Moderator: Flannel Jesus
Carleas wrote:James, is the comparison really that accurate?
Carleas wrote:Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted easily observable, unexpected results from experiments decades before the experiments were possible.
Carleas wrote:As to false assumptions, it seems obvious that people in uncontrolled and complex situations can significantly color their experiences with their beliefs. On the other hand, it does not seem obvious that the same type of false assumption could cause scientists observing a controlled experiment to misread a discrepancy in the time displayed by two digital clocks that were once in perfect sync, one of which was stationary and the other of which was flown around in a super-sonic jet.
Farsight wrote:People say the speed of light is constant, and Einstein said it. But it isn't exactly true. Yes, Einstein started with this as a postulate in 1905 when he was doing special relativity, but by 1911 he was into general relativity. That's when he wrote On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light. He kind of got this back to front because his ideas were still evolving, but there's nothing wrong with this:Einstein wrote:If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c0 (1 + Φ/c²).
This is the speed of light varying with gravitational potential. It wasn't a one-off, because in 1912 he said it again when he wrote "On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential". He repeated this in 1913 when he said: "I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis". This wasn’t just some early thought that he later discarded, because there it is again in Die Relativitätstheorie in 1915 when he says " the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned." That’s on page 259 of Doc 21, see the princeton bibliography for a list. He says it again in late 1915, on page 150 of Doc 30, within The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein says "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified." He really spells it out in section 22 of the 1916 book Relativity: The Special and General Theory. What he says is this:Einstein wrote:In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
People tend to see the word velocity in the translations and tend to think vector quantity. They tend to miss the way he refers to c, which is most definitely a speed. It's pretty obvious he's talking about speed because he’s repeatedly referring to “the principle” or "one of the two fundamental assumptions". He was talking about the special relativity postulate, which is the constant speed of light. And it's even more obvious if you go back to the original German. What he actually said was die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. I’ve got the original German version, and I got a German friend to translate it for me. It translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. The word “velocity” in the translations was the common usage, as in “high velocity bullet”, not the vector quantity that combines speed and direction. He was saying the speed varies with position, hence the reference to the postulate, and hence it causes curvilinear motion. The space is inhomogeneous, so light follows a curved path. like a car veers when the near-side wheels encounter mud at the side of the road. It really is like this, space isn't nothing because it sustains waves and fields, and Einstein said as much in his 1920 Leyden Address. That's where he was talking about space as a kind of "aether", saying this:Einstein wrote:According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that ‘empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty.
That's Einstein talking about aether, which special relativity had supposedly dispelled.
Farsight wrote:James: there is some merit to what you're saying. People behave in a dogmatic fashion within religion, and they do it within physics too. When challenged they react with outrage and hostility, and will say anything to try to discredit you. But I'm afraid you're attacking the wrong target.
Farsight wrote:You shouldn't be attacking relativity per se, you should be attacking the way it's misinterpreted and misrepresented. That's where the dogma lies. A graphic illustration of this concerns the speed of light. Here's something I've written previously on this, please study it carefully. I hope you will then come to appreciate that your present stance requires some revision.
Carleas wrote:Well, we're really talking about a few different things. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument.
First I don't think you're commenting on 'science' as a principle,
2) The popular relationship with science can often be religious-feeling, but it doesn't have to come down to faith in authority figures. A lay individual who has not personally confirmed the positions she's come to accept can still reasonably rely on the theory and the ToP of science to conclude that most of what is published in peer-reviewed journals is more-or-less accurate.
Carleas wrote:It's also rational to assume that most of what the mainstream media reports about those findings is reported in good faith and their intent is not to mislead (again, an appeal can be made to a ToP of journalism that encourages faithful reporting, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion).
Carleas wrote:It is a complaint about poorly reasoning individual humans, rather than one about any specific aspect of science itself.
I empathisize absolutely. But I think you've taken the wrong approach with your last couple of threads.James S Saint wrote:Realize if you will that I am talking about the actual reality of social effects, not anyone's theory and altruistic intent.
And so you should.James S Saint wrote:That was the very target that I was "attacking" as you put it.
Back up the Einstein quotes with hard scientific evidence like the Shapiro delay, where the wikipedia article includes the chapter 22 quote. Or use this example: take two identical light clocks, keep them flat to avoid radial length contraction, and place one up in space and the other down near a planet, in a region of low gravitational potential. What happens? The second light clock runs slower. And it runs slower because the light goes slower. That's it, that's the scientific evidence, that's what's important. What you should be attacking is the denial of this evidence by people who claim to be defending relativity. Why don't you take my post or edit it into your own words and then put it up on physicsforums? I'm banned from there as some kind of heretic, so I can't.James S Saint wrote:"But remember Jesus said..." "Yes, but that is not exactly what he meant.."
I do what I can. It's a battle of ideas, and we've all got to pull together.James S Saint wrote:Note how often you are quoting a prophet and defending "what he really meant". In your case, you are rather constantly engaged with people challenging you by quoting scripture passages (my sympathies). In such an exchange, you have little choice to accept the eventual mind set of merely quoting the prophet yourself, because that is all "they" (the louder worshipers) listen to. You can see what happens when I ignore it. In a since, they tease you into falling into their worship as you ignore your potential to analyze and think on your own. The Jews get seriously ridiculous about it among themselves, but it is certainly in all of the religions, most certainly including our new Scientism.
Yes, it's a problem, and it's not easy to fix. But I think the best way to fight those inmates is to throw their own prophet back in their face followed by a bucketful of scientific evidence.James S Saint wrote:I got introduced into Christianity by first reading only what Jesus was quoted as to saying and I thought, "well that makes sense" and I was happy to think that all those high minded Christians actually had a good understanding.. way.. up.. there.. somewhere, despite what I had to deal with directly. And this is always the case. In every religion, including Scientism, a founding prophet speaks his words and a movement is started. If you examine his words alone, you will seldom find anything wrong with any of them although you do have to consider their position and intent. You have done this thoroughly with Einstein. The problem is that in every case, very shortly after the founding prophet leaves the scene, the inmates take over the asylum. All that is left of their founders are a few sound bites and a name afloat a cloud of passion, manipulation, and chaos.
It isn't hopeless. We've got the internet.James S Saint wrote:I used to defend the Christians based on the fact that their founder actually had it right and I could pretty easily prove it to anyone in person, although much more difficult online. But the problem is that I, and anyone who attempts such things ends up really fighting the entire mountain in an effort to ensure its better foundation. Not only is there no success to be had in such and endeavor, but it occupies your entire life somewhat pointlessly. It is like beating a bush with a stick in an effort to kill it and taking your entire life to do it. What else would you not have accomplished?
From greed and selfishness and vested interest. That's how people are.James S Saint wrote:I believe in the general process of expecting just a tiny bit more thinking or good behavior from others than I really expect to receive. In so doing, anyone encourages growth. But in so doing, it becomes difficult to anticipate just how ridiculously bad others can already have gotten. So from whence does the evil come?
Let's not get into what might be used as a "conspiracy theorist" criticism intended to discredit you.James S Saint wrote:Well, it is never really an issue of what some prophet said. Those words are merely the distraction. It is always what someone has taken those words to mean. Remember that symbol on the dollar with the pyramid where the eye of Ra is floating separated from the rest of the pyramid? Well that is largely the way it is in society, complete segregation between those who actually use understanding and those who merely worship someone else's or don't do either. It is the very concept of socialism to separate the right and good from the bad and evil (YHWH). The problem is that such isolationism, despite being quite justified, is in itself largely "evil" (producing more harm than good). You cannot talk to them. They don't know you even exist. The "eye of ra" is disfunctional and to a degree always has been, although Homeland Security is attempting to establish a technological version far greater than any has ever been. The US is run by a religion, and Christianity ain't it.
Many do. But others will say and do anything to oppose it.James S Saint wrote:As you argue day to day, as I have watch you do, do you ever step back to look at what it is that you are actually arguing against? As you state, it isn't what the founding prophets have said, they knew what they meant. And so do you and I. So why don't the others?
It's a power and elitism thing rater than a matter of worship.James S Saint wrote:The practice and refusal to either think or leave the thinking to those who will adhere to the process of thinking, prevents thinking and drowns those who attempt it. It is a war between active authorities, not between truths. It is a war of worshippers, not of scientists or prophets. On the highest level, none of them actually disagree enough on anything to even mention. The issue is between the worshippers as they empower their superusers with their loyalty and passionate defense of the realm.
They appeal to authority to deflect attention from the evidence and the logic.James S Saint wrote:Why do you even know the name Einstein or Maxwell (my personal fav)? Isn't Science supposed to be about the thoughts, not their prophets? Why does anyone even speak the words, "But Einstein said"? Think about it.
I talk in terms of belief and conviction rather than worship, but we're barking up the same tree. Please understand that I'm trying to help. I'm giving you a surer aim, and the ammunition. Please use it. Attack the misinterpretation and the mythology that is touted as relativity, not relativity itself.James S Saint wrote:The practice of worship within Science is the only real enemy to its progress. If you read any of my blogs associated with governing, you could see that I am somewhat of an extreme idealist aimed at honest governing and practices noting to always openly document what you do and think and always do and think what you openly document. I never mention names as an excuse to do or think something.
Farsight wrote:I empathisize absolutely. But I think you've taken the wrong approach with your last couple of threads.
Farsight wrote:Back up the Einstein quotes with hard scientific evidence like the Shapiro delay, where the wikipedia article includes the chapter 22 quote. Or use this example: take two identical light clocks, keep them flat to avoid radial length contraction, and place one up in space and the other down near a planet, in a region of low gravitational potential. What happens? The second light clock runs slower. And it runs slower because the light goes slower. That's it, that's the scientific evidence, that's what's important. What you should be attacking is the denial of this evidence by people who claim to be defending relativity. Why don't you take my post or edit it into your own words and then put it up on physicsforums? I'm banned from there as some kind of heretic, so I can't.James S Saint wrote:"But remember Jesus said..." "Yes, but that is not exactly what he meant.."
Farsight wrote:I do what I can. It's a battle of ideas, and we've all got to pull together.
Farsight wrote:Yes, it's a problem, and it's not easy to fix. But I think the best way to fight those inmates is to throw their own prophet back in their face followed by a bucketful of scientific evidence.
Farsight wrote:It isn't hopeless. We've got the internet.
Farsight wrote:It's a power and elitism thing rather than a matter of worship.
Farsight wrote:They appeal to authority to deflect attention from the evidence and the logic.
Farsight wrote:Attack the misinterpretation and the mythology that is touted as relativity, not relativity itself.
I'd have to check the dates, so don't quote me, but I started with a userid of "Popular" back in 2004, made a few posts about something I'd found concerning "Energy misdefined in physics", and was immediately banned as a crackpot. Then in 2006 I reregistered as "Farsight", both our teenage children dropped all their science subjects, and I felt remiss and started to give homework help. The naive questions like What is energy? seemed to be a problem, and the responses from more qualified contributors didn't seem satisfactory. I started to converse about such "basic concepts", and it didn't go down too well, particularly with Doc Al. I made a particular comment saying something like "the speed of light is how fast things happen", and was suspended for a fortnight. There had previously been some jocular talk from Zapperz about "couldn't stay away", and in my own naivity I foolishly registered under different userids both at home and work - more than one because I suffered a cookie wipeout at home and had a new PC imposed on me at work - and then got a permanent ban. I went back on a year or so later as "Voltage" to ask some black hole questions, but was rumbled after a month or so and curtailed. About a year ago I registered afresh as JohnDuffield only to ask if I could come back on - I didn't make any other posts and made it clear I wouldn't until given the OK. However the answer was no, it was a life sentence, and the logon message reads: You have been banned for the following reason: You've had enough chances with enough usernames. If you think your infractions were "minor" then you still don't get it. Date the ban will be lifted: Never.Carleas wrote:Farsight, I'm curious what your experiences were on physicsforums (both as a science buff and as a forum admin:). If you're comfortable sharing, what were the circumstances of your banning there? From what I've seen of you here, you are respectful and well spoken, and have interesting things to say on the subjects that concern you. It would speak very poorly of a supposedly scientific community to forcibly remove someone simply for deigning to disagree.
Xunzian wrote:Let's use this as a rough rubric to examine the physics of James S Saint as presented in his other threads. Items that fit him will be bolded.
The Crackpot Index
Farsight wrote:don't rock the boat or you'll never make full professor. The overall theme seems to be go against the mainstream and you've got problems, so you'd better hang fire until you're emeritus.
Carleas wrote:Einstein's theory of special relativity predicted easily observable, unexpected results from experiments decades before the experiments were possible. The Bible doesn't usefully predict anything.
James S Saint wrote:Carleas wrote:It is a complaint about poorly reasoning individual humans, rather than one about any specific aspect of science itself.
That is exactly my point.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]