Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.
There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down.
Well, it’s motion with respect to the light cone. You can’t move faster than your own light cone, but you can move closer to it than otherwise. It’s the same as the Doppler effect and sonic booms, except for mass-energy itself. I can understand that, at least.
The motion of a satellite in space (GPS for instance) is relative to the Earth, not the satellite's own "light cone". I have never seen that language among physicists talking about special relativity.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
This is indeed accurate. See the subtle difference between "relativism" and a "relative data point" (datum). This seems to be the main reason for pushing such theories.
So I guess the last time I brought this subject up, I was wrong. Slightly.
You can build a block satellite for pretty cheap. I thought you could launch them with a high altitude balloon, but I did wonder how they were able to gain speed.
They use electromagnets to steer, but its not going to accelerate them from nothing. Of course they need a rocket to get it going fast enough in the first place. Did find this neat startup.
Using a high-altitude balloon as a launch pad will save money because it will deploy the rocket from up to 11 miles into the atmosphere. At that altitude, there is 95% less atmosphere, meaning there is much less drag. That means Leo Aerospace can use smaller rockets and less fuel.
Microsatellites typically don’t stay in orbit as long as larger satellites, averaging one to five years. That means the possibility of return business, Hepfer said.
Anyways, have you seen some of these fucking behemoths they put up there?
With its antennas and solar panels stowed, Jupiter 3 is about the size of a standard school bus. The satellite, weighing roughly nine metric tons, is designed to offer 500 gigabit-per-second Ka-band capacity for North and South America.
The balloon would be easily 100x the size of the sat. Also how do they stay up there, is it like a hot air balloon, or maybe they generate helium up there on the fly?
Huh. Really? The light cone is the 3D projection across distance and time wherein an object can be seen. Because nothing moves faster than light, anything outside the light cone can’t see the thing that made it. If something is not moving with relation to the observer, it will appear to be operating within the same reference frame as the observer because light from the object will arrive synchronously with light around the observer. That’s why the “clock” analogy is so often used. A second is an agreed-upon time that doesn’t change, but a clock’s motion with respect to the viewer changes the perceived length of a second (at a distance) due to the foreshortened or lengthened distance the light cone has to travel to reach the observer.
Special relativity deals with perceived time from the observers perspective, which is why it fails to explain clock slowing with GPS. When a clock is zooming around on a satellite the clock speed isn't just apparently different, it really is different. When that clock comes back down to rest at Earth the clock is no longer synchronized with that which was at rest on Earth.
Lorentz's time dilation calls for that type of effect, while special relativity does not (despite conjuring up a Lorentz equation in its paper, the meaning of it is different).
The problem with Lorentz's time dilation is it was an ad hoc fix to account for the Michealson Morely experiment, unlike Special Relativity which was supposed to be arrived at from "first principles" and thus seemed to be more comprehensive. But I'm yet to see a relativist properly account for the real observed asymmetric behavior. There are excuses but they usually start invoking acceleration, even though the entire equation is with respect to v, clearly.
Regarding the light cone, that seems to be something in General Relativity and I haven't read into that at the same level of detail (or debated it in detail). I was focusing on Special Relativity in my comment. Special Relativity is based on the idea that all motion is relative and there are no preferred frames. So we can only talk about the relative velocity of one frame to another rather than relative to something's own light cone (however they are defining that concept).
Relativity being a conceptual mess of nonsense can't be denied. However many of the alleged confirmations can be denied.
As I mentioned, the fact SR only gets clock slowing half right (an asymmetrical effect between frames) shows SR is wrong. It uses the Lorentz transformation, but Lorentz expected an asymmetric effect, while relativity expects there is no preferred frame, therefore one frame would not be effected more than the other. There is no way for one frame to "know" it is moving faster than the other to slow its clocks down. GPS thus only uses Lorentz's equations regarding velocity.
Many of the GR confirmations are dubious. Gravitational waves are silly. They measure vibrations through the Earth and assume those must be gravitational waves and then assume what caused them. Pseudo-science at best.
The alleged bending of space (light) around the sun can be accounted for with diffraction.
Black holes are based on fanciful mathematics that divide by zero. The alleged image of a black hole took so much processing the picture itself is doubtful, but even if true all it shows is they found a ring of light.
An explanation of ill posed eigenvalue problems. This issue exists in many mathematical "models" where the computed value approaches extremely large numbers. For example, many Mechanics (note the M not m) practitioners actually believe that the stress at a crack tip is INFINITE, rather than just saying the model in use becomes unusable in that region (which now they do assume and use boundary layer methods). So, you get a bunch of crap like "the black hole has immesurable gravitational fields" and what not.
It's even worse though. The concept of "black" is used to denote the fact that nobody is actually observing ANYTHING (you have to trust me goys, you can't see it but it's there). Dig into it and you see the idea is really just a flawed use of a "center of mass" computation where the black hole is the statistical "expected value" of the fields measured (or not even measure, but assumed).
In short, use an inadequate model, or a model that works in a simplified space (like all models, or your computations literally take forever) to a "global" (largest compartment containing "everything") system. You'll always get singularites (which is technically a paradox). People then take these results that don't make sense, then assume it's right anyway, and make up "story time" explanations.
Well, it’s motion with respect to the light cone. You can’t move faster than your own light cone, but you can move closer to it than otherwise. It’s the same as the Doppler effect and sonic booms, except for mass-energy itself. I can understand that, at least.
The motion of a satellite in space (GPS for instance) is relative to the Earth, not the satellite's own "light cone". I have never seen that language among physicists talking about special relativity.
The GPS calculations are relative to the Earth, treating the Earth as the "rest" frame.
You mean balloons in high orbit?
This is indeed accurate. See the subtle difference between "relativism" and a "relative data point" (datum). This seems to be the main reason for pushing such theories.
So I guess the last time I brought this subject up, I was wrong. Slightly.
You can build a block satellite for pretty cheap. I thought you could launch them with a high altitude balloon, but I did wonder how they were able to gain speed.
They use electromagnets to steer, but its not going to accelerate them from nothing. Of course they need a rocket to get it going fast enough in the first place. Did find this neat startup.
https://www.machinedesign.com/mechanical-motion-systems/article/21837538/startup-to-launch-cubesats-from-hot-air-balloons
Anyways, have you seen some of these fucking behemoths they put up there?
https://spacenews.com/hughes-jupiter-3-preps-for-launch/
The balloon would be easily 100x the size of the sat. Also how do they stay up there, is it like a hot air balloon, or maybe they generate helium up there on the fly?
Huh. Really? The light cone is the 3D projection across distance and time wherein an object can be seen. Because nothing moves faster than light, anything outside the light cone can’t see the thing that made it. If something is not moving with relation to the observer, it will appear to be operating within the same reference frame as the observer because light from the object will arrive synchronously with light around the observer. That’s why the “clock” analogy is so often used. A second is an agreed-upon time that doesn’t change, but a clock’s motion with respect to the viewer changes the perceived length of a second (at a distance) due to the foreshortened or lengthened distance the light cone has to travel to reach the observer.
Special relativity deals with perceived time from the observers perspective, which is why it fails to explain clock slowing with GPS. When a clock is zooming around on a satellite the clock speed isn't just apparently different, it really is different. When that clock comes back down to rest at Earth the clock is no longer synchronized with that which was at rest on Earth.
Lorentz's time dilation calls for that type of effect, while special relativity does not (despite conjuring up a Lorentz equation in its paper, the meaning of it is different).
The problem with Lorentz's time dilation is it was an ad hoc fix to account for the Michealson Morely experiment, unlike Special Relativity which was supposed to be arrived at from "first principles" and thus seemed to be more comprehensive. But I'm yet to see a relativist properly account for the real observed asymmetric behavior. There are excuses but they usually start invoking acceleration, even though the entire equation is with respect to v, clearly.
Regarding the light cone, that seems to be something in General Relativity and I haven't read into that at the same level of detail (or debated it in detail). I was focusing on Special Relativity in my comment. Special Relativity is based on the idea that all motion is relative and there are no preferred frames. So we can only talk about the relative velocity of one frame to another rather than relative to something's own light cone (however they are defining that concept).