Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Something new on wbabin
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2004 :  06:08:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Paulgibson,
You have clearly spent a great amount of time writting your paper. For that reason alone I don't expect you to change your 'beliefs' on relativity. You should consider that scientists are always willing to change their way of thinking in the face of new evidence.
You should study up on relativity from main stream physics and not just the fringe sites that discuss how the entire scientific community is wrong. Quite a bit of your suppositions are wrong and confused. Such as your statement:
quote:
Yet, I have really no problem with that idea, by itself. Einstein's solution to this strange idea was to say that time and space are warped in such a way that the apparent speed of light for any observer observing any other frame of reference moving in any way relative to them would always be the same.

You should reevaluate your position. Einsteins first Doctoral thesis was rejected - lucky thing he didn't just cling to that the rest of his life and moved on to consider other phenomina.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2004 :  18:53:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Paul Gibson wrote:
quote:
You'll need to read this link on vectors:
No, I won't, since you don't build upon the knowledge presented there in any meaningful way.

There's so much to correct in your latest post, but I must be brief tonight...
quote:
Einstein could have used really any triangle for this, but he chose a right angled triangle. Why a right angled triangle? In a right angled triangle the sum of the squares of the two lesser sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse. That's the pythagorean theorem. And, it gave Einstein a real relationship between the vectors that could allow him to solve for the modifier of the velocity of light vector.
Okay, you claim to know Einstein's motivations here. Where is the evidence? In which paper does he discuss his choice of a right triangle?
quote:
Actually you mean, and not the square of the speed of light.
Talk to me again when you decide that the fact that we can't directly sense light is important to you. A single square-root does not invalidate my point.
quote:
Using expressions that end in non-sensical results was my way of saying, there's something fishy here.
Yes, I thought that's what I said. You apparently missed that.
quote:
(There was no need for quotes when you wrote this as you were the one who was asking it.)
Stick with physics. I'll do my own textual style criticisms, thanks.
quote:
And, I am not trying to generalize the Special Theory of Relativity I am trying to invalidate it entirely.
And here we get to the real meat of the matter. Thousands, if not millions, of physicists have come before you, examining and re-examining the math, and not one has succeeded in overturning Special Relativity. For most of those in need of navigational assistance, the theory is used every hour of every day. It works. Those who are currently looking for violations of it are looking with extraordinarily sensitive equipment. They aren't just tossing around equations, as that method has repeatedly failed.
quote:
And, that is how Einstein found his formula.
Where's the evidence that he did not simply apply Lorentz' formula to time, as decribed in his own words in the previous link you supplied?
quote:
The Lorentz contraction only affects light as it is transmitted down the length of our frame of reference.
Wrong. The Lorentz contraction affects the length of moving objects. Not light, objects. Stuff. Stuff which cannot move at or above c. And the "length of our frame of reference" is absolutely meaningless.
quote:
The most compelling simplification is to multiply the one (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) by the other, and essentially gut ^(1/2)(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) from the equation leaving:
It doesn't matter what's left. Your substitution is only valid at l=1. You've taken one equation and modified it through substitution with another in a totally meaningless way, and you've gotten a meaningless answer as a result. You shouldn't be surprised by this, you should instead ask yourself what you did wrong.
quote:
Now you tell me, is the above true? Because, that's the thing. It's supposed to be true.
No, it's not. Since when do vectors take into account the passage of time? Your misapplication of the math here is astounding.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Skyhawk
New Member

33 Posts

Posted - 08/24/2004 :  20:53:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Skyhawk a Private Message
Welp, I knew someone would take care of him. Might I add that gibson multiple times has not only been owned...but what nerds call for the ultimately owned people....p'wn'd
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 08/25/2004 :  05:26:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Paulgibson:

I am just curious, what is your educational background? As I said I am just curious - it really doesn't affect the validity of any of your discussions one way or the other.

By the way I received a Chemical Engineering degree. At graduation the dean of the ChemE school told us "you don't know enough chemistry to be chemists and you don't know enough engineering to be engineers - so you are now chemical engineers". Funny guy.

Thanks

If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

paulgibson
New Member

USA
7 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2004 :  23:42:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send paulgibson a Private Message
Sorry that I was gone so long and just now came back. I had some reading to do, plus other things. That reading was provided by Tensor on a similarly started topic on the Badastronomy Bulletin Board here:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=15824&start=50&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=df7182c68ae3b64ded71b4bf4602952a

Calling on my schooling I managed to come up with a complete form of that expression.

(v-cl'/lt cos A)^2+(c/t sin A)^2=c^2

where A is the angle between the velocity vector and the modified velocity of light vector. If the special theory of relativity is true then that expression must be true for all angles A and all velocities v.

You'll notice that the cosine portion of the expression is being subtracted. That is right.

You'll also notice that cl'/lt-v=c, (c/t)^2+v^2=c^2, and cl'/lt+v=c are all simplified versions of the expression for 0 degrees, 90 degrees, and 180 degrees respectively. (No the first one is not supposed to be v-cl'/lt=c. It's (v-cl'/lt)^2=c^2 with both sides of the equation square rooted. Since the square root of (v-cl'/lt)^2 is plus or minus (v-cl'/lt), what would you say that is?)

The expression is only true for all angles A when v=0. And, it's only true for all velocities v when A=90 degrees, 270 degrees and a couple of other angles that vary as the velocity varies.

Now I thought I'd bring up the twin paradox. Mind you the twin paradox doesn't have a lot to do with what I've been writing about, but some interesting thoughts on it have occurred to me. I believe I've heard a version of the twin paradox put forth by Einstein that goes partway to what I'm about to write. But, the common tellings of the twin paradox are fairly abbreviated, and in my opinion don't really fit the definition of the word paradox. (One twin is old, and the other's young, whoopty freaking do. That's not a real difficult concept to wrap one's mind around, or at least it shouldn't be.)

You know the usual version of the story. One twin gets on a rocketship, blasts off, and tours the universe at ridiculous speeds. When he returns to earth he finds that though very little time has passed for him, and he's hardly aged, much time has passed back home, and his earthbound brother is now an old man.

Here's where things get into "does not compute" mode. "Examples of this sort ... suggest that the phenomena of ... mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." (Likewise there is no absolute motion.) The earthbound twin is not stationary.

Instead, as from the earthbound twin's perspective the rocket-man twin rockets off across the universe, from the rocket bound twin's perspective it is the earthbound twin who rockets with the universe. So, from the perspective of the rocketbound twin when -instead of him returning home- home returns to him he should be aged and the spaceship earth twin should be young. This is the real twin paradox, and that's relativity.

There is no part of the time dilation formula that allows the time dilation to be inverted. That is, if one is rocketing backwards on their rocket-ship, stationary observers don't see the rocket-man aging quickly as little time passes for them.

Moreover the velocity in the time dilation formula is the velocity as observed by the outside frame of reference of the frame of reference in motion relative to the stationary frame of refernce. So, suppose little time is passing for the rocket-man twin as he rockets across the universe. From his perspective, through the lens of time dilation, not only is the spaceship earth twin rocketing with the universe, the spaceship earth twin is moving even faster than the rocket-man twin is from the earthbound twin's perspective. Compounded continuosly the result of this is each twin upon reuniting should have crumbled to dust having had an eternity pass waiting on each other, and finding that each other twin has been frozen in time with not an instant of time passing.

Things are not reconciled by the Lorentz contraction. Through the lens of the Lorentz contraction the rocket-man twin sees the gulf of space widen considerably. Because of this from his perspective the distances spaceship earth progresses over are even greater and the speeds earth attains in crossing them likewise so much greater.

Of course, Lorentz would not have believed such an interpretation of events to be possible, for -being a supporter of the ether concept- Lorentz did believe in absolute motion. His interpretation on the twin paradox would have been -very directly- that the rocket-man twin was the one who was moving with a motion relative to the ether and not the earth, and that the earthbound twin's motion was minimal (only that motion which comes say with the revolution of the earth around the sun, and so on and so forth).

Now Skyhawk:

"...some papers there that are pretty sad. Gibson's is one of them."

Hello I'm right here. (Technically I suppose I'm not, but oh well.)

"...coming up with 'revolutionary' ideas." I don't think you're quoting me there.

I ask you, where else was I supposed to publish? Besides the stated purpose of wbabin.net is to "...present an assessment of special relativity." Granted that -particularly the word "assessment"- is misrepresentative of the site. However, I am not so inclined to misrepresent. If I am to be crackpot, then a crackpot I shall be. As such I consider my choice to be very appropriate. (And, let me just write in advance that the comment you are about to make in response to that, Dave W. is very clever as all your previous comments along those lines have been.)

"I mean you'd think that people with PhD's and that know Einstein's papers off by heart would be able to catch a mistake that can be solved with high school math."

I don't know why the physics community wouldn't catch such mistakes. However, there are many physics books that make a point of saying that the Special Theory can be understood with "elementary algebra" (that is an actual quote). One does not need a PhD to "know Einstein's papers off by heart". And, if such mistakes can be found at all it should not require any more than "high school math" to do it.

I have gone over the experimental evidence for Einstein's theory (theory, not theories -I am not disputing the General Theory). Some of the evidence that has been thought to support the Special Theory is not as strong as some would think. However, a point has recently come up in my previously mentioned research. This point has troubled me, more even than Furshur's point on the speed of infrared light measurements. This point impacts directly on all of this. I will discuss it more at a later time with those on the Badastronomy Bulletin Board.

"Though I'm sure the math you posted have some logistical errors and missing some fundemental ideas (I've read some of your post and I forgot which parts :P. Sorry, I'm on summer break and resting my mind and my memory though I know someone in a SHORT while will disprove you)."

It is not very fair of you to allege these logistical errors without elaborating on that to give me a chance to respond to these allegations. As for the "someone" you refer to who will "disprove" me you are referring to Dave W. Are you not? (I don't know that "disprove" is actually the strictly correct word in this context.) That's remarkable.

"Your post keeps switching between velocity and speed without failing to recognize which one to use at certain points."

(Did you mean, ...and speed failing to recognize...? What you wrote -"without failing"- could be taken as compliment of sorts.) For the most part, as the dis
Edited by - paulgibson on 09/05/2004 14:14:10
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2004 :  18:27:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
paulgibson wrote:
quote:
If the special theory of relativity is true then that expression must be true for all angles A and all velocities v.
Neither this thread, nor any serious inquiry into your ideas by those who are experts in the subject, will not occur until you support your premises with evidence. Despite being previously asked why you think that "must" is the correct word to use in the above quote, you have failed to answer. I do hope you realize that if your apparent premise is true, you are arguing that A2+B2=C2 must be true for every triangle.

Another one you have failed to answer is this: in which paper does Einstein discuss the selection of a right triangle as the basis for the equations in Special Relativity? And a third: where is the evidence which shows that Einstein lied about his use of Lorentz' formula?

That you seem to ignore these questions is the reason why people are thinking that you are a typical crackpot. (What's your score, anyway?)
quote:
That link was needed for your education. And, I can see you're still in need of it.
Touché - you really zinged me good with that one! Oh, I can just feel my credibility crumbling amongst the other members here. Woe! Woe is me!

Ah, the hypocrisy. You fault others for being too vague, but when you do it, it's okay. I see. paulgibson doesn't need to follow the rules by which he asks others to play. Yes, the puzzle pieces are falling into place...

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Skyhawk
New Member

33 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2004 :  00:18:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Skyhawk a Private Message
I don't know why paulgibson is bothering to play with the idea of light velocity vectors when the light is not in the same direction as the velocity of the object. I think General Relativity goes more into those realms. But in any case, in any frame of reference light travels at a constant in a vacuum. No matter what frame of reference. I mean, is your intention saying that the speed of light is faster or altered here on Earth if it was measured, compared to being measured in space? If your intentions were correct, experimentally if we created a vacuum here on earth and measured speed of light...it should be different than me staying still in space measuring it. Correct?

Well, would an experiment conducted at Langrange Point prove you wrong if the measurement is the same as here on Earth? Would that make you happy? lol. The thing is, is that we have done measurements on the speed of light from double stars as I stated before. And they have shown that lgith is still a constant. Have you studied light cones when time vs. 3-D space is sketched? A creation of Richard Feynman. Anyways, your saying that light would not create a "cone?"

I don't really have some magical point here, I'm just reasonably asking you. And please, don't say Aether exists.
Go to Top of Page

paulgibson
New Member

USA
7 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2004 :  12:15:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send paulgibson a Private Message
A correction to the previous post.

Although the point on the square root of (v-cl'/lt)^2 being plus or minus (v-cl'/lt) was essentially correct, it only went halfway to a full explanation of why the expression should be cl'/lt-v=c. The fact is the expression shouldn't be cl'/lt-v=c, not all the time anyways. The constant is, of course, a speed, and as I mentioned in another part of that same post only positive speeds are valid. The strict interpretation is that the absolute value of (v-cl'/lt) equals c. Personally I'm not a big fan of absolute values, but this would be the place to use them at. Basically it's that with a solution set that could be either a positive or a negative (v-cl'/lt) only the one >0 applies. So, it depends on whether v>cl'/lt or v<cl'/lt.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26022 Posts

Posted - 09/05/2004 :  19:22:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
paulgibson wrote:
quote:
A correction to the previous post.
And no support for your premises.
quote:
So, it depends on whether v>cl'/lt or v<cl'/lt
It depends on more than that, like whether or not your assumptions are valid in the first place, but you won't engage in that discussion.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000