• 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?

TjW said:
It's been my experience that if something is observed, it needn't be assumed.

So Special Relativity matches observed relativity, but it doesn't match the assumption plus observed reality.

And you know what they say about assume: it makes an ass of u and me.
Click to expand...

In what way does Special Relativity match observed reality? (I will try to debunk any scientific experiment about this. :D)
 
R.A.F. said:
Why can't you prove yourself correct? Why do we have to prove you wrong?

That's not how science "works", and your ignorant postings are not going to change that.
Click to expand...

The problem with that approach is that if the scientific experiments that confirm Special Relativity are hoaxes, then no amount of me providing opposing evidence will work. I can say things like time is not a dimension. And then people can say that time is a dimension because Special Relativity says so. So I'm stuck! Only by exposing fraud in the scientific experiments can I show that Special Relativity is false.
 
I give up. There is no way I can show that Einstein's relativity is a hoax. I can present ideas why it may be so, and that's what I have done. To investigate it further is not my job.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I give up. There is no way I can show that Einstein's relativity is a hoax.
Click to expand...

Sure you can...it's called evidence..you have none.

I can present ideas why it may be so, and that's what I have done.
Click to expand...

Your "ideas" are irrelevant...give us a reason to believe you. Here's a hint, it involves the presentation of credible evidence.

To investigate it further is not my job.
Click to expand...

Then stop advocating nonsense, because as long as you do, you make it your "job".
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course, but if you always trust experts blindly without really having grokked the topic yourself...
Click to expand...

You seem to err in the belief that I and others dispute your claims because we have been told differently by experts whom we trust without question. You fail to consider that we dispute your claims because we are the experts -- i.e., we have practical knowledge and experience in these matters.

I can speak knowledgeably about the LM reaction control system because spacecraft design is part of my professional experience. It's a job just like any other, and there are plenty of normal people who are competent in it. The practice of spacecraft control is not some mystical priesthood presided over by NASA.

You did not grok the topic yourself, and you further resisted being informed by others whose knowledge was appropriately obtained and validated. You don't get to claim intellectual superiority here. You are simply uninformed, and you're trying to disguise your ignorance as skepticism.

...you risk being too gullible in some cases.
Click to expand...

Believing in conspiracy theories is not a cure for gullibility.

People have outsourced their rational judgements to authorities too indiscriminately imo.
Click to expand...

Actually you'll find that most conspiracy theorists are the ones who are more enslaved to pied-piper authors. While pretending to eschew "authority," what they really do is simply believe implicitly some conspiracy-approved authority.

You said yourself you cite experts that you trust, which you've shown us to be experts that simply agree with what you have to say. You've outsourced your judgment to conspiracy authors, and when people try to show you facts that question your judgment, you stubbornly resist.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I strongly suspect the moon landings were a hoax and am content with that for the time being, so I don't need to contact any experts about it.
Click to expand...

So not only do you start with your conclusion, but your conclusion precludes actually verifying your conclusion !

I'm not a conspiracy researcher. It would take a lot of effort to check all the facts even if I contacted a lot of experts.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather make it all up.
 
I came to think of an experiment that would convince me that Einstein's relativity may be correct.

One laser is running on rails at 100 m/s. And another laser is mounted on the ground (0 m/s). When the laser on rails passes exactly at the position of the laser on the ground both lasers are fired. 20 meters ahead from that position the photons from both lasers are measured. If the photons hit the detectors at exactly the same time, then that would confirm at least Einstein's claim that c + 100 m/s = c from the observer's point of view. The observer is located on the ground.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I came to think of an experiment that would convince me that Einstein's relativity may be correct.

One laser is running on rails at 100 m/s. And another laser is mounted on the ground (0 m/s). When the laser on rails passes exactly at the position of the laser on the ground both lasers are fired. 20 meters ahead from that position the photons from both lasers are measured. If the photons hit the detectors at exactly the same time, then that would confirm at least Einstein's claim that c + 100 m/s = c from the observer's point of view. The observer is located on the ground.
Click to expand...

Much better experiments were conducted over a century ago. They showed that the speed of light is a constant long before anyone ever heard of Einstein.

Einstein's theory is not that light is the same speed from all inertial frames. That was a fact that had been well established by that time. The theory explains the fact.

I know I may as well be talking to a tree, though.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Much better experiments were conducted over a century ago. They showed that the speed of light is a constant long before anyone ever heard of Einstein.

Einstein's theory is not that light is the same speed from all inertial frames. That was a fact that had been well established by that time. The theory explains the fact.

I know I may as well be talking to a tree, though.
Click to expand...

What kind of experiment was that? And why would it be much better? The moving laser experiment is very simple and physics students would easily be able to do that kind of experiment. And surely that kind of experiment has already been done many times? Heck, even one moving laser would be enough.
 
Anders Lindman said:
One laser is running on rails at 100 m/s. And another laser is mounted on the ground (0 m/s). When the laser on rails passes exactly at the position of the laser on the ground both lasers are fired. 20 meters ahead from that position the photons from both lasers are measured. If the photons hit the detectors at exactly the same time, then that would confirm at least Einstein's claim that c + 100 m/s = c from the observer's point of view. The observer is located on the ground.
Click to expand...

According to my arithmetic, the difference in arrival times of the two signals is about 30 femtoseconds. You'll need measuring equipment capable of measuring to a precision significantly better than 30fs, and you'll have to time the pulses to a similar level of precision despite the fact that one laser is moving at 100ms-1 relative to the other. The level of precision required is way beyond the abilities of the average physics student in an undergraduate lab. And all it will do is confirm the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is actually very easily reproduced by an average physics student in an undergraduate lab.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
According to my arithmetic, the difference in arrival times of the two signals is about 30 femtoseconds. You'll need measuring equipment capable of measuring to a precision significantly better than 30fs, and you'll have to time the pulses to a similar level of precision despite the fact that one laser is moving at 100ms-1 relative to the other. The level of precision required is way beyond the abilities of the average physics student in an undergraduate lab. And all it will do is confirm the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which is actually very easily reproduced by an average physics student in an undergraduate lab.

Dave
Click to expand...

But the Michelson-Morley experiment tests: "Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether flow." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

So it tests for some aether, not for the speed of light, or?

Besides, here is another claim:

"Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame

... These experimental results refute Einstein's assertion that absolute motion through space has no meaning." -- http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205065
 
Anders Lindman said:
But the Michelson-Morley experiment tests: "Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether flow." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

So it tests for some aether, not for the speed of light, or?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's worth trying to answer that question; the fact that you think there even is a question demonstrates that you won't understand the answer.

Dave
 
Anders Lindman said:
But the Michelson-Morley experiment tests: "Michelson had a solution to the problem of how to construct a device sufficiently accurate to detect aether flow." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

So it tests for some aether, not for the speed of light, or?
Click to expand...

No. It measured differences in the speed of light to test for the relative motion of the aether.

The surprising thing was that, to the limits of their measurement, no differences could be found.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom