situated on earth, while the other, located on the Fringes of our Physical Universe ...
                    In, one, separated from the other, by what be a 10 billion Light years distance. But the Moieties... In, acquiescing to The Law, Invariably ... Pro-act, with their Counterpart, and Bond, at the Opposite Poles ... thus, Manifest, The Ordained State ... of a Distinct Particulate Entity.

                    The phenomenon you refer to, considered a paradox ... in Quantum Mechanics... Meaning, the inability of Physics to understand, or define this inexplicable behavior of Particles ... is thus, explainable, within an Understanding of The Law, Stated in the Koran.

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The first postulate states that "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."

              Note that I bolded the word inertial in that this is what makes Special Relativity "special" in that it is a subset of General Relativity dealing only with objects that are moving at constant speeds relative to each other or the "fixed stars" which we use as the coordinate system.

              If, for example, we wanted to use your particle example, we can assume that the same physics that governs one particle will govern the other, if they are moving at constant speeds relative to each other. smile

              1. paradigmsearch profile image91
                paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Works for me. smile

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol this is so funny...

  3. manlypoetryman profile image69
    manlypoetrymanposted 5 years ago

    I ain't "Anti-Relative"...though I do think that when they take up all the left-overs, after you made 'em a big dinner, and then start labeling them for themselves...with-out asking. Then, they need to leave at the "Speed of Light"! I tell ya' that...for sure!

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hahahahahahahahahaha

      I love that!

      I actually am lol-ing

      (edit) ... 2 minutes later - i'm still laughing! "Anti-relative".

      lol!!

    2. mathsciguy profile image60
      mathsciguyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Most excellent response, good man.  There was my smile for the day.

  4. 0
    jomineposted 5 years ago

    Before going any further kindly define
    1. space
    2. time
    3. dimension
    4. universe
    Now tell whether these are objects or concepts

    If Objects,
    what is these space and time made of?
    If concept,
    how can a concept ever dilate, contract or interact with other concepts?

    Spacetime curve and expanding universe is from your relativity?
    what is these universe to expand?

    Also
    what is this energy and mass(E = mc2)
    does these exist too?
    If mass exists, and it increases, what exactly is increasing? does the number of atoms the object increases?

    Following about length contraction
    quote"the length of the object is measured by subtracting the simultaneously measured distances of both ends of the object"
    Is length and distance the same?

    1. 0
      jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You can take your time, it's sleeping time here(12.08 am) goodnight or may be for you good morning!! smile

    2. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I noticed that you did not address the OP in any way. We can look at your questions later if you want or in another thread. Please refute the postulates, if you can. smile

      1. 0
        jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I thought you were trying to say relativity is rational!!!

        later if you want or in another thread

        You directed me to this thread from the other forum

        relativity or Newtonian physics or what ever is trying to explain the "nature"- the reality, in consequence it should conform to reality-otherwise irrational and should be refuted or thrown in waste basket.

        Your relativity's basic premise is space expand and time dilate.
        You tell me what are those to, for it to expand and dilate. if the basics are all wrong, why should one waste the time to study it any further??

        not address the OP- If Jerusalem and Galilee exist, Augustus Caesar and Pilate exist, then Jesus too, must exist is your style of reasoning....

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In other words, you have no refutation for the postulates of SR. Just say so rather than going on about something else. smile

          1. 0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "In other words, you have no refutation for the postulates of SR"

            What have you postulated?
            You have not answered a single question and are repeatedly saying the same stuff again and again. Let’s examine
            Einstein's theory of special relativity, like Newtonian mechanics, assumes the equivalence of all inertial reference frames, but makes an additional assumption, foreign to Newtonian mechanics, namely, that in free space light always is propagated with the speed of light c0. This second assumption leads to deductions including:
                time dilation
                length contraction
                relativity of simultaneity
            Equivalence of mass and energy,

            So your first postulate is nothing special to relativity except that the co-ordinates are based on spacetime( which you stubbornly refuse to explain).
            What is light? Can you define?(for him it is a postulation, not a derivative)
            Time dilation, length contraction and equivalence of mass energy are something you haven’t RATIONALLY explained yet!!
            I didn’t ask you to prove anything. Consummated events like “Creation” cannot be proved. All you can do is explain rationally-without contradiction.
            For that first you have to know what is being discussed about, so please, I am asking you once again
            What is space? (How this space, curve?)
            What is time?
            What is mass and energy? (When mass increase how many atoms exactly do increase?)
            What is the difference between length and distance?
            What is this dimension you commonly use in relativity (as 4D)?
            (See, you don’t need even an equation here!!)
            And when you get time please define universe and explain this expanding universe(what exactly is expanding?)!!
            Also explain why  SR says nothing can move faster than light while GR says Universe is expanding faster than light?

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The postulates are that of Special Relativity and the OP is for anyone who is interested in attempting to refute the postulates. Is this not simple to understand or do I need to use smaller words?

              We can answer your questions in another thread if you like, but again, I repeat, this thread is for refuting the postulates of SR.

              And, since you've made it clear you're an anti-relativist, please do so if you can.
              smile

              1. 0
                jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "refuting the postulates of SR"
                You didn't say "only" the postulates of SR
                the OP is For The Anti-Relativists

                The first postulate is Newtonian relativity unless you add the time factor to inertial frame. What is "time"?
                second postulate- what is "speed and what is "light"?
                Without these there are no discussions.
                What you are saying along the following lines
                There is "god"or "globin" or whatever -refute,
                without any definitions or explanations and asking me to refute or accept........hilarious

                In general relativity, an inertial reference frame is only an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough for the curvature of space
                What is this curvature of space?

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, if you're unable to refute the postulates, just say so. There is no need to derail the thread with something else entirely. smile

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The speed of light is not constant. if you travel along with light with reference to you there is no speed, light will be stationary.smile

                2. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  This actually a good point, because once that region becomes to small....EPIC FAIL!  smile

              2. 0
                jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "The Constancy of Speed of Light in Vacuum"

                Speed of light- meters/sec(What is Meter and Time???)

                The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second(Essentially circular.)
                So by definition it is constant (and not that it is constant for any observer), A postulates that is simply made and thought to be true!!big_smile

                1. ryanedel profile image61
                  ryanedelposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, the speed of light (as a constant) is not simply postulated - it has been shown through experiment to be unchanging.  And it is unchanging regardless of the observer.  A person who is stationary will see light traveling at 299 792 458 m/s - a person in a spaceship traveling at 1/2*c will also perceive that light is traveling at 299 792 458 m/s in relation to his or her current position.  The person in the spaceship may as well be stationary when it comes to how fast light appears to move.

                  This was first observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment.  In this experiment, they aimed light in different directions in relations to Earth's direction of orbit, and they measured these speeds of light.  They expected that light pointed "forward" along our orbit would seem to be moving "faster" (because it would be given extra speed by Earth's orbit), but that was not the case.  It didn't matter what direction they pointed the light - it was always measured as traveling at the same speed.

                  The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the reasons that we needed Special Relativity - it pointed out the shortcomings of Newtonian Mechanics in regards to the speed of light.

                  1. 0
                    jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    “Actually, the speed of light (as a constant) is not simply postulated - it has been shown through experiment to be unchanging.  And it is unchanging regardless of the observer.”
                    But relativity does not say so! "Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source"(Wikipedia). It says it is SAME for all OBSERVERS. 
                    For a defined distance the speed/ velocity of a given object is constant irrespective of the observer (unless acted by external force)
                    “This was first observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment.  “
                    Any given wave, water or sound, the velocity of the propagation of the wave is constant irrespective of the source. In this regard light act like a wave. But the experiment demonstrated that light is not a wave as there is no aether to act as the medium of light (that was the result of the experiment).  As there is no medium light can never be a wave (as waves needed a medium). The particle theory is questioned by Young’s slit experiment. Instead  of coming up with a rational explanation of the property of light, the relativist came up with a chimera- a fusion of an object and a concept called a ‘wavepartice’ which can never exists in reality. So people are describing the speed of something which they have no idea about. Without knowing what light is, how can anybody even speculate about the speed of light?

                  2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    but special relativity was short in explaining entanglement.  (beel would not understand that means ofcourse!) so it is an incomplete theory.

                    the speed of light as a constant does not mean that light does not change speed, it is a constant now.  but was it constant before? or will it will remain so?

                    John Moffat calculated that, closer to big bang it was actually 1038 times faster than what we are observing now.

                    Maguelijo published a book titled "Faster than the speed of light" about a decade ago based on Moffat's claims.

                    While many are cautious, after Penrose, who has actual observation of ripples in space (there was a big hooplah about it, but it is evidence  that the universe big bangs, becomes massless then big bangs again), the discussion of big bang as the beginning of the universe changed. it is afterall "A beginning" not "THE Beginning" This is mainstream physics now. My point is C is highly depending of what point in the arrow of time you are referring to.


                    it is like previously it was believed that light does not bend, well it has been observed to bend, proving special relativity for NOW in the age of Man and as far back as we can observe. But special relativity is an incomplete theory.

                    Hence the quest for the theory of everything. The theory that would answer all. (but beel is still in pre-quantum age.)  See generalized statements like the poster made, shows that there is ignorance on the development of astrophysics of today. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand it, you only need to read the news--science news...occasionally (and maybe an IQ past 140 would help--okay 130 is good enough)

          2. 0
            jomineposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Also please explain why SR says nothing can move faster than light while GR says universe expand faster than light.
            (No I don’t intend to get a Ph D in this nonsense, nor do I have a Ph D in theology. I assume you have no PhD in theology either, but you could find the irrationality and contradiction about god. Use the same here too!!)

  5. superwags profile image82
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    I had no idea these people existed. Unbelievable! Thanks Hub Pages, you have opened my eyes!

    1. paradigmsearch profile image91
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      edit. miscue. Yes! We do exist. smile

      1. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And thank god lord for it. I was actually refering to those mentioned in the title of the forum; "anti-relativists" (I suspect you may know this already). This is new to me as I'm from a western country.

        "O! Say can you see..."

        Is the alternate spin phenomena you mention "quantum entanglement" which uncle Albert hated so much?

        1. paradigmsearch profile image91
          paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes! Thank you! smile

    2. wawalker123 profile image76
      wawalker123posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hahaha...Yeah, YOu're right.

  6. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    And bump.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I love this forum but I wish I knew what you guys were talking about.  The only thing I know is that you can't study anything without disturbing/causing change in what you are studying, right?

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Essentially, the two postulates of SR can be explained thusly:

        The first postulate states that the physical laws that govern our part of the universe should be the same in all parts of the universe, while the second postulate states that the speed of light is invariant, in other words, the speed never changes if light is traveling through a vacuum, like the vacuum of space.

        Both postulates are considered "Special" because the obervations are taken from an "inertial" frame of reference, or basically, are observed where both the observer and the object observed are moving at constant speeds. Hope this helps.

        1. canadawest99 profile image60
          canadawest99posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Except at the event horizon and beyond of a black hole, then all bets are off.

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Good point. smile

          2. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Black holes don't really apply as they do not yield inertial reference frames at the event horizon or beyond, hence they fall under the guidelines of General Relativity.

            However, from an inertial reference frame far away from the Black hole, we can measure that light will remain invariant, even upon moving past the event horizon. It may shift to the blue spectrum once it begins it's decent into the gravity well of the BH, but it will not increase or decrease in velocity. smile

            1. ryanedel profile image61
              ryanedelposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, General Relativity applies anytime there is a gravitational force present.  In for not for the corrections of General Relativity, our GPS receivers would be very inaccurate because of the blue-shift effect that Earth's gravity has on the frequency of light coming down from orbit to the surface of the planet.  General Relativity is also essential for accurately plotting the orbit of Mercury around our Sun - Mercury is actually close enough to the Sun that time dilation comes into play, shifting the orbit in ways (albeit slight) that cannot be accounted for when using only Newtonian Mechanics or Special Relativity.

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Really? I have never heard of that problem before, although they have solved other problems such as phase shifting and ionosphere delays, but I never heard of the blue-shifting of the frequency to be an issue.

                My understanding is that the corrections are due to the gravitational effect between the clocks on earth and the clocks in the satellite, both at different positions within earths gravity well.

                Have you got something on the blue-shifting problem I can read? smile



                If I read that right, are you saying time dilation shifts the orbit of the planet, or is it our observations of the orbit are shifted somehow? smile

        2. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, the first postulate states that mechanics hold true iff co-ordinates or the derivative of original coordinates have UNIFORM TRANSLATION to the original. Additionally, the equivalence of the two coordinates do not extend to non uniform motion of co-ordinates to the original.  At least, that's what Mr. Einstein thought, which didn't include the philosophy of should be/maybe maybe not Mr. Beelzedad.  smile

          I won't even get into the second, because your first is such a disaster.  lol

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, just any other coordinate system moving in uniform translation relative to the original.



            Yes, I do understand your need to constantly toss ad homs into the argument, it's the trolling thang to do.

            So, I think it's time to say bye, now, as I don't need to respond to your nonsense. Bye troll. smile

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I stated the derivative, or do you not know what a derivative is in mathematics?  How can translation be perceived without motion?  smile


              I've lost track of how many times you've re-stated the last comment.  Is it your signature line, so you don't need to type it any more?  lol

  7. 0
    jomineposted 5 years ago

    "Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source"(Wikipedia)

    What observer thinks or feels has nothing to do with science - science is objective.
    Speed is a concept. It cannot be taken as  a constant as it depends on two factors- distance traveled and time. Without a defined distance and time, speed cannot be calculated. If distance and time is defined it cannot be changed(The definition should not be based on a variable factor either, as in SI unit, a  meter is defined as the distance traveled by light-which is not applicable here as it is the speed of light which is to be measured).
    If both these are defined we can see that any object in motion has constant speed, unless acted by external force(Newton's law), even for light and is NOT OBSERVER dependent!!!
    But again relativity has nothing to do with that. Its what the observer think that they are trying to measure. So to help that they make speed of light as a constant and try to compare it with everything else. They mistake ticking of clock as time. They reify both space and time and consider them as object which interact and produce a new nonsense- spacetime, which is the reference point for everything. From these stem the nonsenses like length contraction, time dilation, mass increase.... They confuse mathematics and equations as reality and try to conform reality to equations rather than the other way round.

  8. maven101 profile image78
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    In classical physics, the mechanical laws satisfy
    the requirement of the principles of special relativity, but some electromagnetism laws are in conflict...
    To state that all physics laws maintain the form invariant in all inertial reference frames is being refuted by recent research by Martin Perl and Holgar Mueller...which suggests an experimental search for gradients in dark energy by way of atom interferometry.
    This is backed up by physical observations by the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope team observing what may be " quantum gravity "...higher-energy gamma rays appearing to travel through space a little bit slower than lower-energy ones, contrary to one of the postulates underlying Einstein's special theory of relativity -- namely, that radiation travels through the vacuum at the same speed no matter what....
    What say you..?

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Quantum Gravity you say?  Looks like relativity crumbles again.  lol

      1. superwags profile image82
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you notice the difference here between people who are geniunely trying to contribute and people such as yourself who just ignorantly mock whatever's written before them without TRYING to undertsand it.

        I'm not saying I expect you to fully understand the concepts being discussed on here - I have to hang on the the coat-tails somewhat to keep up. Your approach of just treating everything that doesn't agree with your world view is bad enough, but then mouthing off about it is embarrassing.

        Quantum gravity is a theory very much in the making, if that's what you mean by that last comment. However, ignorantly dismissing something because a theory isn't fully developed is not acceptable in debate. It is the nature of such things, they take time to develop. Thankfully a default position in science is not just to give up as you have done.

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Who says I have given up? 

          If you have to "hang on the the coat-tails somewhat to keep up" who are you to judge what I understand?

          Relativity is a tool, to view it as a be all, end all, is irresponsible.  Every Theory "is a theory very much in the making"  It never stops. The tools are used to move forward. 

          Don't give up:

          http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Rovel … /0/all/0/1

          smile

          1. superwags profile image82
            superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Every theory is forever evolving, but some have had a body of evidence built up over centuries - some have had a couple of decades of conceptualisation.

            Nobody fully understands this stuff - so I feel I'm on pretty safe ground on that regard!

            In fairness, I wrote that last post to you thinking that you were someone else that I'd clashed with earlier on science forums and had posted on here. I apologise for the strident manner and my assertion that you'd given up!

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Apology accepted.  You are 100% correct, "Nobody fully understands this stuff", so you are beyond safe. IMO, you shouldn't hold a grudge, even if you come across the person you'd "clashed with earlier"  Then, as you already know, your posts will be written with haste.  To somewhat (but not really) stay in compliance with the thread, the comments read here are subjective to the readers mental frame of reference.  smile

        2. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That's all you'll ever see from him. No matter how much I've been patient in trying to get him to explain himself, he refuses to do so. Most likely, he is unable to do so. I have found it best to not feed the trolls. smile

          1. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Notice he apologized, because he thought I was someone else.  It is you who fails to explain yourself,  add your own philosophy,  and expects everyone else to do your homework.  smile

  9. 0
    jomineposted 5 years ago

    Beel
    You are actually deceiving yourself, if you know that two postulates are not the only thing in relativity.
    The all stuff(postulates) is based on the concept of spacetime. As long as you cannot explain spacetime there is no point in discussing the two postulates.
    Then it all says what the observer sees or observes..
    But an observer has no role in science except to rationally explain the events (or interactions of objects).
    Or do you maintain that there is no such postulates/derivations as time dilation or length contraction? or there is nothing called observer variance? No problem,but then you have redefined relativity and that is not the relativity the physicists say...

  10. maven101 profile image78
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    Since Beelzedad has not responded to my refutation, I must assume he has no response...

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe he's studying in an attempt to formulate a retort. smile

    2. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Refutation? Where? I saw no paper supporting your claim. Allow me to produce it for you so you may point out exactly where in the paper they refute SR. smile

      http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 … 4061v1.pdf

      1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
        Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I have gone through your above presented paper <406 1v.pdf >... and invite yours, and the Stanford Professor's [author's] comments ... since, the presented dissertation, presumes, that with every Increase in the Universe's Physical Content's outwards Exploding ... [into an Infinite, Universe Containing Empty Quarter !] ... there is Proportionately ... a self-Induced, Inherent Increase, in the Quantum of Dark Energy, filling in  Empty Spaces in the Physical Universe ! 

        Perhaps, the idea rests in another Theory, stipulating, that Dark Matter fills in every "nook and corner" of the "Universe" ... Presumed Existent, in a Supra-Universe Emptiness;  meaning, the Peripheral Emptiness, "containing" the Universe's Physical Totality ...
        Are you with me ... ?

        Anyway, according to another Theory, which presumes creation; in, the Big Bang ... are you suggesting, that the Bang, also created, Dark Energy ... [in state of Dark Matter or Dark Plasma] ... for such is possible, in Relativity Theory's famous Inter-convertabilities.

        My question is:

        "What else [besides the Strings] was created in the Big Bang ... and what would happen to Dark Energy, in the Theoretical event of a Big Crunch ?"

        Would Matter and Antimatter, relocate in the Aboriginal Particle ...  and while en route, "absorb" Dark Energy ... but, how would the Reversal based  creation, Matter Antimatter's ... Paired Symmetries ... Absorb the Greater volume of Dark Energy ...
        If these cannot ... where would Dark Energy/Dark Matter go ?

        I, hope, your answer is Not ... "back, into the Ambio-Universe Emptiness" !

        Since according to another theory ... Matter, in any state, can neither be created, nor annihilated, though the latest b-Meson idea, rewarded the Nobel Prize in perhaps 2008, refutes this claim.

        P.S. Kindly keep serious Semantics, Calculus, and Applied Physics, out of your comments ... Lets talk about The Law, meaning, the Principle, in a language, we can all understand ... particularly me ... for I already hear a lot of hue and cry here ... at this Hub's debate site.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not in the least, I have no idea what you're talking about. I see broken up sentences strung together in a word salad. Sorry. smile

          1. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
            Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Its your Science's Salad ...

            I have only referred to the Incoherent, and an Irreconcilable mass of
            Knowledge, called, Theories, which Constitutes the Secular Belief ...

            These, variously "Rationalized" ideas, are
            however, considered sufficient, by Seculars ... I don't know how ... for denying
            The Truth of God !

            I am glad, these comments came from you.

            Thank you !

            [P.S. the Professors and your Science's Laureates, usually understand ... what I am saying; since, they are "inexplicably" Aware of the Truth, in my statements, but avoid posting reply to my questions, on open public forums].

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I do understand science might be incoherent or irreconcilable to the religious believer, but that doesn't mean science hasn't brought you everything you have today.

              Did your religion bring you the internet? Your computer? How about these forums that write your posts?

              Or, would you rather live in a cave without science? smile

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                he was ofcourse speaking of universal concepts, obviously talking philo.

                you on the other hand are still discussing high schools science.

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So, once again, no input on the OP, just insults. lol

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    wow, i see how you mind works. It really zooms in on the statements that actually make sense to you. lol

              2. Shahid Bukhari profile image60
                Shahid Bukhariposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Beelzedad, as I said, I do not talk of Religion, nor am I Religious, or an Islamic evangelist, or extremist, promoting Islam on the Hubpages  ...

                I am simply a Follower of The Ordained Way of Life ... The Correct Way of Life, and Belief ... Not a Religion, or Idealogy ...

                What I state, is in stating, The Stated Truth ... meaning, my stating of what I can "see" from the "correct" angle of human Perceptions ... Reality !

                As regarding your, 'Science giving us everything, we have today" .. statement;

                Well !

                Science  ... [perhaps, you mean, as Technology] ... is a "Product of War" ...

                Science, hand in hand with Philosophies ... has risen from the shed blood of innocent humans ... its taken millions of innocent lives ... and is still taking ... much, much, more, than it ever saved ... in your meanings ... 'gave' or is 'giving' ... or may ever 'give' ... to pay the debt, it owes to humankind.

                Yes of course, its given us the Internet, and with it the hidden Snoopers, whats made the world a street Washomatic ... meaning, human Privacy ... and dignity, have been compromised, and lately, it has begun the crusade of enslaving common folks of the world, via Centrally Controlled Economies, and Food chains ... in the hands of a few insane ones ... holding the "button" ... threat ... of humanity's annihilation ... in their left hand.

                And, remember HIV/AIDS, and H1N5 ... are the "gifts" of Mis-applied Science ... Genetics ... not to forget the Applied of Physics giving us the Multiple Nukes bearing ICBMs ...

                In, the Tax payers, being forced to pay exorbitant taxes, for this war hysteria and madness ... they being made to pay through their noses, to those, who have nothing, but a politically motivated racist agenda.

                Science [Technology], above all has taken away Human Freedom, and World's Peace ... making the guys sitting on the many Hills around the globe, think, they are gods ... to the dismay of those, who sent them there in the first place ... to "do" some good.

                The Ape and Caveman, Ideas, are of Science ...
                Please remember ... Humans are the Epitome of Creation, In Genesis ... But, Folly, is, and hath been a permanent human companion  ...

                When Pharaohs made the Pyramids ... using whats now, Rudimentary Technology ... they too thought, they were gods ...

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  You folks are hilarious.

              3. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Please explain the non-existence of a deity of divine nature of which creates all information based existence of life forms.

                Irreducible complexity.

                DNA - Not a single chance, as it is expressly stated identical to digital.

                Darwin's Black Box might be a good place to begin your research for an attempt.

                Or you could simply tell me to 'start my own thread' if the challenge is too difficile.

                I absolutely love science.  smile

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, please do, so as not to derail this thread. Thanks smile

      2. maven101 profile image78
        maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your link is just confirming my original statement, which you have obviously misunderstood, in that they are DEVELOPING a contrary theory to special relativity that is being backed up by physical observations from the MAGIC observers...The refutation is in the developement of irrefutable laws, not empirical laws which are used to explain certain portions of special relativity...perhaps this link will clarify my position:

        http://scihub.org/AJSIR/PDF/2010/1/AJSIR-1-1-29-31.pdf

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It's a relief I'm not the only one who saw the irony in his response to your original statement.  lol

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
          ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Let me copy that link here, because he's famous for not really reading links:

          "CONCLUSION
          The principle of relativity has been widely recognized
          to be applicable for the electromagnetism for as long
          as one century. However the researches show that
          some electromagnetism laws do not meet the
          requirement of the principle of relativity. Consequently,
          reconsideration of the applicability."

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            And, that would appear to be your entire level of understanding of that paper. lol

        3. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The flaw in that paper is obvious.

          The good college student, Kaizhe Guo, makes a valiant attempt to show (on paper) that an electric doublet moving along a perpendicular axis will not show the same results as a stationary doublet. What he fails to consider, is that when calculating the electric field, the lines MUST be done so independently and treated separately, and cannot be calculated as rotational velocities around the center of rotation of the doublet, but instead MUST instead be calculated using the linear velocities of the electric doublets dipoles. That is why he is getting different results between the moving and stationary doublets.

          Hope this helps to clarify the paper. smile

          1. maven101 profile image78
            maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Gou's proposition presents an area of research previously unknown...There are certain activities relating to electromagnetism that indicate non-conformance with special relativity assertions, and they are quite simply, assertions...The irrefutable truth of these laws have only been tested on very rudimentary physical applications that are being challenged exponentially every year...Such as the MAGIC observations...
            So I ask you, where are the irrefutable laws that provide proof for the theories of special relativity, other than mathematical formulations derived from a rapidly changing mathematical universe.? Where are the stipulated observations, taken without prejudice, to be found..? It seems to me that if one asks the question, they should know the answer...Furthermore, belittling fellow Hubbers is in poor taste and indicates not a little insecurity...

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Michelson-Morley
              Muons.
              GPS.
              Particle accelerators.
              Cyclotrons.


              You can even conduct an experiment to confirm relativity with your microwave oven and some marshmallows.

              Mountains and mountains of hard evidence resulting in over 100 years of experimentation support Relativity.

              Where are the results from Kaizhe Guo? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

              smile

              1. maven101 profile image78
                maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not one of those quoted sources provide any " hard " evidence of special relativity theory regarding the speed of light being uniform in a vacuum, especially when observing electromagnetic phenomena...simply put, these assumptions are defined within an if A = B and C = A then B must = C...

                As I have mentioned, mathematics is shrugging off the confines of this linear thinking...Postulations are being generated using bi-dimensional and quantum calculations that are slowly providing evidence of a physical world much different than the one Einstein delved in...In fact, when asked about quantum theory Einstein asked if the idea of the special theory of relativity is to be expanded in the sense that new group-characteristics, which are not implied by the Lorentz-invariance, are they to be postulated?

                In sum, like Schrodinger's cat, without uncontaminated observation and measurement we are simply speculating on thought experiments...

                I apologise for my former remarks regarding forum decorum...being fairly new to this HubPage format I didn't realize the level of energetic give and take...

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course not, the speed of light has been known for some time and has been measure quite accurately. In fact, James Bradley came very close with his measurements in 1728 and almost dead on by 1862 with Leon Foucault. 

                  It was the Michelson/Morley experiment that started the ball rolling when it produced Null Results when attempting to test an aether. However, it showed that light was a constant and not variable at all.



                  Mathematics isn't shrugging off anything. That is a strawman fallacy. And, quantum physics does not violate Special Relativity.



                  Again, strawman fallacy. There is no speculation on the speed of light.



                  No worries at all. I can't help it if those others have no clue what they're talking about and feel compelled to insult me as a result. But, that is usually the case with most crackpots and cranks.

                  smile

                  1. maven101 profile image78
                    maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, you have misunderstood my position...There is no question re the " speed " of light...What I am questioning, as you have asked in your original question, is how the speed of light being constant in a vacuum is being challenged with several ongoing and promising studies and observations in the field of electromagnetism and what appears as a refutation of certain special relativity laws...

                    The MAGIC gamma-ray telescope team has released what has been described as the first observational hint of quantum gravity. What they've seen is that higher-energy gamma rays appear to travel through space a little bit slower than lower-energy ones, contrary to one of the postulates underlying Einstein's special theory of relativity...
                    The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this.  If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action.  By the time the Sun’s “pull” reaches us, the Earth will have “moved on” for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel).  But by then the Sun’s pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth’s pull on the Sun.  The effect of these misaligned forces would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light.  Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
                    Then there is the problem of resonating quarks...instantaneous action/reaction has been observed in Bern which indicates a quantum gravity, thus defying the special relativity law of light being the ultimate " speed "...Einstein has said if the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.
                    Here is a link to the MAGIC team's report:

                    http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2889

                    Besides, special relativity is not about light, its about kinematics...Larry

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              So, the fact that others are tossing one personal insult after another at me does not seem to matter to you, it's all my fault?

              smile

          2. ediggity profile image61
            ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, would you be so kind as to show us your independent calculation of the Electric field, using the linear velocity of doublet dipoles to compare results?  smile

            1. maven101 profile image78
              maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              He can't because there is none...only continued slavish worship of all things relative...We had this same kind of thinking during the Copernicus era...To doubt that the earth was not the center of the Universe was blasphemy and all discussion was closed...Much like the modern-day Global Warmist's claim that despite contrary findings and vocal scientific denial, it is an irrefutable fact that Man is a significant contributor to Global Warming...End of discussion...Anyone foolish enough to present data to the contrary is labeled a denier of Holocaust proportions...

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ah, I see now. Your motive has been revealed. smile

                You had me fooled for a while in that I was under the impression you were honestly attempting refutation. But, it was all just a charade. Oh well, smile

                1. maven101 profile image78
                  maven101posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I see now that critical thinking is not in your tool box...Resorting to clairvoyance or presumptive knowledge of the motivation for my responses to your query reveals a smugness that defeats your credibility and encourages me to discontinue this discussion...

                  My statement that you have no answer for ediggity's question was confirmed by your reply...

                  1. Beelzedad profile image60
                    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Fine by me. 



                    Really? So the fact that I have no experimental data on which to provide calculations, you have concluded his statement is valid?

                    lol

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have no data or experimental results in which to do such a calculation. But, I suspect you just want to troll again, anyways. smile

              1. ediggity profile image61
                ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Nope, just wanted to see whether or not you planned to back up your claim.  Evidently not, just more Philosophy......... smile

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay troll. Bye. smile

                  1. ediggity profile image61
                    ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Beelzedad I been looking for you. Heard yesterday that Telsa was killed by the FBI. That got my interest. Must have been on to something big. My question is - is there something called "zero-point energy generators" that he is said to have invented or is it possible if you know?

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No idea, where did you hear that?



      In think so, but I have yet to see one of those generators in action. There are a variety of them being sold on the market. Have you seen one working? smile

  12. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    the fact that you posted this topic shows you do not understand the entire landscape of current physics. you're the one with all the backward topics, figure it out first. smile

  13. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Well energy is the whole ball-of-wax for the future and the Aquarian Age, and who and how it is controlled. The only 'zero-point energy generators' I have seen are in terms of logic, although it is said they exist.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are all kinds of websites selling those things. I would like to see one in action.

      One of the problems is that people confuse these generators with "perpetual machines" which is something entirely different. smile

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        and this would be the websites that you are familiar with ofcourse.  You never got back to me when I sent you Penrose's ACTUAL lectures. you asked for math, i gave you the math, then you just conveniently pretend not to see it.

        Here it is again.

        http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lect … g-bang-89/

        Do you understand the chicken scratch this brilliant man call "the mathematics?" this was ofcourse in 2005. today (2011, not 1950,) there is actual data from observation that shows "RIPPLES",

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … nce-space/

        Daily NEWS Dec 2010....read...read more beel.

        and once again welcome to my class.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            you're the troll beel. I give you an F, for Failure to comprehend NEWS...

            here, more news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/841690.stm. Still stuck in the 50's? Or are you atleast in the 60's now?
            *shakes head*

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Insulation.

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    There is no big-bang, black holes, dark-matter or evolution. Going to lunch now and I will munch on that.

  16. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    Hmm... I don't think they let me send links back in time. But the title of the article is:

    BEAM SMASHES LIGHT BARRIER... MEANING....light can travel faster than the C
    smile

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2810 here's another one.

    and here's one from ABC News:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story? … amp;page=1

    was it broken, was it not? who knows...definitely not you though. You're still talking highschool science in the 50s

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I understand you get your information from pop sci sites, Youtube and newspaper articles.



      Keep on trolling, it's what you do best.

      lol

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        sure....ignore the overflowing information and call it pop sci. fact remains, you have NOTHING to offer in response other than "pop sci sites" I did not even send you one you tube site about penrose. these are all lectures. and if you think you can posture around acting like you actually go to these lectures or to any lectures, NAME ONE that you've actually been in. oh you can't you're too busy being in the religion forums in youtube.

        trolling is your main occupation, not mine. I'm too busy doing real research.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol

          1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
            ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            yes laughing will definitely make you look like penrose never happened. lol

            1. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              This is quite typical of the crackpots and cranks that attempt to refute theories in which they have no idea are about. They google the internet and place links up that have absolutely nothing in them that refutes the theory. Pointing this out to them has as much effect as pointing out evolution to religionists. smile

              1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                sure...google entanglement and maybe you'll get a clue. wink go back to your day job, you actually shine in religion forums. (he who has only ever quoted wiki)

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  Thanks for validating my previous post.

                  Entanglement has absolutely nothing to do with the speed of light. So once again, you provide nothing that refutes the postulates of SR. Just a lot of hand waving on your part. smile

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    oh you mean regarding the topic of SPECIAL RELATIVITY? which it implies being able to penetrate the wall of light?  TO YOU it's not connected, because you just read about it now. entanglement weakens the theory.

                    moffat is challenging the constancy of the speed of light and he was able to dispense mathematically of the mysterious invisible dark matter. don't pretend MOFFAT was never mentioned or that YOU understand anything beyond 1950's science.

              2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Really? What about BBC and Scientific American? Crackpots...oh right pop sci? What about Moffat's Reinventing Gravity? crackpot too? And Oxford Press? These are all the sources you consider crackpot.

                1. Beelzedad profile image60
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Please point out where I made that claim or apologize for lying.

                  1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
                    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    there are so many forums...alas. you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if you think this writer is a crackpot or not. The fact is, these concepts are all over the science world. In various media and formats, covered extensively and are not secret obscure ideas that I just unearthed or failed to use my critical thinking in. They are mainstream science.

                    Moffat's work had implications of the Special Relativity as a whole. Magueijo's wildly accepted speculations on the implications of Moffat's work and his fleshing out of the idea of a varying light speed and what black holes are, along with Penrose's recurring big bang paints the special relativity as an incomplete theory.

                    Gravity as we have defined it during the time of Einstein is evolving. Although there is still a search going on for dark matter, new theories are emerging and gaining massive attention. All of which you do not seem to know about. You have not even mentioned Moffat until I did. You are only googling the sources and the ideas I put out, finding their weaknesses (inadequately because you have no awareness of the entire landscape) and misleading people into thinking these are pop sci concepts. This is mainstream science. Either you buy the books, buy the articles I sent here as link and discuss this as a man or just shut up.

              3. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Pointing again? Please point to your proof.

                smile

  17. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Love Joseph Campbell. Forgot all all about him.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      James Hillman is cool too.

  18. Lady Wordsmith profile image82
    Lady Wordsmithposted 5 years ago

    Cor, I wish I knew what you lot were talking about.  Sounds amazing!  Quite sexy actually...big_smile

  19. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    "That doesn't happen in Magueijo's universe. According to his calculations, if the varying speed of light theory turns out to be right, light comes to a full stop at the very edge of the black hole; it freezes and never enters the hole. "

    This does not sound like it's just in the beginning of the universe, does it? Magueijo's work is based on Moffat's theories.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2003/apr/cover  (oh is discover magazine pop sci too?,  should I send you a wikipedia link?)

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      That's ridiculous.

  20. ceciliabeltran profile image84
    ceciliabeltranposted 5 years ago

    You know, it's obvious that the poster doesn't really know much about the topic he's posting. He's just bored. And since we all concur that his arguments are clueless, I will stop feeding the troll. I suggest we all do the same.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are free to go away. Bye. smile

  21. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Speed of gravity. Haven't heard that one before. I must really be out of it. Have to give that one some thought.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It is thought that if there is a quantum gravity wave/particle that fits with the Standard Model, it would be massless and hence would move at the speed of light. In other words, gravity is not instantaneous, it has a speed of propagation just like photons. smile

  22. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Having given it some thought, if light is a physical property from its origin to some destination would probably involve speed and time. By the same token if gravity is a physical property, it also
    would travel. Thanks.

  23. maven101 profile image78
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    The Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun.  Its light comes to us from one direction, its “pull” from a slightly different direction.  This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.
    Do you not appreciate this conflict...?
    What is the speed of gravity? It is heard less often in the classroom, but only because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question. They understand the argument that it must go very fast indeed, but they also have been trained not to let anything exceed Einstein’s speed limit.
    I should think your thinking falls into this grouping...

    I said:
    Besides, special relativity is not about light, its about kinematics...Larry
    You said:
    That's nice, but this thread is about discussing the postulates of SR.
    You seem fixated on the speed of light....I was merely pointing out that special relativity , if being cussed and discussed, should at least be defined for what it presupposes...not what its outcome results...

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but I do not see how you get that. Why would there be different speeds? That makes no sense.



      The same as the speed of light.



      Fair enough. smile

  24. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun -- that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun.". I'm just an idiot here but would seem to me the sun moves in one direction, while the depending on its orbit location the earth would sometimes be movimg toward and sometimes away from sun's direction.

  25. maven101 profile image78
    maven101posted 5 years ago

    In any relativity discussion we have the measurable facts (which we must agree on) and the explanation (which we might totally disagree on). Bearing in mind that one needs to look at measured outcomes, and not the source of those outcomes...
    When contradictory outcomes are presented there should be a vigorous and open-ended discussion, not simply pointing to the hallowed mantra of c is constant according to Einstein 101...

    Experiments have shown that atomic clocks really do slow down when they move, and atomic particles really do live longer.  Does this mean that time itself slows down?  Or is there a simpler explanation?

    The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations.  To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different “reference frame,” everything still works out fine.  But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it’s not convincing.
    A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like.  I believe that is now beginning to happen.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry that you don't agree with the facts or the postulates of SR. 



      You are free to research mountains of measured outcomes of relativity.



      I have already pointed out the flaws in the papers you provided and DID NOT point to mantra, please stop fabricating stories.



      Time does slow down relative to the observer, yes.



      You have provided one single paper in which a single observation was made. The authors themselves even admitted this was insufficient data in which to make a proper assessment and admitted it could not take into account anything that may have affected the measurements.



      Handwaving and fallacies are strong in that statement.



      I'm glad you have strong beliefs in scientific theories, the rest of us have strong understandings. smile

  26. Beelzedad profile image60
    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago

    How very very sad it is that religionists feel compelled to troll the Education and Science forums. 

    It's not enough for them to tell us how to live our lives, threatening us with their gods wrath, but they must take it much further than that, making sure to halt education and science in it's tracks, exercising their rights of religious freedoms all the while violating the rights of everyone else.

    Shed a tear for the future of mankind, folks. Religionists are here to make sure the Rapture occurs, no matter what.

    Very sad, indeed.

    1. ediggity profile image61
      ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sure, blame your inconsistencies on religion.  Your philosophy is transparent, we can all see right through it.  Making scientific claims with no substantial evidence to support, and then backtrack with blame. Yes, very sad, indeed. 

      sad

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol We? As in "we" trolls? lol 



        Oh yes, I understand SR has no substantial evidence to crackpots, I get that. That's why you have yet to understand it.

        Are you done trolling yet or is there more to come?
        smile

        1. ediggity profile image61
          ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, we as in everyone who reads through this thread.  It is you who fails to understand, which is apparent by your lack of evidence (even more so by admission) to support your inaccurate claims.  smile

          1. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But, the question is how long are you going to continue fabricating lies and trolling?

            1. ediggity profile image61
              ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I haven't fabricated any lies or "trolling", but if continuously stating that makes you feel better keep it up. 

              You stated:

              "And, I'll just continue to ignore your trolling."

              Obviously not adhering to that, would you classify it as another inaccurate statement, or a lie?

              smile

              1. Beelzedad profile image60
                Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for destroying yet another thread here. Learning and understanding get another kick in the head. Well done. smile

                1. ediggity profile image61
                  ediggityposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You maliciously attack people with blanket statements, and resort to name calling, yet I am responsible for destroying the thread? lol

                  Again with the blame, will you ever take responsibility for your actions? smile

                  "And, I'll just continue to ignore your trolling."

                  Obviously not adhering to that, would you classify it as another inaccurate statement, or a lie?

                  smile

  27. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "In Science, there are rational and irrational theories." Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter - rational or irrational?

    1. ScienceOfLife profile image60
      ScienceOfLifeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm, I gotta call irrational on that stuff. It's all a bit surreal & suspicious for my tastes. I think mathematicians try to do physics (i.e. explain our cosmos using physical objects) but basically "reify" all this VERY abstract descriptive/predictive stuff (i.e. convert numerical concepts into pseudo-objects) in order to pretend they're doing science. Hence how we end up with such strangeness. I expect one day we'll look back on current MathPhys (space-time, wormholes, 0d particles, strings, hyper-dimensions, etc)  in the same way we look back at Ptolemaic pseudo-science and laugh at how silly (if strangely brilliant) they were! Just my 2c, I'm only an amateur scientist looking on at the state-funded big boys with their big toys... big_smile

      Great hub! Great Qs!

  28. Beelzedad profile image60
    Beelzedadposted 5 years ago

    There we go. Submitted. smile

 
working