Einstein told us that the speed of light must always, not only appear, but BE the same in every frame of reference no matter how fast we are moving towards or away from it. So even if you are moving at half the speed of light towards a light beam, the entire universe must conspire to either "speed up" or slow down your "time" to account for this difference.
If that makes sense to you, you are no longer sane. You cannot create scenarios of two mutually exclusive events at the same time and call that reality. This is fundamental to reason.
To show this contradiction, consider you are running away from a light beam and towards another at the same time. You move at half the speed of light. Of course in real life you will encounter the light you are moving towards first, but in Einstein's universe both beams MUST (in your world) hit you at the same time. However, in Einstein's universe, someone else will see them hit you at different times because they also MUST see light travel at a certain speed. This is just plain fucking stupid.
At best you can have an illusory effect, but to confuse that with a real difference in simultaneity is to truly give up on reason itself.
Einstein was a Plagiarist
https://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Incorrigible-Christopher-Bjerknes/dp/0971962987
I was mind boggled first time I understood what they meant with "light speed is always constant". Then I tried to train myself to accept it until this article broke me out of it: https://www.chemtrailsgeelong.com/the-naked-emperor.html
It was Dingle's arguments (as well as Percival) that helped me see that our intuition is right, and this theory makes no fracking sense. It's like the midwit meme, on the ignorant side you're like "this makes no sense" in the middle you rationalize it with a bunch of arguments and on the adept side you say "this makes no sense"
I'm glad I never studied it much in college because I would have probably tried to convince myself of it.
Let me ask you, whats the highest math youve completed?
I can say from personal experience, many of my classmates who were in calculus, were not very religious people.
In fact its kinda strange, it seems some of the more famous mathematicians will become religious after looking at the math.
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/god-is-a-mathematician/
Just quoting a paragraph from one of einsteins papers, and one with alot of fancy technical terms in it to boot. Isnt proof of much. Show me a equation that he got wrong and I might be more inclined to listen.
I dont think those words mean what you think they do, they all prolly have some stupid technical definition, You see stuff like that in specialized fields all the time. Seems intentional to me, but who knows why egg heads do what they do sometimes. And when I say intentional, I mean they want to confuse the average person so they cant make heads or tails of these kinda reports.
This quora quote seems to prove that he didnt think he was 100% right about everything either.
And by the way I look at things like those bubble chamber pictures.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/bubble-chamber
And it becomes quite, quite hard to say that this universe isnt built on patterns and rules. It may very well be that god created "everything", but how does proof of the construct invalidate his existence, I dont get it.
I believe in something, an all pervasive force that we and everything in this universe is created from, but it aint no modern god sitting in the clouds judging you for every mistake you have made in your life lmao.
And I certainly dont believe paying the church tons of money will absolve you of your sins either.
Your comment is all over the place and not very focused. My focus is a criticism of the broken logic of relativity.
To answer your question, I've taken all the math classes required for physicists, but I'm not claiming to be a mathematician or physicist. I am a critic from outside the field.
But one doesn't need advanced math to apply critical logic to a theory. A detective doesn't need calculus to prove someone guilty, but he does need sound logical reasoning. Focus on what you can grasp and deal with that first. I'm not someone who can check Einstein's tensor equations for their mathematical validity, and that isn't necessary (or time efficient).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
Until the truth is seen, the left (math) and right hands will oppose each other.
It isn't just the math that needs re-examination.
"God is number." said Pythagoras as he "rediscovered" the monochord as teaching tool of HARMONY, the principle of Divine Geometry and Golden Proportions that are the characteristics of god's work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monochord#/media/File:Fotothek_df_tg_0006469_Theosophie_%5E_Philosophie_%5E_Sonifikation_%5E_Musik_%5E_Musikinstrument.jpg
So from whence came both god/s and the math that explains/defines?
https://www.scribd.com/document/398575567/230403079-Jesus-Christ-Sun-of-God-Ancient-Cosmology-and-Early-Christian-Symbolism-by-David-R-Fideler-pdf
Number is ideation materialized.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
No single equation could ever contain the All, as the part cannot contain the whole.
Ones consent to suggested relativism establishes a conflict of reason aka one side against another...both broken sides relating to each other by consent to the same suggested -ism.
All gives (inception) and takes (death) each one (life)...taking suggested math classes from one another tempts one to ignore that.
"I've taken all" implies the biggest claim one could make within all...
a) How could one suggest a theory without tempting another to agree or disagree, hence establishing logic/reason (agree vs disagree)?
b) Critic/krinein - "to separate"...consenting to a suggested theory implies "putting together", hence contradicting critic.
"Everyone's a critic" implies each ONE separated from ONE another...no logic/reason required for critic.
So why reason about lowest vs highest math if energy transforms from ONE to another ONE?
a) Not ALL matter...each one particle of matter within ALL motion.
b) Structure implies matter together...motion implies matter apart from ONE another.
If ALL is ONE in energy; then why mathematically equating that which nature differentiates?
What if reason (versus) makes ones mind incapable of implication (if/then)?
One needs to breathe...where is the need for logic in that? What is a gasping infant reasoning about?
a) IM implies IN, hence within possible... https://www.etymonline.com/word/im-#etymonline_v_1519
Only within actual (inception towards death) can a potential (life) respond outwards.
b) THE difference; THE impossible; THE possible implies suggested the-ism tempting each different one to consent alike.
Few suggest the-ism to equalize differences among many...
The Emperor's (perceivable inspiration) New Clothes (suggested information)... notice that inception and death expose life to nakedness aka being without a cover aka FREE will of choice.
As for the speed of light...one does not perceive measurements; measuring suggested numbers within ones consenting mind implies a cover upon perceivable aka ones ignorance...which stands naked to those with eyes to see.
Show me one experiment that falsifies the speed of light.
Just one.
You do understand that scientific theories require experiments, do you?
C isn't what's being doubted here, special relativity theory is.
OP is literally doubting the speed of light
No, he's doubting it relative to someone moving at half light speed.
a) Any suggested experiment tempts one to ignore being within the perceivable spectrum of light.
b) Light (motion) generates a spectrum (momentum) for particle rays (matter) within... all measurements ignore this internal separation of energy.
Few suggest "differential calculus" to tempt many to ignore that all is one in energy.
According to Einstein
And all that from thought experiments with 0 citation of any published science. A few mentions of other people but not a proper citation in the entire paper. https://dn790004.ca.archive.org/0/items/einstein-1905-relativity/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
Yet coincidentally he just so happens to work out a solution to the Michelson Morley issue that Lorentz already found. Though it's only a half baked solution which contradicts itself, we can ignore that because "must worship Einstein". And Lorentz's solution didn't contradict itself or require doing away with a basic foundation of objective reality.
Einstein quote is just a description of how speed of observation distort objective reality for moving observer due to finite speed of observation (speed of light in this case). Nothing more, nothing less.
If you will observe same "two simultaneous events" using sound waves instead of electromagnetic waves, you will get exactly same math, but with speed of sound instead of speed of light. If you will use post pigeons to observe events, then you will get fucking speed of fucking pigeons in math instead of speed of light.
Dumb kike just silently omit the simple fact that he "look", i.e. use that slow EM waves of visible range to make his observations. And that explains everything, if you take speed of observation (speed of light or speed of sound) into account.
That's it.
And this absolutely does not mean that events could not be simultaneous. Problem of syncronisation of two distant clocks solved long ago, and solution is routinely used today in NTP protocol invalidating Einstein nonsense billions of times per day on planet Earth and even around. Just fucking take into account speed of information exchnage, and that's all. You will get two syncronized clocks at a distance without any problem and events happened at same time on both clock will always be simultaneous, regardless of what some observer see.
But to Einstein and his supporters they are stating it as a real effect vs. an apparent effect. What you're describing is an apparent effect based on our observations needing to wait for light to travel to our eyes. If Einstein wanted to express this idea he could have done so explicitly (and should have if that is his intention). So if this is an omission it is intentional.
But specifically on this idea, I'm still not sure I follow it. I can think of a simple example of a training moving near the speed of light and we are observing it from rest. A light beam is sent from the back of the train to the front HOWEVER the train is filled with air and not a vacuum. Thus the light beam will be pushed forward via the General Sagnac effect.
As an observer the limitation of the speed of light reaching me (in order to observe the event) should only produce a delay in the first data point reaching my eye, as the beam first leaves the source. However anything after that should still convey to me the correct information about velocity, provided we limit the window we record data to when the train is about to pass us until it has just passed us. The small displacement of distance should not be sufficient to delay the light by any significant degree...
Think about a straight line coming in perpendicularly to the observer vs a line 1 degree off from that for the second measurement. The distance light travels to us in the second measurement is only L/cos(1 degree), which is a 0.02 percent change in distance traveled to reach us compared to the initial L of the first measurement. Thus no issue observing this increased speed of light in the train for that effect.
Just never forget that everything you see, you see with a delay proportional to the distance from you to the object you observe. If oblect you observe moves with speed close to the speed of light, light from different parts of object (head and tail of your train, f.e.) need additional time to reach your eyes.
Meanwhile, there is funny thought experiment that always make relativists hang indefinitely.
They often talk about time dilation effect. However, you could make a clock using speed of light as a source of time intervals. Pulse a LED into a sensor through mirror at a distance (or fiber) and use delay as a clock sync. Use delayed pulse from sensor to pulse LED again. You will get a simple clock base frequency generator. Since there is constant speed of light dogma in relativity, then this clock just can't have any dilation effect, regardless of any relative movements and inertial frames. :) Whoever observe this clock, he will have to see exactly same tick-tock in all cases. :) Even more - all such clocks in a universe will be syncronized by definition. And gravity also could not dilate that clock - speed of light is always the same, and clock using speed of light as a frequency source just can't run faster or slower. :) It's their own dogma. :)
Explain why the calculations work in the real world, then.
I can explain many, but I actually don't need to. If I can show a theory is self contradictory and defies the very foundation of reasoning itself (that there is objective truth) then I've exposed it as horrendously flawed.
It's certainly possible to make some correct calculations from a horrible illogical theory. I could create math that assumes Earth accelerates upward and come up with some useful calculations for kinematics of falling objects, but then it will fail miserably elsewhere.
edit: Despite that valid disclaimer, I can show that SR doesn't work for time dilation. As Herbert Dingle and Ron Hatch have already illustrated , under SR there is no one sided time dilation which is found in GPS. So the apparent clock slowing on GPS satellites is only calculated by Lorentz (as Ron Hatch notes) and not Einstein (who requires two symmetrical equations).
Relativity is contradiction after contradiction that its adherents paper over with bad and inconsistent logic. One relativist will give you one excuse to weasel out of a contradiction, compared to another relativist who provides another. Neither are valid. Specifically for the problem of asymmetry in Einstein's time dilation applied in GPS they have multiple excuses all of which are wrong.
"It involves acceleration, therefore is a non-intertial frame" The problem with this excuse is it means the phenomena is no longer governed by SR which does not account for acceleration.
"This is covered by GR which involves acceleration". No further detail is given and if asked for a derivation of this time dilation from GR using acceleration they cannot because it does not exist. SR is the basis for velocity based time dilation, using equations with constant velocity. But since they are bound by velocity being "relative" the effects must be symmetrical and only apparent.
You’re going to have to prove the existence of an objective external reference frame to disprove the reproducible observational effects of relativity.
Objective reality is the basis for reason. Without it you might as well abandon all logic and wander off into madness trying to create your own reality.
Also any philosophy claiming there is no truth can't be true, based on logical deduction. So SR can be thrown out on that alone.
I already explained the failure of SR on one very important alleged observational effect. So on empirical data alone that's sufficient debunking. But the philosophical point is actually more important and more true.
So… no answer, then. Nothing. You can’t prove the existence of an objective external reference frame.
Can you prove there is such a real thing as a "frame"? I only see one reality.
Your reference frame and my reference frame differ infinitesimally. The very act of motion with respect to the observer changes the reference frame. This is basic stuff, man. It’s self-evident even on the macro-scale.
That's not separate realities though. You've described one reality and one person moves in it and calls it his "frame". So what?
Einstein's theory about relative simultaneity is from his imagination. No experiments confirm that claim. It also violates the basis of logic (objective reality). So rational people must discard it.
Because each one making calculations has consented to use suggested numbers, hence operating within an artificial environment, while "working" in the real world of perceivable nature.
To count implies to reckon together...to be implies set apart from ONE another. Counting implies artificial; being implies natural.
As for working: EN'ERGY, noun [Gr. work.] - "internal or inherent power"...only nature works, each power within nature is employed by nature.
Einstein was a fraud kike.
Nothing of value was ever created by him. It's literally all fake and gay.
And shills here will kvetch for him.
LOL
Half the speed of light relative to what?
The source of one of the beams of light and away from the source of the other. Assume both sources are at a fixed distance from each other.
The light you are going toward (constant speed) will appear blue shifted.
The light you are going away from (constant speed) will appear red shifted.
You would see blue in front, red in back.
The time dilation occurs when you are under acceleration. To slow down time, you would have to accelerate away then accelerate back.
It may be blue shifted but it will hit you first. Anything else creates two mutually exclusive realities which defies basic logic.
Einstein's equations have no parameter for acceleration. So those who make this claim need to invoke a different theory. SR is based on inertial "frames" moving at constant velocities. No acceleration is invoked to derive the equations for "time dilation".
Feel free to postulate a scientific theory that invalidates Special Relativity.
Go ahead. Why don´t you?
There are few of them, f.e. Heim theory. Also, there are good theories that invalidate General Relativity too.
Special Relativity, really, is not even a theory. It is nothing more than wrong use of Lorenz transformations applied to the observations made with electromagnetic waves. Things could look weird because you observe them with some relatively slow method of receiving data. Lorenz transformations mathematically describe that distortions.
If you will observe something moving close to the speed of sound using sound waves, and will try to describe what you observe mathematically you will get exactly same formulas as in "Special Relativity", but with speed of sound instead of speed of light. Same Lorenz formulas.
That's it. That jewish swindler just turn everything inside out. Any sane human perfectly understand that if you use some information transmission process with finite speed for receiving data from observation, usage of it will distort your observations and you will have to correct them (with Lorenz math) to find out what happens in reality. Einshtein declared that what you see using that relatively slow EM waves (ligth) is reality, and things you observe happens with observed object for real.
Eihstein only success was that he found a thing that could be perverted believably and mathematically correct to stop or at least slow scientific and engineering progress of humanity. All other work of pushing his shit as dogma was done by other people.
Funny that Einstein was so untalented, that even "his" only research he got Nobel prize for, was literally stolen from his ex-wife. That is why he had to gave all Nobel prize money to her, to keep her silent. She needed money more than fame, because Einshtein keep his family in poverty, because was unable to earn any money due to lack of any talent for science.
Heim was a crackpot who never completed his theory and several of his predictions have been falsified through experiments.
Which of the predictions of Special Relativity have been falsified?
He tried to make theory of everything. As far as I know, relativists failed to do that too.
Several predictions of special relativity was falsified too.
See Gunter Nimtz, f.e. You absolutely can transmit information faster than speed of light. Significnatly faster. And Nimtz experiments was succesfully replicated by independent researchrs multiple times.
Which, you were asked.
Literally impossible and proven thus.
If you are not aware, Nimtz experiment is extremely cheap, relative to many scientific experiments of such significance. You could replicate it in your garage at weekend and measure superluminal speed of quantum tunneling just for fun.
Also, you could not prove impossibility. You only could proove opposite. It is Einshtein declared impossibility without any reason and in was Nimtz who proove opposite.
Quantum tunneling can’t transfer information. That’s how it can be superluminal.
False. Different experimenters successfully transferred different kinds of information, from original Nimtz experiment pulse whose form does not change during transmission, to the music, literally.
Whatever theory is behind, it defintely allows FTL information transmission. And looks like tunnelling time is just zero. So information could be transmitted at infinite speed.
Theory of quantum tunelling is very far from completeness. You just cant do such bold and fundamental statements basing on incomplete theory. There could be tons of explanations, from different nature of tunnelling to timeless virtual space in cavity for particles.
So? Special Relativity does not require a Unified Field Theory. What´s your point?
Such as?
Superluminal quantum tunneling is a hypothesis and far from being a theory.
Special relativity uses EM waves for observation. And suddenly omit simple fact that EM waves have finite speed. All observable effects of Special relativity could be easily explained just as effects of finite speed of observation.
Impossibility of FTL information transfer. There are no any "telegraph to the past" paradoxes at all.
Impossibility of syncronizing distant clocks. Your OS do that regulary without any problems just by taking in account the "speed of observation". Simple thing this kike "genius" could not understand.
And so on. There is no any speed limit. You don't need infinite energy to reach speed of light. There is no any paradoxes or time travel at all in travelling with speed close to speed of light or faster. Exactly like there is no any paradoxes in traveling with speed close to the speed of sound or faster.
It is a fact, proven by perfectly documented and replicateable experiments. What theory will appear behind that experimental fact does not really matter. Information could be transferred faster than light. All special relativity should be in the garbage bin long ago.
Special Relativity is mathematecally correct. But all this math is just a corrections have to be made on the side of observer to get how remote moving things look like in reality. It is not how remote things really are.
Ahhh yes the guy who only wore one outfit because he spent his days wrapped up in his research is a total fake.
If I had to guess, as someone who doesnt care about clothes, einstein prolly didnt give a shit about money either, other than it making sure he could keep doing what he wanted to do.
Its funny, people thought he was eccentric and crazy, but it didnt matter because his math was right.
I feel a kinship with that too, as someone who has always been considered strange and weird, no one seemed to care when I was acing my algebra two tests lmao, they just thought I was smart for some reason.
Dont worry I failed pre calc the next year, im far from smart. Then of course letting myself stay at a place when i was getting poisoned thinking if something happened workers comp would have my back.
LMAO
It wasn't his math at all. It was Lorenz and Pounkare math.And yes, it is correct. But conclusions Einshtein did from this math was completely wrong.
Only thing that had to be done was to make this false Einshtein conclusions a dogma. Jewish tribe did that job without problems. They are really great in making hacks look like geniuses. You could find numerous examples in any area of human activity without any problems.
To show a theory is incorrect one does not need to provide a replacement for the theory. I've already demonstrated SR defies the basis of reason itself, the notion of objective reality.
To falsify a scientific theory you either present another theory that explains the observations better than the other one or by conducting experiments that contradict the predictions.
You cannot falsify a scientific theory by invoking pseudo-philosophical arguments.
No and absolutely not. That's pulled straight out of Uranus.
It's just logic to make sure something is consistent with reality. You can't predict mutually exclusive happenings as part of your results. Either something happened or it didn't. It can't "happen for one observer" but not the other in the same instant. If two light beams hit someone at different times physically, then that is all that happened.
Yes, absolutely. That´s how the scientific method works.
You don´t know what you are talking about.
a) -ist (physicist) implies ones consent to a suggested -ism (physicalism)...which in return tempts one to ignore physic/physis/bheue - "to be; to grow". Why? Because nature sets each being apart from one another to allow growth, which consent contradicts by tempting together.
b) Connecting minds impair each others free will of choice with consent aka contraction into conflicts of reason against each other and accumulation of suggested information burdening memory.
c) Ones consent makes one dependable to the suggestion of another...that's the foundation of relativism.
a) Few utilize "Einstein" to suggest information, which when consented to by ones free will of choice, aggregates many (us) under a few chosen (((ones)))
b) Nature doesn't tell/tale/talo/del - "to recount; relate in detail"...those within nature relate tales to each other to distract from nature. These tales imply suggested relativism tempting ones consent to relate.
Who can measure light? Can a ray within the visible spectrum of light measure light or only other rays of light?
What if speed of light is constant so that each different ray within can have a fluctuating perspective?
Responding simultaneous tempts one to ignore being different from one another.
Nature gives perceivable...those within take suggested from one another, which establishes reason/logic within self and against each other.
Try resisting the temptation to take a side within a suggested conflict of reason like for example...upvote vs downvote. What does one give up by resisting temptation?
Only odd (choice) within even (balance) can change rapidity of movement. A beam implies a ray of light aka an odd ray (matter) within even spectrum (momentum) of light (motion).
Only within light can a beam (life) enter (inception) and exit (death) a visible spectrum of light.
Suggested beams (matter) tempt one to ignore perceivable (momentum) light (motion). One can only count the speed of other beams to one another...not the speed of light from within the momentum of moving light.
Light cannot travel for ALL is light...beams (partials) within light (whole) can travel to and fro each other. If all is light; then where could light travel to?
Well you have people who think Earth is the center of the world and humans were created by a war tyrant as warrior slaves and the war tyrant will kill you as long as you disagree with him. So why not.