RelativityCobblers

Post Reply New Topic

[quote/]Photons exhibit properties of both particulates and waves, depending on the experiment being performed. [/quote]

So the experiment changes the nature of the photons??? Pure mysticism! Light particles react with matter at the subatomic or possibly quantum level, and so will give rise to discreet "wavelike" patterns; why complicate it further?

Because of the Mass-Energy Equivalency Principle, E=mc^2. Photons are packets of energy, so gravity affects them.

Really? So how do stars emit light at a claimed constant velocity? Why aren't those photons decelerating?

Last edited by gwynfryn on 18 Jun 2019, 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes. Obviously, you have never heard of Werner Heisenberg.

Any real science, no matter how basic, is "pure mysticism" to those who don't understand it.

Because there is much more to the properties of light than that. Start Here.

Because of the Mass-Energy Equivalency Principle, E=mc^2. Photons are packets of energy, so gravity affects them.

Yes. Really.

Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.

Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. They do, however, lose energy, which causes their wavelengths to lengthen.

Whether or not you believe any of this is irrelevant because your lack of belief (and understanding) does not make it any less real, because reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Deal with it.

Last edited by Fnord on 18 Jun 2019, 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

[quote/] In order to challenge an orthodoxy, it is necessary first to have a thorough understanding of what it is you are challenging. [/quote]

Even when the orthodoxy is obviously wrong? Once the aether was dismissed and photons deemed to be particulate, why would anyone suppose that C is a universal constant?

Place two photon emitters side by side, and have them fire off a photon in the same direction, then the relative velocity between emitter and photon is C. If, then, one of the emitters accelerates, then that relationship is no longer true. But wait, this requires some thinking, so I shouldn't expect any attempt at addressing this. In any case I will remind you of the Ockham's razor; if it is no longer assumed that C is a universal constant, then why bother with the further complication of Relativity Theory, General or otherwise?

[quote/] It is evident from what you wrote about relativity, with which I am extremely familiar, that you don't have that understanding. [/quote]


Having tried to make the theory work from first principles (have you?) and determined (as stated in earlier posts) that the formulas which work in one direction, do not when the motion of the photon or subject are reversed, I believe I have a far better understanding than anyone who has uncritically absorbed the orthodoxy without checking that it makes sense; "knowing" and "understanding" are not the same thing!

[quote/] From what you wrote about Lorna Wing (for example, "all her papers I’ve read had what should have been seen as fatal flaws, and should not have passed peer review"), I suspect the same is true in your understanding of autism research too. [/quote]

Have you read any of her papers? Perhaps from your seemingly non clinical perspective, you will find the same flaws that I did...

Fnord, I confess to being uncertain about Heisenberg's principle, but I note that, once again, you have not even tried to answer my question, which is what needs to be done if you want me to take you seriously! Feeling on shaky ground, are you?

Last edited by gwynfryn on 18 Jun 2019, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

You are the one who is wrong. I work with technology every day that is based on this 'orthodoxy' you so ignorantly denounce. Every day I prove again and again that the science is valid, and that the defining formulae of light that were laid down nearly a century before you were born are still valid. Whether working in the Physics labs at CERN, Fermilab, or my current place of employment, every experiment I personally perform proves again and again that these principles I have described are valid.

One inherency that these principles have is that they are predictive. If they were not predictive, there would be no computers, no video games, no telephones, no GPS, and no Internet. There would be only ignorance, religion and superstitious belief.

Now, go get an education.

Last edited by Fnord on 18 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord "Because of the Mass-Energy Equivalency Principle, E=mc^2. Photons are packets of energy, so gravity affects them." "Because the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference."

So gravity affects light, but it doesn't? Instead of nattering on about my "beliefs" or "understanding" (which interests me not at all) your efforts would be better spent on re-examining your own, as they are a mass of contradictions!

Fnord, things work because they do, not because there's a theory for it! Lose the redundant belief that C is a universal constant, and go back to Newtonian, or better, Leibnitzian physics (for he appears to have foreseen quantum mechanics) and the answers work out correctly. By turning constants into variables, all Einstein did was to create a mathematical fudge that seems to correct the errors introduced by a wrong assumption.

Fnord, if you checked out Aaron Rosanof's 1921 Theory of Personality... or the subsequent Humm and Wadsworth Temperament Scale (1935) you'd discover that autistic and autism are by no means equivalent, and the current practise is a gross distortion of the truth. Be quick though, as somebody is trying very hard to eliminate such prior art.

Such experiments have been done; and precisely because relativity is so counter-intuitive, they have been done in a multitude of different variations to the highest precision that we are capable of. The results of these experiments suggest that the constancy of C across different frames of reference, and the gravitational attraction of light, are genuine properties of the universe - and so far as we can tell, this is the case whether or not there are sentient beings capable of being perplexed by how counter-intuitive these observations might seem.

Einstein didn't postulate relativity because he was a maths fan-boy who liked dreaming up theories - he did it because there were empirical observations which the existing theories of Newton et al had not predicted; and his hypothesis led to more accurate predictions. You are the one who is attempting to comprehend the universe solely through "thought experiments" which include any number of a-priori assumptions about how the universe "should" behave - and the conclusions which you derive from them have already been refuted by countless empirical experiments.

Therefore, there is no case to answer because your hypotheses cannot explain what is actually observed. And, to the precision of measurements that we're now able to make, nor can Newton's or Leibniz's, otherwise those would be the "orthodoxy" (and no doubt you'd then be arguing with people here about those instead!) Your skepticism is admirable; it is a quality to which all good scientists aspire. But your theorising does not offer an alternative explanation for our observations of the universe - you are inventing a fictional universe where the results of empirical experiments would differ from what is actually found.


And by the same argument as above, it is you who is making this assumption, not Fnord!


Indeed. Empirical knowledge is called science. Questioning what we can know, how we know, and why what we know should be the case are all branches of philosophy, not science. By dismissing experimental results which you find incomprehensible, and by expecting the laws of nature to be something that "should" be derivable intuitively, you are mixing meta-physics with your physics. You won't get a satisfactory answer from a scientist because, in effect, you're not even asking a science question - "not only not right, not even wrong", as physicist Wolfgang Pauli is reputed to have coined. If you're not familiar with them, I suggest reading Karl Popper's ideas about the philosophy of science - even if you disagree with him, it might help you with framing your arguments to elicit the kind of answers that you're looking for from "orthodox" scientists.

Thanks, Trog. I was beginning to think that I was going to hold back the darkness all by myself.

Looking back to your first posting in this thread (in 2004), it looks as if you have some very basic misunderstandings about how one transforms between frames in special relativity, and this misunderstanding persists in what you have written since. I really don't want to start trying to psychoanalyse the reasons for this misunderstanding, because that risks sending the discussion off along all sorts of tangents, but I would suspect that you are somehow trying to use your day-to-day "intuition" that works when the velocities are small compared with the speed of light, and apply it in the relativistic arena. Of course if you mix aspects of Galilean transformations and aspects of Lorentz transformations together you will end up with a hopeless inconsistent mishmash. You have to stick with the full framework of Lorentz transformations if you want to understand phenomena in special relativity. Everything then works perfectly consistently, and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

It is hard to decipher exactly what problem or paradox you think you are seeing when you speak about changing the direction of the light beam, or whatever it is you are doing. But it is assuredly just an artificial "non-problem" that you have created for yourself by not applying the rules of special relativity correctly.

@Strings: It seems to be a case of Classical Mechanics thinking in a Quantum Mechanics world.

Just in case there’s anyone here who’s prepared to try answering my challenges (or acknowledge the historical meaning of « autistic ») here’s another thought experiment which may entertain you:

Imagine a spaceship with a porthole front and back. Think of it as x light picoseconds long, if you wish. A photon enters the front porthole and travels the length of the ship. At the same time (as recorded by observers in situ) another photon enters the rear porthole, and traverses the ship to exit the front porthole. According to TGRT, both have a velocity relative to the ship of C, and so will traverse the ship in X picoseconds, entering and exiting simultaneously. The notion of simultaneousness is claimed to be problematical in RT (i.e., RT can’t deal with it) and perhaps it will become clear why:

Consider now that the ship is being observed by those who consider themselves static (a relative term, for sure) to whom the ship has a velocity not far short of C. As stated in my first post, I have no difficulty in coming up with formulae which appear to change the length of the ship, and the rate at which the crews watches operate, to make it seem that both the crew and observers perceive the photons to be moving at C, if handled individually, but not both together, as the formula for each is different! To put it another way, if our “static” observers perceive both photons to enter the ship “simultaneously”, then how given the fact that the ship has moved a finite distance during the traverse, can they be observed to emerge simultaneously? This would require the following photon to travel a greater distance in the same time, in which case it would have a velocity greater than C, which, according to RT is not possible.

viewtopic.php?t=376808

A thought experiment that conflicts with known physical principles is useless. Try again.

I think your problem, or one of your problems, is that you "came up with" some incorrect formulae in your first post, and then you found that these got you into some difficulties when you tried to apply them. No surprise there.

I've seen this happen before. For example, someone misapplied the Dirac equations, and assumed that they had discovered anti-gravity.

Then they went on to "suggest" that early investors in their "research" would reap huge benefits later...

Do people really believe that we are as stupid as they?