This video from smirky pop science guru Brian Cox explains time dilation with a "stationary" and "moving" light clock. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/b2Vd9HGB5XQ
However since the foundation of Special Relativity is that all motion is relative, it is impossible to say one frame is "moving" and therefore impossible to say that only one frame is "slowed down". Both would have to be "slowed down" relative to the other. In other words the slowing in this thought experiment is just from the perspective of a frame of reference, but not real.
So why then does academia and the media insist Einstein's theory explains true and LASTING clock slowing? Is it an intentional conspiracy? I'm not so sure. Although perhaps those at the very top know better and pursue real science without relativity, it wouldn't be the first time science went astray organically.
It may be divine judgement on an immoral relativist world. And to that end I say good and "thy will be done". But for those of us who seek real truth in science, Einstein's work must be overturned. Herein lies an advantage for the decentralized over the well funded & centralized.
Or maybe I'm wrong and just a kook. Perhaps my tiny theistic brain can't grasp the complexity of Einstein's theories and should leave the thinking to those genius physicists. But until those genius physicists start doing anything truly ground breaking with relativity instead of chasing after black holes, "dark matter" and "gravitational waves", I'll stand by my reasoning.
I'm not sure relativity and Newtonian physics belong in the same sentence like that. One led to incredible flights of fancy, whereas the other was simply the most accurately description of fundamental actions in our physical universe.
General relativity is very hit or miss (mostly miss) and involves a fanciful invention of space-time. Special relativity is unusable and isn't what GPS uses (despite what relativists claim). Newton's work, on the other hand, was truly foundational and could be built upon.
Interesting. The "standard" view is that relativity is the latter - but i get the sense you mean the opposite. There is ample support for both views (that newtonian cosmology is the flight of fancy and relativity the "most accurate" and vice versa), which is why it is interesting.
Newton invoked his magical god gravitation (big g!) in order to solve an astronomical math problem. It was certainly an unscientific flight of fancy and led to many others (like that the moon is a giant rock floating in the sky which pulls the oceans to cause tides and many other more ridiculous ideas)
More or less. At its core, it is an aether theory. The "space time" is a mathematical description of the structure of the universe (aka aether).
"Ironically", it was created - at least in part - as an attempt to fix the massive unscientific and religious fantasy that newton had introduced to physics with gravitation ("spooky action at a distance"). In physics, something cannot act upon/through nothing. Relativity attempts (and ultimately fails) to explain/describe/define the intermediary which transfers this magical force from the one mass body to the other. Newton's explanation, on the other hand, was literally "god did it".
Some of it, yes. The stuff that was actually science and bore of the scientific method. His astronomy forays which he is often most celebrated for are, like today, mathematical and religious - not scientific. They are every bit as imaginary and fanciful, and for the same reasons.
You're right, I do disagree there. The support is mostly illusory. "Gravitational waves" are imagined guesswork based on vibrations in the Earth. Light bending around the sun doesn't happen in "empty space" it only happens through the photosphere where there is atmosphere.
And of course special relativity is not actually used in GPS, since relativity calls for an apparent symmetrical effect, not an asymmetric lasting time dilation.
Space-time is far more "magic" than gravity as a force. Gravity does act as a field force, however mysterious, a field force is a fairly well defined construct. Space-time is undefined. Think about it. How does "space-time" act on me while I'm standing still on Earth's surface? There is no clear coherent explanation from relativists, only convoluted ones. Or how does space-time act on a planet rotating around the sun? It isn't a "force" it isn't a "thing" which even "acts" on anything in any tangible physical way. There is no physical explanation there, it's all conceptual / mathematical.
Tell that to Maxwell. That is the basis of electromagnetic force equations which work exceedingly well and describe reality very well. It is far superior to the illogic of space-time.
It is and it isn't. In practice it is, and Einstein admitted it is, but all modern relativists claim relativity does away with an ether. So you have to ask them why they say that and Einstein doesn't.
Also it isn't really a physical description at all. It invents something truly fanciful, the idea that space+time is one object that does "things" to other objects. What those "things" are is not clear. If an object is moving it guides the object into an arc, which is more of an arc than the supposed light bending since otherwise it would appear to move in a straight line. And if you're on a stationary object it still pulls you towards the center just because and the curve space metaphor breaks down. It's a devolution from the idea of a field force. It adds a logically absurd concept of space-time.
Moreover, a given parcel of "space" doesn't contain "time". In Einstein's theory "time" is determined by relative velocity anyway. Space has no knowledge of something's relative velocity to something else.
So, far too many contradictions compared to Newton's straight forward approach with gravity.
Not necessarily, but this is a likely possibility.
Agreed. "Gravitational lensing" is not a thing, nor is there any experimental support for the possibility that it might be.
More to your point, yes - most all the "proofs" of relativity are themselves widely publicized hoaxes.
They are equivalent, and for the exact same reasons. One was, ostensibly, made to supersede and replace the other precisely because they are the same. Both are entirely unscientific and magic, and for the same reasons.
In my view, there is no "gravitational force" at all. There is only weight, which is an intrinsic property of all matter.
But that does not make fields real! We have many well defined concepts, many of which are useful - but that doesn't make them actually exist in manifest reality outside of our conceptions.
When einstein said "nothing more of his castle in the sky remains", he was talking about fields - writ large. He was remarking on how successful the quantumnists had been with quanta/particle-based views/conceptions.
In the exact same way as "gravitation" and for the same reasons. It is defined in the equations, and does not exist in any way outside of them.
How can "space-time" act upon you, when you yourself are both within and comprised of "space-time"? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck...
Correct. Exactly like gravitation before it, and for the exact same reasons.
I do however empathize with the general view that einstein was no newton.
One of the simple proofs for relativity being wrong is its many paradoxes (often taught in conjunction with it to students as "mysteries of the faith" rather than the massive errors that they necessarily are and prove).
Mathematicians are not scientists. If the math is useful, use it.
True
This is the error. Useful does not equal correct. This is a common and encouraged erroneous conflation.
Geocentrism described astronomical reality very well too...
I don't blame them for being mistaught and therefore wrong in this regard.
Aether-mcarthyism. In order for relativity to be the only option available, the other aether theories needed to be cleared away / declared forbidden.
Exactly, and this is precisely why it is unscientific (unemperical), and why gravitation was before it. Newton understood that he was introducing unscientific magic and a "philosophically unsound" fictional concept into physics when he invoked gravitation to solve an astronomical math problem. The subsequent students were not taught honestly about that. Experimentalism is the engine of science, not fanciful theory.
There is nothing straightforward about the three body problem or the surface postulate - but in general, i agree - one is less convoluted than the other. However, they are identically fictional and unscientific - and for the exact same reasons.
I see your point that something has to be postulated and imagined. However, the quality of the assumption with Newton's gravity is much higher with its simplicity and humility. Newton just says in essence "some force" is acting on the object and is related to mass. That's a very reasonable and fairly unassuming unknown left in there. People can postulate it is a field, or the actions of ether or gravitons or w/e, but Newton didn't force them to. Newton was observing physical laws and made math to best describe them.
Newton didn't concoct fanciful new concepts as relativity does. Relativity says "we observe a force on an object, AND the force is a result of this frankenstein amalgamation of two unrelated concepts that leads to all sorts of other problems". Those bizarre physical assumptions lead to a view of the world with strange paradoxes including the absurdity of relative simultaneity which makes it technically impossible to determine cause and effect in the universe. Newton's gravitational calculations only leads to some inaccurate calculations. No mind bending paradoxes that turns physics on its head.
That is the key difference. The level of absurdity and I'd dare say arrogance in trying to make the physical world fit a vision rather than simply trying to describe what is observed.