A note on Special Relativity

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

A note on Special Relativity

Post by JSS » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:10 pm

EurekaAlert:

The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula.
.
.
In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.
.
.
The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions.
.
.
All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable.
Generally in Science, one is not allowed to disagree with the reigning propaganda and prosper. For a hundred years scientists here and there have been showing how SRT could not be true. Perhaps one day soon, they will finally be able to get it into the mainstream media as the wheel of change demands a change.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by thedoc » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:34 am

Yes and someday the flat Earthers will be proven correct, space flight deniers will be proven correct, along with global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers. Someday?

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by JSS » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:25 am

thedoc wrote:Yes and someday the flat Earthers will be proven correct, space flight deniers will be proven correct, along with global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers. Someday?
Nah, I doubt that your crowd will ever be proven right about anything. Of course, Science can't actually prove anyone to be right, rather only not prove that they were wrong. It is much easier to prove a wrong than a right.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:21 am

JSS wrote: Generally in Science, one is not allowed to disagree with the reigning propaganda and prosper. For a hundred years scientists here and there have been showing how SRT could not be true. Perhaps one day soon, they will finally be able to get it into the mainstream media as the wheel of change demands a change.
Very nicely said, JSS. For the past century the physics orthodoxy has stumbled haphazardly into a metaphysical quagmire and all of this unholy mess can be attributed to Special Relativity, which is emphatically NOT a model of our physically real universe. The utility of the model is beyond question, and its predictive authority quite breathtaking, but SR is not logically kosher. Minkowski made a godawful mess of Einstein's astonishing insight, which is only to be expected when we allow mathematicians to try and explain our universe to us.

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time to model time as a spatial dimension orthogonal to the three Cartesian dimensions of space but that doesn't mean that we need to keep buying this bullshit a hundred years later. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional mathematical co-ordinate systems. A moving entity in a Cartesian space can move either backwards or forwards along the x, y, and z axes. However time is a stubbornly uni-directional dimension in a universe where we can reasonably expect that effects will always be preceded by causes in an orderly and self-generative fashion. Time is nothing more than a convenient metric by which we can measure the rate of change in a physical system but the arrow of time always points steadfastly from the past into the future via the nexus of the present. This defines time as a fractal dimension and that our universe must therefore be defined as an event rather than as a place.

GR is a theoretical model of spectacular mathematical virtuosity but it also makes perfectly logical sense when we model time as a fractal dimension, which is a perfectly legitimate way of interpreting the empirical evidence. This has interesting consequences. Einstein showed in GR that time does not pass at a constant speed because it bears a precise mathematical relationship with gravity, a relationship which is inversely logarithmic in its nature. Simple logic requires that this mathematical relationship must obtain all the way down to the most fundamental units of physical reality within the atom as well as on the cosmological scale in the relative motion of stars and galaxies. We are watching the world go by at a non-constant speed and it is this which we perceive as motion. However what we're also seeing is reality literally making itself at the speed of light right before our eyes. In a fractal dimension the universe is defined as a reality MAKER and from this perspective we can then properly understand the nature of our observation. The speed of light is finite and thus what we're actually observing is a holographic image being projected through time to our senses. Because the speed of light is finite it is physically impossible for the observer to observe the real world. What he does instead is to "collapse a wave function", a cunning act of cognition which allows him to comprehend his external world. When the observer make his observation what he does is apply a spatial reference frame to what is purely a temporal phenomenon. We live in the wake of the past and the only reality which we can observe is a reality which exists no longer.

It is this no-longer-existing universe which spacetime physics is modelling and that's the sole reason why the current models of physics make no sense.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Greta » Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:13 pm

I have to admit that I'm feeling increasingly leery about the particle zoo too. They keep finding more exotic particles that "break the rules", which suggests that there are principles not yet understood. It all seems too messy, but maybe I'm being too fussy because the period table is also messy, inelegant and seemingly haphazard, but there's been no reason to question its relation to reality.

Leo, why a "fractal" dimension and not just a dimension? A fractal of what?

Without wanting to derail the discussion, I'd like to add that the universe is not just an event but also a thing.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Walker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:51 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote: Generally in Science, one is not allowed to disagree with the reigning propaganda and prosper. For a hundred years scientists here and there have been showing how SRT could not be true. Perhaps one day soon, they will finally be able to get it into the mainstream media as the wheel of change demands a change.
Very nicely said, JSS. For the past century the physics orthodoxy has stumbled haphazardly into a metaphysical quagmire and all of this unholy mess can be attributed to Special Relativity, which is emphatically NOT a model of our physically real universe. The utility of the model is beyond question, and its predictive authority quite breathtaking, but SR is not logically kosher. Minkowski made a godawful mess of Einstein's astonishing insight, which is only to be expected when we allow mathematicians to try and explain our universe to us.

It must have seemed like a good idea at the time to model time as a spatial dimension orthogonal to the three Cartesian dimensions of space but that doesn't mean that we need to keep buying this bullshit a hundred years later. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional mathematical co-ordinate systems. A moving entity in a Cartesian space can move either backwards or forwards along the x, y, and z axes. However time is a stubbornly uni-directional dimension in a universe where we can reasonably expect that effects will always be preceded by causes in an orderly and self-generative fashion. Time is nothing more than a convenient metric by which we can measure the rate of change in a physical system but the arrow of time always points steadfastly from the past into the future via the nexus of the present. This defines time as a fractal dimension and that our universe must therefore be defined as an event rather than as a place.

GR is a theoretical model of spectacular mathematical virtuosity but it also makes perfectly logical sense when we model time as a fractal dimension, which is a perfectly legitimate way of interpreting the empirical evidence. This has interesting consequences. Einstein showed in GR that time does not pass at a constant speed because it bears a precise mathematical relationship with gravity, a relationship which is inversely logarithmic in its nature. Simple logic requires that this mathematical relationship must obtain all the way down to the most fundamental units of physical reality within the atom as well as on the cosmological scale in the relative motion of stars and galaxies. We are watching the world go by at a non-constant speed and it is this which we perceive as motion. However what we're also seeing is reality literally making itself at the speed of light right before our eyes. In a fractal dimension the universe is defined as a reality MAKER and from this perspective we can then properly understand the nature of our observation. The speed of light is finite and thus what we're actually observing is a holographic image being projected through time to our senses. Because the speed of light is finite it is physically impossible for the observer to observe the real world. What he does instead is to "collapse a wave function", a cunning act of cognition which allows him to comprehend his external world. When the observer make his observation what he does is apply a spatial reference frame to what is purely a temporal phenomenon. We live in the wake of the past and the only reality which we can observe is a reality which exists no longer.

It is this no-longer-existing universe which spacetime physics is modelling and that's the sole reason why the current models of physics make no sense.
Considering time in those terms:

Time is a coordinate, usually in numerical language, that references a unique confluence of conditions. If the totality of unique conditions is ever repeated, so is the time coordinate. This is highly unlikely.

One of the conflating conditions of a time coordinate is the orientation of every micro and macro thing in the universe to every other thing. The constant and variable motion of everything makes that condition unique and unrepeatable on any scale except eternity.

Another condition of a particular time coordinate is state of mind. State of mind can be still, or state of mind can be moving (changing) with thoughts and sensory impressions.

Like the universe, the exact configuration of thoughts and sensory impressions at any particular time coordinate is unlikely to repeat. However, awareness minus thoughts and sensory impressions (still mind) is a heavy-weight condition of a time coordinate.

- Although mind movement filters an interface for processing non-repeatable combinations of temporal phenomena,
- although all the conditions comprising mind movement at a time coordinate are unlikely to repeat in exact combination
- still mind, the most significant condition defining a time coordinate, is repeatable because it is always present on the other side of the reality filters.

uwot
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by uwot » Mon Mar 07, 2016 7:30 pm

Walker wrote:Like the universe, the exact configuration of thoughts and sensory impressions at any particular time coordinate is unlikely to repeat.
They do on this forum.
Walker wrote:However, awareness minus thoughts and sensory impressions (still mind) is a heavy-weight condition of a time coordinate.
Not sure what you mean by this. Without thoughts or sensory impressions, what are you aware of?
Anyway, whether SR or GR are proved wrong depends on how you interpret the claims they make. They actually contradict each other, since SR is predicated on the assumption that there is no medium, aether, whereas GR assumes there is. The Hafele-Keating experiment, took both into account and the results were consistent with the combined dilation of motion and gravity. In other words, both SR and GR are useful for understanding what actually happens. Fruitloops who deny this simply haven't done their research, or don't understand it.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:15 pm

Greta wrote:Leo, why a "fractal" dimension and not just a dimension?
A fractal dimension is not a "thing" any more than a Cartesian one is. It's still only a mathematical co-ordinate system invented by the observer to codify his observations but fractal dimensions are uni-directional.The only law which determines physical reality in such a dimension is the meta-law of cause and effect because all events in such a dimension are self-determined. This addresses the most fundamental metaphysical obstacle in all of modern physics, namely why is our universe evolving from the simple to the complex, rather than the other way around? In a fractal time dimension this is exactly what one would expect to see because emergent hierarchies of informational complexity are embedded within each other like Russian dolls.

Ironically it was Newton himself who showed us that the universe is a non-Newtonian entity by demonstrating that because of gravity the motion of every single physical entity in the universe is causally determined by the motions of all the others, and NOT by any such thing as the "laws of physics". The simple rules of formal logic demand that this conclusion must be scale invariant and that therefore what the physicists are calling the "laws of physics" are simply the way in which we've chosen to model this self-determining behaviour of matter and energy. There simply is no valid basis for assuming that the way in which we've chosen to do this represents some sort of "objectively real" world. In a fractal dimension all the various particles, waves, fields and forces which physics uses are merely arbitrarily defined tools by which we codify the self-organising patterns of emergent behaviour in a universe which simply makes it up as it goes along.

Physics has painted itself into an impossible corner by mandating a question of itself which simply has no answer because it's the wrong question.

Q. Why does the universe conform to the particular suite of "laws" and "constants" which physics has devised rather than to some other laws and constants.?

A. Because if it didn't we'd change the bloody things.

This is the sort of question which a biologist would never ask of himself because a biologist is a fractal thinker by default.

Q. Why did homo sapiens evolve to be the uber-predator on this planet rather than some other species.

A. No reason. That's just the way it happened because homo happened to be in the right place at the right time.

This is a more coherent way to think the world because it both satisfies the rules of formal logic as well as conforms with ALL of the empirical evidence. This is the way in which every science except physics thinks the world and it simply cannot be wrong. Physical reality is a PROCESS and processes are purely temporal phenomena. For our mathematical convenience we can project a process onto a background space but the space itself is illusory. SR uses a background-independent space to do this whereas GR uses a background-dependent one so these models are mutually exclusive in their very formulation. In a fractal continuum of time and gravity neither of these spaces have any ontological validity because both are defined as observer constructs. We simply cannot escape the fact that the universe which we observe is a universe which no longer exists in the form that we're observing it. The notion of a physical space extending between the observer and his observation of a phenomenon which no longer exists is a metaphysical absurdity of spectacular folly which was soundly rejected 2500 years ago by the pre-Socratics. It has been soundly rejected by a great many philosophers since that time and until such time as it is rejected by physics this befuddled science cannot progress.

The map and the territory are not the same thing.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by thedoc » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:22 pm

JSS wrote:
thedoc wrote:Yes and someday the flat Earthers will be proven correct, space flight deniers will be proven correct, along with global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers. Someday?
Nah, I doubt that your crowd will ever be proven right about anything. Of course, Science can't actually prove anyone to be right, rather only not prove that they were wrong. It is much easier to prove a wrong than a right.
Please, these are not my crowd, I was just using them as examples of how wrong some people can be, with a bit of sarcasm.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:45 pm

uwot wrote:Anyway, whether SR or GR are proved wrong depends on how you interpret the claims they make.
As you point out these models make conflicting claims so obviously they can't both be right. SR is regarded as a "special case" of GR in the so-called "flat space" but GR actually shows that there's no such thing as a "flat space" anywhere in the physical universe, including within the atom.

Ultimately the question for physics is not one of figuring out why these models are wrong but rather a matter of figuring out what these models are telling them. Until we can properly understand that an observation is an act of cognition this is not going to be possible because these models of physics are modelling a holographic representation of reality and not reality itself.
uwot wrote:In other words, both SR and GR are useful for understanding what actually happens.
No they aren't. They're useful for predicting what will be observed to happen but they are both non-mechanical models. They cannot explain why matter and energy should behave in the way they do rather than in some other way. Essentially what physics is attempting to do is to linearise the non-linear by formulating its epistemic suite of "laws" and "constants", and this is a very useful tool for making predictions. However this method can never have any explanatory authority because these laws and constants are a property of the consciousness of the observer of them and not a property intrinsic to the universe itself.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Walker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:55 pm

uwot wrote:
Walker wrote:Like the universe, the exact configuration of thoughts and sensory impressions at any particular time coordinate is unlikely to repeat.
They do on this forum.
Walker wrote:However, awareness minus thoughts and sensory impressions (still mind) is a heavy-weight condition of a time coordinate.
Not sure what you mean by this. Without thoughts or sensory impressions, what are you aware of?
Anyway, whether SR or GR are proved wrong depends on how you interpret the claims they make. They actually contradict each other, since SR is predicated on the assumption that there is no medium, aether, whereas GR assumes there is. The Hafele-Keating experiment, took both into account and the results were consistent with the combined dilation of motion and gravity. In other words, both SR and GR are useful for understanding what actually happens. Fruitloops who deny this simply haven't done their research, or don't understand it.
Re: question

When there is no “of” there can be no “awareness of.” When no "of" is, only awareness.

uwot
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by uwot » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:48 am

Walker wrote:When there is no “of” there can be no “awareness of.” When no "of" is, only awareness.
I'm with Hume on this one when there is no awareness of, there is no awareness at all. A disembodied mind, with no input, I suspect, is simply not aware.

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Walker » Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:40 pm

uwot wrote:
Walker wrote:When there is no “of” there can be no “awareness of.” When no "of" is, only awareness.
I'm with Hume on this one when there is no awareness of, there is no awareness at all. A disembodied mind, with no input, I suspect, is simply not aware.
Well, don’t mean to distract the thread. If those in the know don’t see any relevance to SR just disregard.

One can only say that without awareness of, then there is no awareness of.
One cannot say that there is no awareness, when there is no “of”.
Unless ... ones says that subject and object can only exist together, in relationship, and without the other, neither exists. (Which is true in the sense that neither will exist as defined within that relationship, without that relationship.)

Awareness does not change, though that which affects awareness (objects of awareness, sensory alterations, and cognitive alterations, does change).

And this is not merely a matter of semantics. “Awareness of” differentiation is state of consciousness, made possible by awareness. “Awareness of” constantly shifts, just as the mind shifts when thoughts change. A mind that does not shift has no thought movement. No thought movement is another way of describing undifferentiated thought*, or simply, one thought ... which is not thinking at all, as thinking is movement.

*(as opposed to the biological implication of the phrase “no thought movement.”)

uwot
Posts: 4813
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by uwot » Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:54 am

Walker wrote:.One can only say that without awareness of, then there is no awareness of.
One cannot say that there is no awareness, when there is no “of”.
Well, I'm aware that I'm aware. But the things I am aware I am aware of are sensations, sensory input, if you like. I'm not sure that a mind that has no aware of would be aware that it was aware. What would I be aware I was aware of, if there was no aware of to be aware of?

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A note on Special Relativity

Post by Walker » Sun Mar 13, 2016 6:18 pm

uwot wrote:
Walker wrote:.One can only say that without awareness of, then there is no awareness of.
One cannot say that there is no awareness, when there is no “of”.
Well, I'm aware that I'm aware. But the things I am aware I am aware of are sensations, sensory input, if you like. I'm not sure that a mind that has no aware of would be aware that it was aware. What would I be aware I was aware of, if there was no aware of to be aware of?
One undifferentiated thought or perception that contains all differentiation is Reality, which is unified, i.e., non-dual. Naturally, no single description can encompass (as in contain) One Thought (which isn't a thought since thought requires two), since any description requires Two. Any particular “of,” which requires Two, is derived from One.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests