• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

aggle-rithm said:
There is not one single observation. It has been measured repeatedly for over a hundred years. The initial measurements were so baffling that the researchers immediately began making improvements to their measuring systems.
The more sensitive the measurements, the more consistent the observation that c is constant for all reference frames.

This was done well before Einstein came onto the scene.
Click to expand...

I doubt it.
 
Vorpal said:
Nonsense. Photons go along trajectories in spacetime just as much as anything else. It's the length of that trajectory that's so special to them.

Learn special relativity on its own terms, then criticize it based on its ability to deal with experiments. You're never going to get anywhere by arguments from incredulity, because STR is just as mathematically consistent as Euclidean geometry.

Velocity is orientation in spacetime; the fact that going near the speed of light mixes space and time measurements is no more mysterious than turning around in space mixes my "front-back" and "left-right" direction. Since velocity is an orientation, it can be described by an angle to some observer's time axis. The relativistic velocity addition formula just says to add the angles. It's conceptually straightforward; if restricted to one spatial dimension and time, it's even no more complicated than coordinate geometry on a plane that grade-schoolers learn. Until you get to dynamics, anyway.
Click to expand...

So what is it? Can a photon be used as a frame of reference in SR or not?
 
Anders Lindman said:
I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Based on what? The information is out there if you have the curiosity to look into it.

If you do, you will find that Einstein was not the only physicist who took a crack at solving this conundrum. Several others published papers before Einstein did that came to some of the same conclusions. The beauty of Einstein's theory was that it was more complete than these other theories. He did not have to reference them because he solved the problem independently using a different approach.
 
I completely agree with Sol Invictus. I know this post therefore looks a little superfluous, but I just couldn't help butting in and offering my 2c as well.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Based on what? The information is out there if you have the curiosity to look into it.

If you do, you will find that Einstein was not the only physicist who took a crack at solving this conundrum. Several others published papers before Einstein did that came to some of the same conclusions. The beauty of Einstein's theory was that it was more complete than these other theories. He did not have to reference them because he solved the problem independently using a different approach.
Click to expand...

You mean people like Mach? I haven't researched that. What I'm saying is that Einstein's theories are false.
 
aggle-rithm said:
On paper, it can. In practice, it is meaningless to consider the "viewpoint" of a reference frame from which, by definition, no measurements can be made.
Click to expand...

How convenient. Then let's say we have two spaceships traveling in opposite directions at 0.7c. What is the relative velocity between them? I say 1.4c.
 
Anders Lindman said:
You mean people like Mach?
Click to expand...

Most notably, Lorenz.

I haven't researched that.
Click to expand...

And that is why you fail.

What I'm saying is that Einstein's theories are false.
Click to expand...

Based soley on your personal incredulity. Tell me, if the nature of the universe depends so utterly in your ability to believe in it, then how did it get along so well without you for the billions of years before you were born?
 
Anders Lindman said:
How convenient. Then let's say we have two spaceships traveling in opposite directions at 0.7c. What is the relative velocity between them? I say 1.4c.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Simple as that.

From each ship you could theoretically observe the other ship. You wouldn't be able to do that if they were moving apart at FTL.

What you're missing is that the frequency of the light changes between the ships as they move apart faster and faster, while time appears to slow down as each observes the other. At some point the frequency becomes so stretched out that it is no longer visible light, but microwaves or radio waves. It still moves at c, though.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I fail because SR can't deal with having a photon as a frame of reference? :confused:
Click to expand...

Because you lack the basic understanding of a theory that you claim to have disproven, and you display a complete lack of curiosity when it comes to learning more about how that theory came about.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Because you lack the basic understanding of a theory that you claim to have disproven, and you display a complete lack of curiosity when it comes to learning more about how that theory came about.
Click to expand...

A theory that claims all velocities are relative and no velocity can exceed the speed of light?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom