Is relativity science?

[LifeIsBrief]

"there is no experiment a person could conduct in a small volume of space that would distinguish between a gravitational field and an equivalent uniform acceleration'' Albert Einstein

 

So... About ten years ago, while reading the theory of special relativity, I became struck by a thought experiment, in which Einstein claimed that no one could tell the difference between falling to earth, or the earth rising to meet them.  Which made me instantly think, "Well... couldn't the earth, and indeed all matter just be expanding at a uniform speed, and wouldn't that look like gravity?  Could mass simply be expanding like a bubble at the bottom of the ocean, as a natural reaction to the vacuum of space, creating gravity as a pure illusion?".  Then I immediately responded to myself "Of course not", and tried to come up with tangible proof. 

 

For a couple years, every month or so, I would randomly think about this for a few hours, trying to prove that the concept was insane, and instead, I came up with a testable hypothesis.  The ether, as something that possibly exists, or the concept, that the sun could be expanding so fast, that it literally pushes us away from it as fast as it gets bigger, make this idea incredibly difficult to imagine testing... but I eventually settled on something fascinating.  The moon should be getting smaller.  The earth is not hot enough to propel the moon away from it, at a speed that would allow it to appear the same size.  Why?  The moon has far less particles of matter, than the earth, so... If matter is constantly expanding, the moon should appear to shrink.

 

I came up with this idea, before we found out, that the moon... Is actually shrinking (in appearance at least).  I came up with it, in my bedroom, while a laborer for a warehouse though, so when science proved that I was correct... No one really cared, or thought of me.  I do not, question the math of relativity, I question the philosophy of relativity.  The philosophy, that led to moral relativism, that there is no way of knowing or testing, this particular aspect of his theory.  How can it be science then?

 

Stefan, randomly mentioned relativity in a list of scientific discoveries, and I immediately laughed because I thought "I already disproved relativity, just... no one knows it yet. That's not science".  This is not me saying "look at how brilliant and great I am"... quite the opposite.  Am I missing something obvious?  It's much more likely that a goofy, overconfident, laborer such as myself, is just ignorant, than that Einstein was wrong, however, he was a patent clerk.  Can someone prove to me, that I am wrong, and that gravity is a force, rather than the natural expansion of mass into a vacuum, or the ether?

 

Since they proved the only testable aspect of my hypothesis, before I had proposed it in official channels, there is no way I will ever get credit for it.  It is perfectly natural to assume that I'm just lying about the timing... but, imagine I'm not, and prove me wrong.  Please, it will help me sleep once a month.  Thanks in advance.

 

 

[Wuzzums]

I do not, question the math of relativity, I question the philosophy of relativity.  The philosophy, that led to moral relativism, that there is no way of knowing or testing, this particular aspect of his theory.  How can it be science then?

 

The theory of relativity has no bearing on moral relativism other than the word. The theory of relativity doesn't state that everything is relative, it actually contradicts it somewhat because it shows that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Everything may be relative to the speed of light, but the speed of light isn't relative to anything.

 

As for your theory of gravity. If all matter is expanding, then it means that The Moon should be expanding as much as the Earth, and if all matter is expanding (emphasis on matter) it should mean that the space between bodies of matter should shrink thus making the Moon look bigger. We do know however that space is expanding, how does your theory factor that in?

 

You also said that the Earth isn't hot enough to propel the Moon... what does that mean? Why is temperature needed to propel an object?

[Guest darkskyabove]

For moral relativism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

 

It has been around for thousands of years. Einstein's theory is totally unrelated.

 

For gravitation as a force, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

 

Relativity predicts the effects of gravity are not caused by a force, but by the bending of space-time. That is not the final word, as quantum theorists are at work trying to resolve the issue. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

[LifeIsBrief]

It's not so much that relativity created relativism, but it did, almost claim to prove it.  There's another thought experiment in relativity, which explains that if you were to move away from a clock at light speed, it would stop, and if you moved at faster than light speed it would move backwards... Einstein suggested that this actually means you're going back in time... That's insane, because of geometry.  Yes, if you moved away, at faster than the speed of light, a clock would appear to move backwards, but if you then switched directions, and moved back towards the clock at faster than light speed, time would appear lurch forward at insane speeds.  So, you could never reach the past, only view it by passing old light.  The idea that so many people accept his perception is reality argument, drives me nuts... despite the fact I may simply be making an error that I can't understand.

 

As to the shrinking moon.  One of the problems with my theory, is that it's a bit complex, and I might just be an ignorant laborer, but... here goes nothing.  When a nuclear bomb explodes on earth, there is a blast wave... All of the air, surrounding the explosion, is pushed towards you at an insane speed.... Why isn't the sun doing that to us?  What if the earth, is simply rolling on the edge of a continuous blast wave?  So the sun expands in a sphere, and constantly pushes everything away from it at a constant speed, this wave is most intense in a straight line, so it is constantly propelling the earth to roll along its edge. 

 

I assume, now you're thinking... Well, but there's no air, between the sun, and the earth, so there is nothing pushing us away from it... That's where the ether can come into play in two ways.  One, the vacuum of space could be a material, the ether, and mass, could be a wave.  So, the reason things travel faster in what we call a "vacuum" is actually because waves travel faster through a dense material.  This was proposed by Tesla, by the way, not me, though he never thought that all mass was expanding, from what I can tell.  As the earth expands, the moon rolls along the ether we push away, but as we have more mass, than it, we expand faster, and relative to us, the moon should start to look smaller.  That doesn't explain everything though, because, as you suggested, it sounds like it should appear bigger, but be smaller.

 

Enter, expanding magnetic fields, which propel one object away from another.  So it's not a blast wave, or "heat", but an expanding repellant magnetic field which coincides with expanding mass.  Our field, being weaker than the sun, pushes the moon away slower, than the sun pushes us both away, so our relative changes in size become evident slowly over time and the moon looks smaller, rather than larger.  All planets and stars, propel one another away with the ether, as a material medium which magnetic fields pass through.

 

I like this idea, but I need to come up with predictive equations for it, and now that we already know the moon is shrinking, it would be very difficult to make an impressive mathematical prediction. If you start with the data, then create the equation, that's statistics, not science.

 

What do I find interesting about this theory?  Well, if matter has always constantly expanded into the ether... then, there is no reason to suggest it couldn't possibly divide, like a cell.  If this is the case, you get to a very interesting conclusion... If ever a particle of matter existed, then the existence of the entire universe, multiverse even, becomes a consequence.  I don't think Einstein, or anyone else liked this idea, because it comes so close to "You don't need god, for the universe to exist", and almost everyone at the time, including Einstein, was deeply religious.

 

Now, in my mind, "Why did a single particle of matter ever exist?" is still an interesting question, which you could go into a metaphysical reason for... but you don't really need one, reality just happens to exist, and the only reason we think that's special, is because we're here to notice. What else does this theory predict with remarkable accuracy, which nothing else can?  Why does it continue to haunt me?

 

Well... It explains why our mathematical model for entropy, is not consistent. In other words, why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and everything does not appear to get colder... which leads me to my final theory... Matter reproduces, at light speed.  Every particle of matter grows and bonds, creating heat through friction, and when enough matter comes together, by simply expanding and bumping in to one another, the heat becomes so intense, that a single particle eventually reaches light speed, and it doesn't travel through time... It creates a new dimension of time.  Black holes, are big bangs.  Every star is trying to create a universe.

 

We are all star dust.  We love to grow, bond, heat up, and reproduce... This isn't a coincidence.  I mostly just think the idea is sexy as hell, but it makes a strange type of logical sense.  Proves that god is an unnecessary hypothesis, and creates immortality.  When you die... eventually the earth merges with the sun, and if our sun doesn't become a black hole/big bang, eventually it will merge with another... Either way, our matter will one day pass into an entirely new universe. Our consciousness will likely be shattered upon death, in fact, I hope it is, because millions of years as a particle sounds boring as hell, but it does create a permanent self creating multiverse... and that's pretty freakin' cool.  It's probably just my dumb theory though.

The other reason I love this theory, is that in our current model of the world, gravity is a pull force, which makes very little sense to me, and most scientists... If the gravitron existed, it hits something, and creates the reverse, of the effect, of hitting something.  That seems very unlikely.  If however, mass is expanding, gravity makes perfect sense, things bump into one another, without a force.

[Lians]

As to the shrinking moon.  One of the problems with my theory, is that it's a bit complex, and I might just be an ignorant laborer, but... here goes nothing.  When a nuclear bomb explodes on earth, there is a blast wave... All of the air, surrounding the explosion, is pushed towards you at an insane speed.... Why isn't the sun doing that to us?  What if the earth, is simply rolling on the edge of a continuous blast wave?  So the sun expands in a sphere, and constantly pushes everything away from it at a constant speed, this wave is most intense in a straight line, so it is constantly propelling the earth to roll along its edge. 

 

I think you're not clear about the difference between mechanical and electromagnetic waves. They're not analogous and behave quite differently. Light is an electromagnetic field, while a blast wave (sound, wind etc.) is a mechanical wave. Electromagnetic waves are absorbed and re-emitted by particles. The EM waves exist in an electromagnetic field which is very different from vacuum. Mechanical waves are the result of oscillating particles/matter.

 

Have you considered posting your theory in a physics forum? I think you'll get better feedback there.

 

EDIT: Have you looked at this page?

[TheRobin]

The main difference between science and pure philosophy is that science makes quantitative claims. So far your theory seems to only consist of the idea itself.If you'd work it out into something that can be represented as a mathematical formula, then you could easily test it and see of it works or not. "Prediction" in that sense doesn't mean predicting something like the moon shrinking before it happened but describing exactly how that's gonna happen in numerical terms and then compare that exact numerical prediction against reality.When Newteon came up with the theory of gravity, everyone already knew that apples fall to the ground, but he could predict, how fast and how long it takes them to land etc. (well among other things).@Lians: I'm pretty sure EM waves don't travel in an electromagnetic field. an EM field isn't a medium for EM waves, but more a visualization of force-vectors from electrically charged particles

[LifeIsBrief]

I've goofed off in physics forums before, but once I suggest that the fundamental flaw in relativity, is that it says perception is reality, the trolls just yell at me for being wrong... Then they proceed to explain, relativity, in numerous different ways, all of which, fundamentally suggest that perception is reality. "Well if the light stops moving, time stopped, because otherwise how can you measure time?".  To which I suggest, "Well, you could count in your head.  Time is an consequence of consciousness, it's just our way of measuring movement"... "No, that's nonsense, space time is a thing, it's curved, and it stops existing for other people when you move at light speed."... I mean, really, how do you respond to "scientists" who say that?

 

I dare not bring up the ether, despite the fact that Tesla was way smarter than Einstein, because it's settled law that it was nonsense.  Of course, if you look at the experiment which proves that the ether is nonsense, you realize that it's fundamentally based on the idea that perception is reality.  Hertz conducted the experiment, using the false assumption that the spinning earth, was moving faster than the air within it.  Hertz, Einstein, and Tesla all believed in the ether at the end of their lives, but Einstein simply thought it was impossible to test for, and that has become, standard physics "It either doesn't exist, or is impossible to test for, and anything else is pseudo science"

 

In essence, I'm positing that electromagnetic waves act strangely in the ether, and that they are actually propelling us away from the sun, at a speed, which makes the constantly expanding sun appear to remain a constant size.  Might be a bit crazy.  I just thought some predominantly atheist anarchists, might be more open minded than a traditional physics forum.  Also, I do think that E equals mc squared... Lots of what relativity predicts, is true.  The math is good, but the thought experiments that try to prove time travel, and all sorts of ridiculous nonsense... I think they're rotting scientific brains.  Einstein spends a lot of time trying to prove to you that causality doesn't matter. That why gravity exists, and what exactly it is, is inconsequential to his wonderful math.  Again, it just irks me.

 

Also, if matter was a constantly expanding sphere, it explains quantum probabilities.  If you shoot a photon, at something that's constantly growing, and spherical, you're going to get probabilistic results.  If everything was maintaining a constant size, you theoretically should be able to hit it in a specific location, and predict the response.  Finally... doesn't constant expansion of matter sound like a pretty good explanation, of why e equals mc squared?  If matter is just sitting there, having the energy to blow up a chunk of the planet, just doesn't make much sense... to me.

 

@TheRobin Yeah... the real problem with my theory, is that I'm not trying to change the math... I'm trying to prove that Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, and a shitty philosopher.  He literally suggests that we'll never be able to prove the causality of his math, and everyone just accepts that as gospel  The formulas have almost nothing to do with his very strange explanations of them, especially in relation to time travel.  He got the math right though, so he has, in essence, made it impossible to prove him wrong.  He who makes the math, gets to write the philosophy of why the math works.

[Wuzzums]

You're throwing baseless claims. You say the theory of relativity is wrong yet offer no proof, just some "thought experiments" which in science equal to zero. Thought experiments are a way to explain a theory, NOT to prove it. You ignore several major aspects of physics, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or the blue/red shift, and so on. And when faced with evidence to the contrary of your theory you retort to saying "no, no, I'm not saying relativity is wrong, I'm saying that Einstein was wrong!". There's a latin name to that kind of argument. And if there's a latin name for it, then you can be certain it's nonsense.

 

You also fail to realize how science works. In order for a new theory to replace another it has to explain EVERYTHING the previous theory explains PLUS something new. Yours fails on all accounts. I have no idea what your purpose is here. Are you trying to show us how clever you are (because you keep constantly implying you outsmarted famous geniuses)? Or are you trying to prove your theory? Because saying someone else was wrong doesn't mean you are right.

[ribuck]

There's another thought experiment in relativity, which explains that if you were to move away from a clock at light speed, it would stop, and if you moved at faster than light speed it would move backwards... Einstein suggested that this actually means you're going back in time... That's insane, because of geometry.  Yes, if you moved away, at faster than the speed of light, a clock would appear to move backwards, but if you then switched directions, and moved back towards the clock at faster than light speed, time would appear lurch forward at insane speeds.  So, you could never reach the past, only view it by passing old light.  The idea that so many people accept his perception is reality argument, drives me nuts... despite the fact I may simply be making an error that I can't understand.

 

Whoa there. I applaud your curiosity and original thinking, but you need to understand the theory of relativity if you are going to criticize it.

 

What you describe is actually a thought experiment grounded in Newtonian (i.e. pre-Einstein) physics. Your thought experiment, as you described it, relates purely to the visual perception of the clock face and has nothing to do with time itself.

 

Einstein's theories (which are 100% mathematics and 0% thought experiments) are simply equations that accurately describe experimental observations, and which have also been shown to have predictive power for future experiments.

 

Elsewhere, you mentioned "ether" (a framework of measurement through which light travels). However, experiments from the 1800s have repeatedly demonstrated that there is no ether. Furthermore, experimental observations show that light (in a vacuum) always moves away from a source at the "speed of light" (approx. 300,000 km/second), and always arrives towards an observer at the same "speed of light", even if the source and observer are moving towards or away from each other!

 

This is a truly remarkable observation. At "everyday" speeds, Newtonian physics is a good-enough approximation, but Newton's laws simply don't describe what happens at higher speeds. Suppose you are on the moon and you shine a light towards a spaceship that is moving away from you at 200,000 km/s. The light moves away from you at 300,000 km/s, so Newton's laws say that the light will approach the spaceship at 100,000 km/s (as seen from the spaceship). But this is not what happens: the light meets the rapidly-moving spaceship at 300,000 km/s.

 

Einstein discovered (i.e. worked out) a set of equations that described the observed behavior. His equations show changes in time and distance at high relative speed, and also the equivalence of mass and energy (the famous E=mc² equation). These ideas, although mind-blowing, turned out to accurately reflect large-scale phenomena. His later work, the General Theory of relativity, extended the math to cover all types of accelleration including acceleration due to gravity.

 

I encourage you to read more about the theory of relativity. At the very least, you need to understand what relativity says about acceleration and clocks before you dismiss it. It's not productive for you to be criticizing relativity based on a misunderstanding of it.

 

A great place to start is the Relativity FAQ, which is written in very approachable language.

[LifeIsBrief]

I don't think I'm making baseless claims.  I offer evidence.  The moon is shrinking.  Our mathematical models for entropy are falling apart, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down.  The Hertz experiment, is known to be faulty now, Tesla, Hertz, and Einstein, all agreed to it being a false positive...  And the thought experiments that Einstein uses to explain why relativity works, have some fundamental philosophical problems, not mathematical problems.

 

In each one, a fundamental claim is that an objective reality, does not exist.  That reality, not perception are different for people in different locations.  I find it incredibly difficult to understand how a theory which accepts that there is no objective reality, can be called science.  Isn't the basic assumption of science that there is an objective reality which you can test?

 

I think it's exactly as likely that I'm stupid and missing something, as that anyone else is.  I definitely did not claim to outsmart Tesla, in fact, most of this theory came from reading his critique of Einstein.  The only new theory I propose, is that mass is constantly expanding, and we'll never find the graviton.  I'm trying to find a way to prove or disprove this, and in order to collect my thoughts, I need to write them down, and let them be attacked.  All three geniuses I mention, believed in the ether until the day they died, it's modern physicists who are claiming they're idiots, not me.  This does give me a bit of distaste for modern physics forums though, and thus I did, give them a bit of a dressing down, which was arrogant.

 

The lack of a graviton... isn't going to be proven, because you can't prove a negative.  I need something more concrete.  As people attack my idea, maybe I'll be able to complete it, and come up with a testable prediction.

 

Edit:  I should probably mention at this point, that I enjoy writing... So yeah things like "matter is reproducing at the speed of light", and the idea being "sexy", are mostly flavor text.  It's interesting nonsense.

[RestoringGuy]

In each one, a fundamental claim is that an objective reality, does not exist.  That reality, not perception are different for people in different locations.  I find it incredibly difficult to understand how a theory which accepts that there is no objective reality, can be called science.  Isn't the basic assumption of science that there is an objective reality which you can test?

You should study quantum mechanics, because that is where the idea of "objective reality" is questioned.  Relativity does not deny objective reality.  Einstein defended objective reality.  I think Orch-OR or something remotely like it, will allow quantum theory and relativity to co-exist while preserving objective reality.  It is a difficult task to scientifically have it all.  But unless you are a cosmologist, worries about relativity are the least of our concerns.  Although I really like your idea about expanding mass and lack of any need for gravitons.

[LifeIsBrief]

"Furthermore, experimental observations show that light (in a vacuum) always moves away from a source at the "speed of light" (approx. 300,000 km/second), and always arrives towards an observer at the same "speed of light", even if the source and observer are moving towards or away from each other!

 

 

This is a truly remarkable observation. At "everyday" speeds, Newtonian physics is a good-enough approximation, but Newton's laws simply don't describe what happens at higher speeds. Suppose you are on the moon and you shine a light towards a spaceship that is moving away from you at 200,000 km/s. The light moves away from you at 300,000 km/s, so Newton's laws say that the light will approach the spaceship at 100,000 km/s (as seen from the spaceship). But this is not what happens: the light meets the rapidly-moving spaceship at 300,000 km/s."

 

I should have actually re read both papers before I wrote this, it's been a few years.  What do you mean by it meets the rapidly moving spaceship at 300?  Do you mean that It's still going 300 when it hits you because the speed is constant?  Or do you mean that the time it takes to get to the spaceship, is as if the light was moving 500?  Yes, when you see light, it's going to move the same speed it always does... but is the travel time changed? 

 

If the travel time is changed, could the expansion of the earth, be the reason... We're moving at an insane speed towards the space ship...  I'm not certain I'm correct... In essence, I actually think I have to be wrong, because so many brilliant people are sold on this idea, but I really want someone to convince me, and for some reason it's not "clicking" in my brain.

 

PS... I'm actually going to go re read both theories, so I make slightly less baseless claims based on my fuzzy memory tomorrow.

[ribuck]

What do you mean by it meets the rapidly moving spaceship at 300?  Do you mean that It's still going 300 when it hits you because the speed is constant?  Or do you mean that the time it takes to get to the spaceship, is as if the light was moving 500?

 

You're still looking at this in a Newtonian way. In the Einstinian way, which agrees with experimentation, the measured speed is 300 for the guy shining the light AND simultaneously for the guy in the spaceship who is seeing the light. When the guy in the spaceship accellerated (relative to the guy on the moon), his time slowed down and his ruler got shorter, so that he sees the light moving 300 of his measuring units in each of his seconds, and so does the guy on the moon who is shining the light. We can reliably measure time dilation and length shortening in the lab and outside it too.

 

There's no way I can explain relativity in sufficient detail within a forum post, but you absolutely need to understand the theory of relativity before you can criticize it.

[Lians]

@Lians: I'm pretty sure EM waves don't travel in an electromagnetic field. an EM field isn't a medium for EM waves, but more a visualization of force-vectors from electrically charged particles

 

You're right. An EM wave is a particular configuration of electromagnetic fields. However, this definition isn't particularly helpful for someone who mixes EM and mechanical waves.

LifeIsBrief, scientific knowledge is knowledge that is validated by experiments. The word science is merely a description for the existing body of scientific knowledge. For a theory to be considered scientific, it has to explain existing phenomena and make falsifiable predictions about reality. The second part is what's important. You verify these predictions through experiments. If the experiments confirm the predictions, you've got yourself a scientific theory. Your theory lacks these qualities. For you to challenge both general and special relativity, it would require that you show how the existing experimental data is wrong or point to a prediction of relativity that is different from reality. That's all. You're not doing either of those things. That's why your posts attracted trolls. I suggest you look into the experimental data supporting both general and special relativity.

[LifeIsBrief]

I'm actually re reading right now... but, doesn't the concept, that two people can have different perspectives, of the same event, and both be right... fundamentally attack the basic assumption of science that there is an objective testable reality?

 

That's the part that drives me nuts, it's not the math, it's the philosophical underpinning.  That said, I'm hoping that by fighting with trolls and defending my concepts, I will eventually come up with a mathematical and scientific theory, that does have predictive falsifiable results. 

 

Interestingly enough, no one is claiming that the new particle accelerator has seen a graviton yet... Which obviously proves nothing, but if they had discovered the graviton, I would no longer have anything whatsoever to look for, and my theory would completely collapse. So there is a way which it can be falsified, but I have yet to come up with a good theory for how it could be verified.  It is currently useless.  I may not have made this clear, but when I laughed at Stefan for calling relativity science, I was laughing at myself, knowing that I hadn't really proven anything yet and I was just being arrogant.  I simply had one piece of data, the moon shrinking, which I had predicted, and gave me a sense that it was theoretically possible, that I might not be an ignorant laborer who's full of shit, on this particular matter at least : p

 

While the experimental data supporting relativity is pretty strong, so is the evidence that numerous particles exceed light speed, which should be impossible.  Einstein himself suggested that if anything went faster than light speed, something was wrong.  That something, may have nothing to do with my weird "universal matter expansion theory" however.  If I made it sound like I think I'm awesome and know everything, it was simply because it's fun to write that way, and it opens you up to the most vicious types of criticism.  In it's own way, that's kind of fun, and encourages you to think on your feet.  In no way am I trying to discount any of your intellects, or the scientists I'm challenging.

[Lians]

If the topic excites you, I think you should keep pursuing it. Make sure you maintain some rigour though. You won't get a lot of vicious criticism from this forum. We're gentle folk around here.

[Pepin]

I'm actually re reading right now... but, doesn't the concept, that two people can have different perspectives, of the same event, and both be right... fundamentally attack the basic assumption of science that there is an objective testable reality?

 

No, it just makes simultaneity at very small time frames or extremely fast velocities confusing to deal with, which is something only physicists deal with.

 

To make another point, verifying an objective theory through empirical testing cannot invalidate that there is an objective testable reality. It would be like producing a mathematical proof that proves that math is invalid.

[LifeIsBrief]

That's kind of my point though...  If one person says 2 + 2 = 4... Another person says 2 + 2 = 5... and then a mathematician comes along and writes a proof, suggesting that they are both right, and everyone believes him/her... Hasn't he just destroyed/invalidated the concept of math?

 

If two people have different perspectives of the same event... one of them is correct, or both perspectives are flawed, but doesn't all math, and all science suggest, that there is a correct answer?

[LuckyNumber23]

In essence, I'm positing that electromagnetic waves act strangely in the ether, and that they are actually propelling us away from the sun, at a speed, which makes the constantly expanding sun appear to remain a constant size.

 

The 19th century just called and wanted its Ether back. 

I'm actually re reading right now... but, doesn't the concept, that two people can have different perspectives, of the same event, and both be right... fundamentally attack the basic assumption of science that there is an objective testable reality?

 

This was exactly Einstein's point. It depends on the position relative to the event. Scientific theory is not about testing reality, it is about the demarkation between science and bullshit. See Popper's Conjectures and Refutation for a concise argument.

[LifeIsBrief]

The 19th century just called and wanted its Ether back.

 

Hey... You're mean, and your accusations are completely devoid of evidence... Early 20th century

 

I am self aware enough to realize that I'm, in essence, trying to armchair quarterback the infinite nature of reality... So I don't expect to be taken too seriously.

[ribuck]

...doesn't the concept, that two people can have different perspectives, of the same event, and both be right... fundamentally attack the basic assumption of science that there is an objective testable reality?

 

The assumption of science is not attacked. In this example, the "objective testable reality" is that the speed of light in a vacuum relative to the observer is always the same.

 

 

...While the experimental data supporting relativity is pretty strong, so is the evidence that numerous particles exceed light speed...

 

Source, please! There was one experiment recently that seemed to suggest faster-than-light neutrinos, until they discovered a loose electrical connector. An electrical reflection from the end of the connector was affecting the timing, and it turned out that the neutrinos had not exceeded light speed after all.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Hey... You're mean, and your accusations are completely devoid of evidence... Early 20th century

 

I am self aware enough to realize that I'm, in essence, trying to armchair quarterback the infinite nature of reality... So I don't expect to be taken too seriously.

 

Actually, your assertions are "completely devoid of evidence", and you are skirting the line into being a troll, regardless of the, potentially, falsely derived, self-deprecation. Your posts up to this point have shown no indication of not "expect[ing] to be taken too seriously." Suddenly, when confronted with easily verifiable errors in your presentation, you revert to a pseudo-humbilism. Yet, you manage to insert a transparent insult to a legitamite rebuttal. Fair warning.

[LifeIsBrief]

I apologize if it appeared as an insult... I thought I was being funny.  Tone is very difficult to impart in text.  I don't see easily verifiable errors in my theory that the graviton doesn't exist, and it's possible mass is expanding.  The stuff about the ether is noticeably weirder, but it was what Tesla, Einstein, and Hertz all died believing in, leaving me confused as to why it's so thoroughly discounted as 19th century nonsense.  I do recognize however, that it is thus discounted, by all major physicists.  Relativity still seems to suggest that perception is reality to me, but maybe I'll just never get it.

 

I think of forum posting as a fun way to start interesting conversations, and have my ideas attacked by people who have no emotional investment in whether or not I'm correct.  All over this thread I mention that I'm a laborer, and I might just be missing something.  It's not "clicking" in my brain etc...  Interestingly enough, this led me to a testable idea I need to research, the "gravity crunch"... Which if it can be observed, may thoroughly put my theory in the rubbish bin.

 

As far as evidence that things move faster than light, I was thinking about the neutrino's and quantum entanglement.  Or as Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". These issues however, are definitely above my pay grade, I just hoped that because of this some other amateur armchair scientists may have been able to set me straight, because it really is something I waste a few hours a month playing with.

[Guest darkskyabove]

And so it continues...

 

@LifeIsBrief: How about doing the simple thing: "GOOGLE IT." Do your research. If you expect consideration of an alternate view, prove that you understand the current view, then propose something rational.

[LifeIsBrief]

Yeah... because I wrote all of these responses and never thought "Google".  I didn't just spend the day reading research papers arguing both sides of the point... and listening to a lecture on general relativity at Stanford... And, obviously we've already dropped a large enough object to earth with sensors measuring structural integrity to prove gravitational crunch.

[pretzelogik]

Einstein and relativity are absolutely and undeniably correct, although the equations and phenomena are beyond most people's cabability of understanding or experiencing directly.

 

Not to worry, sanctioned and well-qualified experts are sorting this complicated stuff out and will deliver their writs as soon as their complicated, inacessible and incredibly expensive and impratical experiments are verified by other sanctioned and well-qualified experts.

[LifeIsBrief]

I definitely can't spend another day goofing off on science forums and reading papers... but it was fun.

 

"Not to worry, sanctioned and well-qualified experts are sorting this complicated stuff out and will deliver their writs as soon as their complicated, inacessible and incredibly expensive and impratical experiments are verified by other sanctioned and well-qualified experts."

 

Have you seen the modern university system?  I know it may seem tangential, but the reason I thought this might be an interesting subject on this particular forum is because the government so lionized Einstein, and I assume lots of people here think/know that government funded school systems don't necessarily have your best interest at heart.  I know, it's a bit paranoid, and maybe I'm just a Tesla fan boy, giving me a confirmation bias.  If I had to bet money though... until anarcho capitalism is instituted, we're never going to invent anything that doesn't help the government control you again.

 

Anything you can stare at while they steal your money, anything that can read your mind, anything that can encourage you to spend less time with friends and family, anything that you'll want to carry around with you and tells everyone exactly where you are on the surface of the earth, and anything that convinces you of moral relativism...  That stuff is going to keep progressing. We forgot how to build rockets that test complex theories in space though.  Meh... What you gonna do?  There's definitely a 99% chance I'm wrong on this, but I really wish I'd be convinced of that last 1%, save me that few hours of staring into space every month.  Peace, love, non aggression, all that, today I have to go lift heavy things.

[RestoringGuy]

Einstein and relativity are absolutely and undeniably correct, although the equations and phenomena are beyond most people's cabability of understanding or experiencing directly.

 

Not to worry, sanctioned and well-qualified experts are sorting this complicated stuff out and will deliver their writs as soon as their complicated, inacessible and incredibly expensive and impratical experiments are verified by other sanctioned and well-qualified experts.

Good one.  I like it.  More seriously, while relativity is basically solid, it seems impossible to mathematically disconnect it from some uncertainty at small scales.  General relativity tensors describe the curvature of space based on where mass is located and its speed.  But the joint location and momentum is uncertain based on quantum mechanics, so the curvature must become similarly uncertain.This is where I think objective reduction theories come into play.  Suppose there is entanglement that leads to bifurcation in curvature of space. The need for other wavefunctions to follow that curvature implies they carry out a basic act of measurement.  Increasingly heavy objects curve space more, making their outside environment a faster and more accurate measuring tool.  Consequently there is no absolute need to pick between objective reality and statistical physics.  You can have both, if you credit general relativity as the hidden cause of collapse instead of crediting human perception.  This idea also has not been proven, but if it turns out to work, it completely stops the loopholes and constant annoyance of relativistic reality being called fake and/or bound by the limits of human perception.

[pretzelogik]

What is space, exactly?  Until recently, I understood it to be a vacuum,i.e.a void, as opposed to an object, which could properly be described as curved.  How can nothing be curved?

 

As far as time goes, how can a unit of measurement become dilated?  If an inch becomes dilated, it is no longer an inch.  If the object being measured is dilated, one would not redifine the unit of measure in terms of dilated object.

 

More importantly, can anyone explain their personal experience of relativity?  Can anyone give me an example of how I can personally experience curved space, time dilation or any other phenomenon of Einsteinian physics that does not require blind acceptance of the opinions of those in advamced positions of the intellectual heirarchy? 

[ribuck]

...  Can anyone give me an example of how I can personally experience curved space, time dilation or any other phenomenon of Einsteinian physics that does not require blind acceptance of the opinions of those in advamced positions of the intellectual heirarchy? 

 

The relativistic effects have equations with denominators of c² (where c is the speed of light, so c² is a very large denominator). Therefore, we don't notice relativistic effects in our ordinary lives, where speeds are very slow compared to light. But it's certainly possible for an ordinary person to measure relativistic effects.

 

You can measure the speed of light very accurately with ordinary lab equipment (one way uses an oscilloscope). By verifying that the speed of light doesn't vary with direction of movement (e.g. when the earth is moving in different directions through space) you can demonstrate to yourself that there is no universal frame of reference ("ether").

 

You can borrow two precision clocks, and take one of them on a round-the-world plane journey. It will come back running around 200 nanoseconds slow compared to the one that you kept in the same place. This is the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was first carried out in 1971.

 

If you are a programmer, you can obtain an open source GPS receiver. Comment-out the lines that apply the relativistic correction factors (due to acceleration of the GPS satellites). Re-install the firmware, and the GPS readings will not be correct. Put back the relativistic corrections, and the GPS readings are correct.

 

The first two experiments require you to hire or borrow a piece of lab equipment, and the second requires you to buy a circuit board and download some software, but by doing these experiments you absolutely can verify for yourself the existence of time dilation and the absence of an ether.

[Hannibal]

What is space, exactly?  Until recently, I understood it to be a vacuum,i.e.a void, as opposed to an object, which could properly be described as curved.  How can nothing be curved?

 

How can "nothing" be curved?   I might ask you how "nothing" can be linear?  yet you assume that things should move through space-time in a "straight line". 

 

 

 

As far as time goes, how can a unit of measurement become dilated?  If an inch becomes dilated, it is no longer an inch.  If the object being measured is dilated, one would not redifine the unit of measure in terms of dilated object.

 

Dilated, relative to an observer in an inertial frame of reference.

 

 

 

More importantly, can anyone explain their personal experience of relativity?  Can anyone give me an example of how I can personally experience curved space, time dilation or any other phenomenon of Einsteinian physics that does not require blind acceptance of the opinions of those in advamced positions of the intellectual heirarchy? 

 

Sure - every time I use my SatNav. The GPS satellites which it uses are constantly keeping their clocks synchronised with each other, using complicated mathematical algorithms, in order to compensate for relativistic time dilation effects due to their relative velocities & gravitational effects. Without the constant compensation, my SatNav would be out by miles within a few hours.

[Pepin]

More importantly, can anyone explain their personal experience of relativity?  Can anyone give me an example of how I can personally experience curved space, time dilation or any other phenomenon of Einsteinian physics that does not require blind acceptance of the opinions of those in advamced positions of the intellectual heirarchy? 

 

GPS systems are based on relativity. If they didn't account for it, the inaccuracy would be large enough to make them nonfunctional.

 

Magnetism is a result of special relativity and its accuracy has been verified to a stunning degree.

 

I'm not liking the language in the last sentence, it is really frustrating for me to read. There are plenty of books, lectures, and videos that explain physics including special and general relativity. I'm not going to suggest that any sort of an explanation on a forum is going to help because these are subjects you have to study to understand, and with special relativity, you need a strong understanding on classical mechanics.

[pretzelogik]

The relativistic effects have equations with denominators of c² (where c is the speed of light, so c² is a very large denominator). Therefore, we don't notice relativistic effects in our ordinary lives, where speeds are very slow compared to light. But it's certainly possible for an ordinary person to measure relativistic effects.

 

You can measure the speed of light very accurately with ordinary lab equipment (one way uses an oscilloscope). By verifying that the speed of light doesn't vary with direction of movement (e.g. when the earth is moving in different directions through space) you can demonstrate to yourself that there is no universal frame of reference ("ether").

 

You can borrow two precision clocks, and take one of them on a round-the-world plane journey. It will come back running around 200 nanoseconds slow compared to the one that you kept in the same place. This is the Hafele-Keating experiment, which was first carried out in 1971.

 

If you are a programmer, you can obtain an open source GPS receiver. Comment-out the lines that apply the relativistic correction factors (due to acceleration of the GPS satellites). Re-install the firmware, and the GPS readings will not be correct. Put back the relativistic corrections, and the GPS readings are correct.

 

The first two experiments require you to hire or borrow a piece of lab equipment, and the second requires you to buy a circuit board and download some software, but by doing these experiments you absolutely can verify for yourself the existence of time dilation and the absence of an ether.

Thank you for taking the time to helping me work though some of the issues I am having with the Einsteinian physical model.

 

Are the clocks set up in way that they are launched in tandem as a sort of dual stopwatch activated at the same instant?  There is at least one paper critically reviewing the Hafele-Keating experimental data:

 

http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp

 

I have read other studies that bring up the effects of acceleration on the clocks which could cause inaccuracies.

 

Also, the paper by H.E.Retic here:

 

http://mysite.verizon.net/retiche/Physics/hoax.htm

 

Apparently there is an objective rebuttal to H.E. Retic's arguments on the interwebs, but I have only seen commentary.  And many of the links to arguments on both sides are wrapped around tangential topics like race and economic persuasion and are useless in furthering understanding.

 

I have some other questions about satellites and GPS, as well, namely regarding why I have been unable to find a single actual photograph of a satellite from any manufacturer.  I am very curious as to why these manufacturers aren't more forthcoming with their inventory.

 

I am not particularly attached to an answer; so far most of my exploration has yielded admonishments to hit the books until I have a grasp of the abstactions and once I understand how the symbols on the paper coincide my understanding of reality will be enhanced somehow.

 

It's doubtful that I will be building circuit boardsand learnign GPS code in the near future, I was hoping for something more direct, like the moon's effect on tides, or understanding electricity and atoms by the way smaller and smaller electron pathways are used in computer chips.

 

But I do appreciate the recommendations and maybe I will check into it one day.  Thanks.

How can "nothing" be curved?   I might ask you how "nothing" can be linear?  yet you assume that things should move through space-time in a "straight line". 

 

I don't think "nothing" can be linear either, beacuse it's nothing, formless.  An oblect can move through the void proscribing the path that it takes, but that's its path, not the shape of the void.  A void with shape seems contradictory.

 

Dilated, relative to an observer in an inertial frame of reference.

 

 

Sure - every time I use my SatNav. The GPS satellites which it uses are constantly keeping their clocks synchronised with each other, using complicated mathematical algorithms, in order to compensate for relativistic time dilation effects due to their relative velocities & gravitational effects. Without the constant compensation, my SatNav would be out by miles within a few hours.

[ribuck]

Pretzelogic, the Hafele-Keating experiment has been repeated many times since 1971, with variations to test all of the serious objections that have been raised. All subsequent experiments have agreed with the predictions made by the Einstinian equations.

 

With today's precision clocks, it's no longer even necessary to fly a clock around the world. Time dilation can be measured even at 20 miles per hour. Furthermore, time dilation due to changes in gravity (from General Relativity) can be measured by lifting one clock less than two feet above the other.

 

But to do the experiment without flying, you need extremely expensive equipment. You asked for ways that you could verify relativity yourself without "blindly accepting" the word of others, and you can do that by taking a clock on a flight.

 

You might not want to spend a thousand dollars on a precision clock, and a couple of thousand more on an air fare. Fair enough! But you could do this, if you didn't want to "blindly accept" experiments that have withstood extensive criticism.

 

Oh, by the way, papers such as the one you cited by H.E.Retic ("Heretic") aren't worth reading. Whenever you see a paper with a trolling subtitle like "The Disastrous Intellectual War on Common Sense" you don't need to read it. Just save your time. If the paper is wrong, it's a waste of time to read it. If the paper is right, there will be non-trolling papers that say the same thing more rigorously (and more readably, because they're sticking to science without appeal to emotion). So either way it's a waste of time to read H.E.Retic's paper.

 

It's doubtful that I will be building circuit boardsand learnign GPS code in the near future, I was hoping for something more direct, like the moon's effect on tides, or understanding electricity and atoms by the way smaller and smaller electron pathways are used in computer chips.

 

You could measure the difference between high tide and low tide. It far exceeds what the tidal range would be without considering relativistic effects. But you would either need to work through several pages of equations yourself, or would need to "blindly accept" the equations provided by others.

 

On the other hand, you can take a lab clock on an aeroplane and see that it loses time compared to the one that you left behind on the ground. You don't need any equations to see the time difference.

Here's a geek who bought some surplus cesium clocks and took some of them on his family's camping trip up in the mountains. When they got back home, the clocks that they took with them showed that they had lived 22 nanoseconds more than their neighbors had during that week!

 

From the article:

 

A retired Unix kernel programmer, Van Baak began buying time instruments a decade ago, slowly building what today is probably the best-equipped, individually owned time lab in the world, exceeding the capability of many national labs. His gear lets him perform some impressive experiments. Two years ago, he realized he'd acquired the capability to offer his children a demonstration of one of the effects predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity -- a demonstration that Einstein himself couldn't have performed with the equipment of his day.

 

The theory says time passes slowly for someone near a massive object, as measured relative to someone farther away. On Earth, this effect is so small as to be undetectable to all but the most precise equipment, putting demonstrations beyond the reach of, say, a typical high school science fair. Consequently, "kids grow up thinking relativity is only for really fast speeds or really heavy gravity," says Van Baak.

 

He wanted his children to see that relativity is proportional. So he loaded the family's blue minivan with portable power supplies, monitoring equipment, and three HP 5071 cesium clocks. Three, because time is always marked relative to other clocks: More clocks mean more accurate time. With his three kids and some camping gear in tow, he drove the winding roads spiraling up Washington's Mt. Rainier and checked the family into a lodge 5,319 feet above sea level.

 

They hiked the trails, and the kids relaxed with board games and books, while in the imperceptibly lessened gravity, time moved a little bit faster than at home. Van Baak found himself explaining to park rangers more than once why a minivan filled with inscrutable equipment was idling in front of the national park lodge for hours on end. But the effort paid off. When the family returned to the suburbs two days later, the cesium clocks were off by the precise amount relativity predicted. He and his family had lived just a little more life than the neighbors.

 

"It was the best extra 22 nanoseconds I've ever spent with the kids," Van Baak says.

 

[LifeIsBrief]

Okay... See... One of the problems I have, and where I really get confused, is... Did Einstein confuse the movement of light with time?  Isn't a precision clock a light clock?  I believe light speed, is a constant, for light, so if you move a light clock it will slow down...

 

On the other hand, if you were to go into space and just fly in circles at 90% the speed of light for two years... How many times would the earth go around the sun?