|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
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.
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.
Here you go. The maths already been done:
U=mV < c^2 or EPIC FAIL!
< 1.616252(81)×10^-35 EPIC FAIL!
Where's your math to prove otherwise?
Well, the troll is here right on time with nothing to add as usual but troll bait.
No need to resort to name calling. A simple I don't have anything to refute the math will suffice.
You didn't put anything there that had anything to do with the question, hence it is nothing but troll bait, as usual.
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.
But, actually, I could see where it might cause a little confusion because I didn't include the metric tensor.
Good for you. Will you attempt to refute the postulates now or go on with your trolling?
I'll just continue to watch you butcher Einstein's theories with your Philosophy.
And, I'll just continue to ignore your trolling.
If that's how you want to label me, and deal with your inaccurate philosophy be my guest.
You have labeled yourself with your trolling posts. I had nothing to do with that.
Of course, as anyone can plainly see that you're trolling in that the OP has nothing at all to do with me or any philosophy I might hold. And since, nothing you post has anything to do with the subject matter, it only serves to confirm the trolling.
But, I'm sure you're not done trolling yet.
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 ...
No, theories are not personal postulates. Please try to understand how science works before making spurious comments.
So you've never heard of Moffat's theory? T=0 no singularity.
you really are in need of new textbooks.
"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...
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.
Uh, this thread is not about General Relativity. Funny how you even quoted the OP without reading it.
That's your refutation?
This can't be you, can it Bill? Are we in the presence of the notorious Bill Gaede?
"Intel terminated Gaede’s employment in June 1994. 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"
"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,
Ah, so you deny mountains of hard evidence.
In other words, Bill, if you don't understand it, it must be wrong.
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.
"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.
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.
"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
Would that be a manila hemp, hemp, linen, cotton, coir, jute, sisal, polypropylene, nylon, or polyester rope.
Hilarious crackpot site!
"I believe that all mathematical physicists should be hanged
from the highest trees and telephone poles available."
Here's another website, I saw some of your statements there. Enjoy.
That's what the mathematicians do these days since they can't answer any Q: they spend their time sneering at people who ridicule them. I guess that's how the Math Klub speculated that it could keep the flocks of sheep in line. No scientific arguments. Just put down the dissidents and maybe they'll go away!
You are the one who provided the site "youstupidrelativist.com"
Quite the pot calling the kettle black, Bill.
I guess you never heard of John Baez's Crackpot Index or the Crank Dot Net site.
Most certainly have heard of those, do you wish for me to apply them to your posts and your website? I have successfully submitted websites to Crank Dot Net in the past. Is yours there? If not, it should be submitted for review and category.
Sure! Why not? That's all you know how to do, right? I mean, what can a numskull like you explain about the workings of the Universe, Beel? Gravity? EM? Atomic and subatomic behavior?
You're too kind, Bill. And, I must admit that you didn't get any points from the Crackpot Index on that one.
Hey, thx Beel! I guess I'm getting better every day! How I managed to elude Baez's Index is what I now have to figure out.
Meanwhile... I still don't see any answers from you, Beel! Gravity? Magnetic attraction? Covalent bonding? Any luck with any of these?
Why are you waiting for answers of those things from me when the OP is about refuting the postulates of SR? Are you not going to take a "crack" at those first?
"The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference."
There are no observers in Science! (That was quick and easy).
"The speed of light in vacuum has the same value c"
'IN' a vacuum??? What do you mean 'IN' 'a' vacuum? Is the vacuum like a balloon or maybe like a bucket of water you can be IN???
So much for your two 'principles'. Got anything related to Science, Beel?
OH! It is observers that does everything in your science!!
What the observer feel or think DOES matter?
What an observer sees and why he sees or feels so is better explained by neuroscientists than physicists!
It is my understanding that quantum physics tosses item one out the window…
Don't be sorry, just explain the claim. How does that field theory refute the first postulate of relativity, exactly?
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?
Can't you tell me? That doesn't really look like a refutation of the first postulate. Please explain how that works?
My post was an inquiry, not a refutation.
I’d really like to know.
The recollection is several years old. Imagine the communication-technology possibilities. Why have they not come to fruition?
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.
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.
In other words, has a name been assigned to this phenomenon?
I Refer to The Word of God ... Stated in Koran ... Chapter 36, Verse 36 ...
"Praise Thine Lord Hath Created in Pairs the Totality " ...
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.
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.
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!
I love that!
I actually am lol-ing
(edit) ... 2 minutes later - i'm still laughing! "Anti-relative".
Most excellent response, good man. There was my smile for the day.
Before going any further kindly define
Now tell whether these are objects or concepts
what is these space and time made of?
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?
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?
You can take your time, it's sleeping time here(12.08 am) goodnight or may be for you good morning!!
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.
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....
In other words, you have no refutation for the postulates of SR. Just say so rather than going on about something else.
"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:
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?
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.
"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?
Again, if you're unable to refute the postulates, just say so. There is no need to derail the thread with something else entirely.
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.
Yes, it is, and it has mountains of measurable evidence to support it. In fact, there is a very easy experiment anyone can conduct at home with their microwave ovens to confirm this speed.
Did you even read what you wrote? How fast are you traveling along with the light? Would it happen to be about 300,000kps?
Evidence of what? Length contracting?
You contract and dilate length or time to make speed of light a constant, neither of which is possible in real world. But in your imaginary world of mathematics may be "Child Is Father to the Man"
Evidence for the speed of light being invariant, just like I said. Please pay attention.
What does that have to do with the postulates? You are getting off track again.
Now you are the one not paying attention! Speed of anything, cannot be assessed without a properly defined distance and time(as it is m/s).
How did you measured the speed without a reference? You first determined the speed of light to be "c" then defined distance and time from that and not the other way round, which is a mistake.
I did no such thing, why are you putting words in my mouth? Is there any reason why you can't stick to just dealing with the first two postulates? I'm sure if you started a thread asking all those questions, someone might help you to understand them. Thanks.
It is just that, if you take a constant distance the speed of light changes with the observer!!!
"The speed of light has nothing to do with observers"
Kindly explain how is that possible? How speed of light is any different from the speed of anything else? How did you measure that speed without reference to the "observer"?
If you have time, what is this spacetime?
Wow! Shocking to say the least. To understand the concept of the speed of light and how it has nothing to do with observers is something that is well understood long before one tackles with grasping relativity. So, if you don't understand the permittivity and permeability of spacetime, how can you possibly grasp relativity, and even more puzzling, attempt to refute it.
"How fast are you traveling along with the light?"
May not be at present as the technology is not advanced, but what do you think, can prevent anybody or anything moving faster than light?
The answer is there. What ever the speed of light. Or travel parallel to the light, with respect to you speed is "0".
If you say No, there is no observer in the postulates, then the postulates is not your special relativity.
First postulate is Newtonian relativity and second is Newtons first law of motion, you are just plagiarizing.
One more doubt I have- The OP is Anti-Relativists. Why your relativity is only special relativity and these two postulates?
This actually a good point, because once that region becomes to small....EPIC FAIL!
"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!!
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.
“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?
Electromagnetic radiation is well understood.
Permittivity measures how an electric field (Electro) is formed and affected by the medium through which it travels, while Permeability measures how a magnetic field (magnetic) is formed and affected by the medium through which it travels, hence light is "Electromagnetic" radiation that travels through the medium of space (vacuum) which governs the speed of light as a result of Permittivity and Permeability. That is why the speed of light is the same for all observers and is independent of the observer.
In this way, no matter what speed you may be traveling, you will always measure the speed of light as c.
Do you know what a field is? Field. like wave, is a concept. It does not exist!! But light "exists"
"through the medium of space"
Space is the medium of nothing. Space is nothing hence it is not an actor, it is just the background in/on which all action takes place.
Sorry Beel, space does not confine anything, can NEVER. Space is not 'something,' it is nothing.
What is mass?
Any object that exists has matter,if it is that what you mean!
Or is it size?
Should know that no object can exist with '0' size or '0'matter.
But if you are referring to the rope hypothesis, then it is correct, light is a concept, a mere increase in frequency and shorter links of the EM rope, has no mass. Then what speed are you referring to? The medium is there which explains the constant speed of light which has nothing to do with space or time or relativity.
beyond the speed of light, that would be big bang all over again, as in penrose. remember penrose.
Just like the speed of light?
Or the massless object?(you haven't defined mass yet?)
Sorry, that you don't agree with hard evidence.
Sorry, that you haven't gone as far as to look up definitions yet. Keep going. Some day you may get around to understanding relativity. Then perhaps, if you have some disagreement with it, you can post it here.
Beel, These are the stuff the theists tell me.
Evidence of what?
Or time dilating?
"that you haven't gone as far as to look up definitions"
I was the only person who was defining anything. All you said was two postulates, and you didn't even want to consider the rest of relativity.
You do not know what is light.
You said the speed of light is a property of" Spacetime" which is totally idiotic as you are not able to tell what this space or time is. Or are you like Pierre who came to my hub to say that "time" exists, a person who can't even differentiate between an object and concept?
Evidence of the verifiable and accurate measurements of the speed of light.
Special Relativity only has two postulates.
Again, you are free to look up those definitions, I have no reason to provide them for you.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
So, can you refute the postulates, or not?
oh but beel does that too, a lot. disagreeing but having no valuable input.
Only two postulates- which you have not stated fully..
The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
These are the two assertions or postulates.
What is "proven is the speed of light is constant in vacuum, not that it is same for all observers in motion. Again the reason for that is NOT that it is a property of SPACETIME, for there is nothing called spacetime.
google rope hypothesis of Bill Gaede...
Also you haven't yet explained how an observer moving along with light and a stationary observer can see the speed of light as the same...
First of all, an observer can never move at the speed of light.
A stationary observer, let's say he is on the earth, can measure the speed of light. Another observer, lets say he's in a spaceship moving at near light speeds, can also measure the speed of light.
They will both agree the speed is c. Simple.
really? explain how I DON'T understand it . in detail please.
A lack of critical thinking skills based on a childhood religious indoctrination?
What will prevent the observer from travelling at the speed of light?
"They will both agree the speed is c. Simple."
Provided they are psychotic!!
A little indoctrination with relativity will help!!
Any observer moving along with anything else will measure the speed as '0' with respect to himself.
You made the claim that it is not so, so you explain.
You said the speed of light is a property of Space-time. You do not know what this space or time or space-time is. You stubbornly refuse to explain yourself but hanging to the two postulates, which you stated to your liking. If you are here to preach relativity its ok, you are just doing what the believers are doing, but you are doing it in an education forum, that is all!!!
The observer has mass. Only massless objects can travel at c.
Oh! Now i understood, thanks for showing me the "light".
An object with mass(whatever it is)will hit space or the curve of space hence the speed reduces!
Light a massless '0D' non-existing nothing can travel with the speed of c,but an object trying it will be hit by time, and out of sheer malice, it will make, time 'dilate'!.
With a sleight of its 'field' the wave will appear as "c" to an observer at near c speed and another observer stationary at the same time.
Everything should obey this postulates or they will be destroyed into energy or imprisoned in an event horizon, to be later annihilated by black hole(another '0D' nonexistence with a huge ego).
Now I also understood why objects thrown up comes back to earth, they get bounced by earth's horizon!!
Yes, you keep repeating silly claims over and over, to what ends, I have no idea.
Okay, he's a crank who believes light is a double helix, and he dismisses (like yourself) a host of other theories but offers no explanations (like yourself).
Ya, but the double helix is more rational that wave-particle theory, or filed theory.
Because wave and field are concepts. We are discussing about objects.
Space and time too are concepts
The property of an object never depend on concepts.
OR are you do not know what a concept and object is!
Then no amount of explanation is going to help you. Just try to understand what a concept is, what time is and what space is!
If you still think space and time is something that exists let us stop the discussion, for we are not going to understand each other, for no rational explanation will be valid with you then.
moffat's theory, speed of light is not constant.
lene hau also was able to slow down light to 38 miles per hour.
see, science is not static. it evolves too. you keep on reading us high school textbooks from 30 years ago, k? nice to have flashbacks from science classes in my old catholic school.
That is the advantage of religion, never study, never learn, be dogmatic above all REMAIN A FOOL AND IGNORANT!!
I can see that you provide personal insults because you have no understanding of what it is you're talking about, as usual.
At the very least, you could take the time to understand the concepts you are presenting, but I suspect they are just results of some google search on your part.
You are addressing me or Cecilia?
If it was to me i was not insulting Cecilia, i was generalizing all religions!!
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)
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!!)
I had no idea these people existed. Unbelievable! Thanks Hub Pages, you have opened my eyes!
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?
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?
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.
Except at the event horizon and beyond of a black hole, then all bets are off.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I won't even get into the second, because your first is such a disaster.
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.
I stated the derivative, or do you not know what a derivative is in mathematics? How can translation be perceived without motion?
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?
"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.
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..?
Quantum Gravity you say? Looks like relativity crumbles again.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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...
Since Beelzedad has not responded to my refutation, I must assume he has no response...
Maybe he's studying in an attempt to formulate a retort.
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.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 … 4061v1.pdf
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.
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.
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].
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?
he was ofcourse speaking of universal concepts, obviously talking philo.
you on the other hand are still discussing high schools science.
So, once again, no input on the OP, just insults.
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;
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 ...
Please explain the non-existence of a deity of divine nature of which creates all information based existence of life forms.
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.
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:
It's a relief I'm not the only one who saw the irony in his response to your original statement.
Let me copy that link here, because he's famous for not really reading links:
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."
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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:
Besides, special relativity is not about light, its about kinematics...Larry
And, I keep trying to explain to you that whatever refutations others are making of SR, they haven't got a shred of evidence to stand on while relativity has mountains of evidence to support it. That is a huge difference. As well, I have already explained to you the flaw in the one paper you presented.
Here is the site, show me those results so I can read it for myself:
That is why we refer to General Relativity when we look at the orbit of the earth around the sun. The earth is following a geodesic (straight line) of the suns effect on the curvature of spacetime around itself.
And of course, the flaw in your explanation is that gravity is constantly "pulling" on the earth, not just suddenly after it travels 8.3 minutes. The entire solar system is a gravitational field created by the sun, the planets, moons, etc.
Did you read this from the paper?
"Exclusion of other source effects, such as time evolution in the mean emitted photon energy, might be possible with the observation of more flares, e.g., of different AGNs at varying redshifts. Observations of a single flare cannot distinguish
the quantum-gravity scenarios considered here from modified synchrotronself- Compton mechanisms"
So far, the evidence does not show that speed of the light source will affect the speed of light.
That's nice, but this thread is about discussing the postulates of SR.
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?
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?
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...
Ah, I see now. Your motive has been revealed.
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,
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...
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?
I have no data or experimental results in which to do such a calculation. But, I suspect you just want to troll again, anyways.
Nope, just wanted to see whether or not you planned to back up your claim. Evidently not, just more Philosophy.........
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There is no big-bang, black holes, dark-matter or evolution. Going to lunch now and I will munch on that.
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
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
Yes, I understand you get your information from pop sci sites, Youtube and newspaper articles.
Keep on trolling, it's what you do best.
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.
yes laughing will definitely make you look like penrose never happened.
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.
sure...google entanglement and maybe you'll get a clue. go back to your day job, you actually shine in religion forums. (he who has only ever quoted wiki)
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.
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.
Sorry, you have no clue. I can't see how that is my fault.
And, if you noticed, I posted it less than a minute after the other post giving me ample time to research the subject in full.
No, you're the one without a single clue. and that is entirely your fault.
MOFFAT happened, PENROSE happened meaning special relativity is an incomplete theory which is why there is a quest for the theory of everything. google away, check wiki. just please be informed.
His bias might be equivalent to those of Einsteins naysayers during the original proposal of Special Relativity.
he is just basically uniformed about the development. I don't think his bias has anything to do with a resistance to the mathematics being presented. He just doesn't know, the the cone thing...as of today has been officially challenged. He will not admit it of course.
No, he was not. His theory is in regards to the very early universe. Sorry, you have no clue.
about the variability of the speed of light.
so far, your claim that i don't understand what I'm talking about is just that...a claim. no substantiation. a last ditch cop out to save face.
You've just confirmed you have no clue. Lambert Dolphin is an internet legend as a crank crackpot.
sure...he's a crackpot, just like Penrose. continue to ignore facts.
NO, that is NOT true. He is contesting the C, it is not C. Dispensing of the idea of C resolves the invisible dark matter conundrum...yes, you're right. You have NO clue.
I would send you the books, but alas I don't love you that much.
Here you go, try one of my sources instead of your pop sci and crackpot websites.
http://arxiv.org/multi?group=physics&am … ind=Search
It just reads like you take Ownership of Cornell Library. You know, sources....ahhh never mind you wouldn't understand.
Nope, not at all. Just watching you argue with Cecilia about your misunderstanding of physics, and claim sources from US University libraries as your own.
Not at all, I actually read the posts and sources provided by others, unlike some people.
In other words, you also get your information from cranks and crackpots? That would explain a lot.
Nope, I just try to give everyone the common courtesy of reading what they have to say about a subject. Imagine what close minded people originally thought about Einstein's theories.
That' entirely not true. You do nothing but troll these forums, tossing nonsense out without any explanations. Common courtesy, indeed. One need only look at your post history to confirm.
This is your opinion, which you are entitled to. It doesn't effect me either way. I'm not worried about what other people think. I've stated what I do, and you/anyone else can interpret it any way you/they like. Just because something you don't understand is unexplained, doesn't mean it's unexplainable.
Yes, we know what you do.
Please explain what it is I don't understand, oh wait, you never explain anything. Never mind.
I'm glad you speak for everyone. That's a lot less posts I have to read now.
Why is there a need to explain anything to someone who knows everything already?
saying bye to yourself already...go get your college socks and wash them. I can smell undergrad all the way here.
(you know, when you gain experience in the real world you'll understand why you're hilarious)
wow, that was illuminating. I really learned a lot seeing cornell university archives. and the word facebook on it. the fact is, it is just a university site with no actual links saying the MOFFAT's theories do not impact speed of light or relativity itself. where is it?
there are many crackpots in cornell too. I've had coffee with some of them.
Wow, I don't know how many times I have to tell you that Moffats' theories are regarding the EARLY UNIVERSE!!!
Yes, I know you can't tell the difference between crackpots and scientists.
You had coffee with them? Wow, one whopper of a tale after another.
Wow! you really are not aware of MANY THINGS. I sent you links. Did you even read them? Moffat's theories imply a variable light speed. Moffat published an article alongside Magueijo about it's implications.
besides, in water, light travels faster. so depending on the medium, it varies its speed and breaks the constant speed assigned by Einstein in 1905. 1905. that's actually more than 100 years ago. superluminal light travel is not new, Beel. So you can discredit all my sources, including me. present Moffat as only in the beginning of the universe, when clearly that implies a TON about the nature of light. The fact is, you're still displaying cluelessness in the field you purport to know sooo much about. you don't.
you don't. I'm a writer, not a physicist but I can tell hokey from pokey and your arguments are developmentally equivalent to a freshman in the physics undergraduate program in cornell. (actually that's even being generous)
I know you're actually older, so my suggestion is grow up.
So what? There isn't a shred of evidence to support his position, and until an experiment is conducted, it's just another assumption that could very well lead to a dead end.
Do you understand yet?
n = c/v
n is the index of refraction
c is the speed of light
v is the material or medium
The vacuum of space has an index if refraction of 1, while water has an index of refraction of 1.33.
In other words, when light is moving through water, it gets scattered, hence refracted.
Do you understand yet?
Try looking up group and phase velocity to clarify superluminal light.
Yes, I know of the NEC experiment conducted.
Look whose talking.
Yes, I know.
So, you're not a physicist, you know nothing about physics, but you can tell when someone doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to physics. Hilarious,
And, I'm quite positive that as a yoga teacher/photographer/mystic, you have no idea what any of the material there is about. Right?
thank you for visiting my website, do you want my resume? I have many friends in Cornell who are professors and yet they can't seem to get a gig lecturing.
I've been reading raw data since 1998 mister and simplifying them for medical specialists to understand. But that just goes to show how deficient you are in back-checking claims. Because had you looked just a little harder, you'll find why your college website is hilarious to me.
and newsflash, I NEVER EVER teach yoga. (who was it that said, if you're still using your university to assert your credibility at 35, you're a loser.)
and it is not just in the early universe..mister, get a clue:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h8v714325165521j/ Oh I'm sorry...this isn't wiki, but its what up to date people read.
Yet, another book you have never read.
You just don't get it, Moffat was talking about the early universe.
No you don't get it. Since ten years ago when it was first introduced. Much discussion has already taken place. You see, you are the one who are not reading ANY new books.
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.
Please point out where I made that claim or apologize for lying.
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.
No, you're missing the point, you need to apologize for making up stuff you claimed I said. I'm waiting.
The entire scientific community knows for a fact he is a nutter simple because he has no idea what he's talking about.
Whether they are or not does not mean you have any understanding of those concepts, which you have made quite evident here that you do not.
Dolphin is mainstream crank crackpot, which you have used as a source, showing that you have no clue about science.
I totally understand you have no idea what they're talking about.
LOL! Unlike yourself, I read peer reviewed journals and papers while you get your information from crackpots like Dolphin.
Why would anyone mention Moffat when his ideas have nothing to do with the OP?
Cor, I wish I knew what you lot were talking about. Sounds amazing! Quite sexy actually...
"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?)
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.
Speed of gravity. Haven't heard that one before. I must really be out of it. Have to give that one some thought.
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.
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.
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...
Besides, special relativity is not about light, its about kinematics...Larry
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...
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We? As in "we" trolls?
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?
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.
But, the question is how long are you going to continue fabricating lies and trolling?
I haven't fabricated any lies or "trolling", but if continuously stating that makes you feel better keep it up.
"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?
Thanks for destroying yet another thread here. Learning and understanding get another kick in the head. Well done.
You maliciously attack people with blanket statements, and resort to name calling, yet I am responsible for destroying the thread?
Again with the blame, will you ever take responsibility for your actions?
"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?
"In Science, there are rational and irrational theories." Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter - rational or irrational?
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...
Great hub! Great Qs!
by jomine5 years ago
Suppose a light ray travelling near a black hole, which has so much gravity that the escape velocity is twice the speed of light, got caught in its gravitational field. Will the light travel at the speed of light...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
I have heard many times that one reason the "inflation theory" has been challenged is the argument that is if it were true then the expansion would have to happened at a speed faster than light, in violation...
by Mishael Austin Witty2 years ago
What is the speed of dark?My husband found this question in his fortune cookie tonight. Neither one of us knew how to answer it. And we certainly didn't know how it related to fortune. So, I thought it might be...
by mbuggieh4 years ago
ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA: "In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. In string theory, the...
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
on the religion forum I was describing what I thought was quantum physics...that the universe is accelerating and expanding in a spiral. Is that quantum or something else or combination of things...?
by Money Fairy5 years ago
Do you know anything about quantum physics?You had mentioned something about physics in another persons hub. So I thought you may know something about quantum physics. If you do I'd love to ask you some more probing...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.