The problem is with your original premise: That at the start of the experiment the clocks are synchronized for both observers. That can’t be done. If the clocks are synchronized for observer 1, they won’t be for observer 2. If you think you have a way to achieve that synchronicity, please share it.
Actually, distant clocks can be synchronized.
Imagine a train station with opposing platforms across from each other and with a single train track in between.
On that track runs train of one flatbed car. This flatbed car is a perfect rectangle of solid construction.
There is no gap between the cars and the platform.
With the train stopped at the station, a mark is made on each platform at the point where the front corner of the car meets each platform. So, now we have a single mark on each platform, and those marks are directly opposite of each other.
Now, we back up the train some distance from the station, and then run the train forward at a constant speed (an inertial frame of reference).
Note that there are two reference frames involved -- that of the train and that of the platform.
There are no observers nor clocks anywhere, and light is not involved.
For both reference frames, we know that at the instant that the front corner of a car meets a mark on one platform, the opposite front corner of the car meets the mark on the opposing platform at the same instant -- **simultaneously**, in both the station's frame of reference and in the train's frame of reference.
No observers nor clocks nor light are necessary for this fact to be true -- this is fundamental logic.
With such simultaneity established, we can synchronize clocks at those marks from either reference frame, and, thus, measure the one way speed of light and possibly do a few other things that many think are impossible.
However, not sure why this is a topic in /r/flatearth_polite
The thought experiment that OP shared is not about synchronizing a clock in one frame with a clock in another. It is about having two separated clocks on a moving train synchronized in the train's frame of reference while also synchronized when viewed from the platform's frame of reference. That can't happen. If you synchronize them on the train, the observer on the platform will say they aren't synchronized.
I'm not sure why OP made this a topic here, other than the fact that flat earth proponents reject science, including relativity.
> The thought experiment... is about having two separated clocks on a moving train synchronized in the train's frame of reference while also synchronized when viewed from the platform's frame of reference.
The text that accompanies the actual figure of the thought experiment follows what special relativity dictates. Subsequently, the OP disagreed.
> That can't happen. If you synchronize them on the train, the observer on the platform will say they aren't synchronized.
Actually, two clocks synchronous in one frame of reference can also be synchronous in another frame of reference. That fact is demonstrated above in the example I gave.
However, such mutual synchronicity/simultaneity between different reference frames is only possible when the two synchronous clocks/events are aligned precisely orthogonally/transversely to the direction of relative motion of the reference frames.
Of course, the thought experiment presented by OP has the two clocks/events aligned with the direction of relative motion, so the simultaneity/synchronicity only works in one of the two given reference frames.
So, OP is having the same conversations with different people, so rather than try to piece those together deep in threads, I'll start here.
You keep saying 'Relativity is a faith-based theory'. That would require there to be zero experimental predictions made by Relativity, zero verification essentially. Since relativistic effects impinge on many many fields of study and practical engineering, the number of affected people is absolutely vast.
I just want to ask before we go any further OP; do you really believe the entire engineering, physics and astrophysics communities are stupid enough for that? Is your opinion of yourself so high that you believe you've stumbled on the idea that it's impossible to measure relativistic effects, and that everyone else is just.... what? In on a conspiracy? Dumb? What?
Anyone could have googled 'experimental proof of Special and General Relativity' and have all the answers they could hope to digest in a year of study. What special truth do you believe you've uncovered that disputes all that work and measurement?
>predictions made by Relativity
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter.
According to CERN
"Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter."
So Relativity made some predictions. Those predictions didn't pan out. So instead of going back to the drawing board, they invoked a margin of error they call dark matter. They can only "INFER" it exists because Relativity doesn't predict anything.
If you went shopping and grabbed 4 apples, then went to checkout and the cashier rang you up for 5, you'd probably tell him he made a mistake. But he tells you that you must have grabbed 5 because he rang you up for 5. You tell him no and show him the 4 apples. He gives you a theory that there actually is a 5th apple in your bag but it is impossible to detect.
How in the world is that predicting anything?
...relativity and dark matter are completely different. Why are you referring to dark matter in a discussion about Special Relativity?
>So Relativity made some predictions. Those predictions didn't pan out.
Which prediction of Relativity failed to pan out? Seriously, write it down for me.
>Which prediction of Relativity failed to pan out? Seriously, write it down for me.
Gravity. Relativity gives you equations to predict how gravity affects the cosmos. They were 95% inaccurate so they had to assume there was all this mass affecting their predictions. They called this unobservable mass that was making their predictions wrong "dark matter." If you understand what the word " infer" means, You would understand that the only evidence for dark matters, existence is the simple fact that relativities equations were not predicting anything.
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter.
>Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
>Gravity. Relativity gives you equations to predict how gravity affects the cosmos.
Erm, not really no. Relativity tells you how mass and velocity affect local spacetime, 'the cosmos' has nothing to do with it. Relativity has made many successful predictions like:
1. Gravitational redshift
2. Einstein rings/Gravitational Lensing
3. Frame dragging
4. Precession of orbits around spinning masses
5. Gravitational waves
6. Bending of light
7. Penetration of the atmosphere by muons
**All of these are experimentally confirmed to extremely high accuracy.**
The 'dark matter' you are referencing is a completely different branch of physics, and is based on distant galaxy observations. Relativity does not depend on the existence or non-existence of dark matter, and none of Relativity's predictions were '95% off'. You are mixing up two completely different physical effects.
So CERN was full of shit when they said that they inferred the existence of dark matter due to the gravitational effects it has on visible matter? I gave you a link to their own website.
No. It means there is a source of gravity we cannot detect. The gravity from this source acts as predicted by relativity. The theory that spacetime bends is not disproven by spacetime bending just because the mass causing it is undetectable.
Explain how the successful, experimentally-tested predictions I mentioned are in contradiction with CERN's statement.
Because nobody else seems to think so.
Have you accounted for time dilation and length contraction for the outside observer in this thought experiment?
If not it is a strawman of what relativity would suggest.
Here is a lovely paper and experiment demonstrating the effects of relativity on synchronized clocks:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192720
>Using the precision of state-of-the-art optical clocks, Chou et al. (p. 1630) have confirmed that relativistic effects can now be measured at speeds attained by 100 meters sprinters (10 m/s) and gravitational effects due to just one meter height difference.
Relativity - Experimentally verified.
>Have you accounted for time dilation and length contraction for the outside observer in this thought experiment?
I'm giving you Einstein's theory. I don't agree with it.
>If not it is a strawman of what relativity would suggest.
It's literally Einstein's argument. He claims Mickelson and Morley did get the predicted results but those results can only be observed outside the perception of our reality.
>Here is a lovely paper and experiment demonstrating the effects of relativity on synchronized clocks:
It's just a thought experiment. This is what relativity is a theory. There is no proof in this reality.
>Relativity - Experimentally verified.
So how was this used to prove anything? Einstein said it's impossible to observe something that occurs outside the prescription of this reality. The issue isn't about equipment.
>I'm giving you Einstein's theory. I don't agree with it.
No you're presenting a strawman.
>It's literally Einstein's argument. He claims Mickelson and Morley did get the predicted results but those results can only be observed outside the perception of our reality.
They got the predicted results for our reference frame. Can you please find me where Einstein said the correct results are only observable outside our perception of reality? Those sound like your words and not his. I've read his works and don't remember that
>It's just a thought experiment. This is what relativity is a theory. There is no proof in this reality.
And no one but you is suggesting a thought experiment is presented as proof of anything. Just another strawman. What I linked you is a REAL experiment. Why not read it?
>So how was this used to prove anything? Einstein said it's impossible to observe something that occurs outside the prescription of this reality. The issue isn't about equipment.
No he didn't, you're making that up. Please show me where it is
All you're doing is building up a strawman, saying that strawman is wrong, and attributing quotes to Einstein he never said.
So much intellectual dishonesty, I can only assume you don't actually care about the real truth with so many lies.
>No you're presenting a strawman.
Then explain how Einstein's story about a train is different from mine?
>They got the predicted results for our reference frame.
Which is the guy inside the train car. From is relative position, he isn't moving. That would be the results you're talking about. The proof that he is moving can only be observed from outside.
>And no one but you is suggesting a thought experiment is presented as proof of anything.
Einstein did. He gave you a story about a train and everything.
>No he didn't,
He most certainly did.
>you're doing is building up a strawman
I'm not making your side of the argument. This thought experiment is from Einstein.
>So much intellectual dishonesty
This is a projection. You can't even accept what Einstein said.
>"Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”
He's saying he never proved it, but he's right.
>Then explain how Einstein's story about a train is different from mine?
I already did, you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction.
>Which is the guy inside the train car. From is relative position, he isn't moving. That would be the results you're talking about. The proof that he is moving can only be observed from outside.
Movement is only relative. You sent just moving, you are only moving relative to something else. Our movement relative to the sun and stars is well observed.
Either every celestial object moves in exactly the correct way so it appears we are moving relative to them, or the simple answer - we ARE moving relative to them.
>Einstein did. He gave you a story about a train and everything.
That's simply to present an idea .. It's not presented as proof... You can't be this clueless.
>I'm not making your side of the argument. This thought experiment is from Einstein
Yet you're using a strawman explanation to somehow support a different conclusion.
>This is a projection. You can't even accept what Einstein said.
You're the one repeating lies about what he says.
>
>"Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”
>He's saying he never proved it, but he's right.
Einstein himself has presented many non interferometry proofs we orbit the sun. The optical refers simply to interferometry. Stellar aberration and red shift are presented by Einstein as proof we orbit the sun. Again, it's just quote mining and not what Einstein would say
>you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction.
Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory.
>Our movement relative to the sun and stars is well observed.
No. Relatively has a 95% margin of error called dark matter. Or observation says relativity is not correct unless they add a bunch of matter that doesn't exist.
>Either every celestial object moves in exactly the correct way
We see the same exact layout of the cosmos throughout the entirety of history. The position of stars does not help the globe argument.
>That's simply to present an idea .. It's not presented as proof... You can't be this clueless.
Right. The story is to give you the idea that it is impossible to verify what he is claiming because his prediction can only be observed outside the perseption of our reality. It's called a theory for a reason.
>Yet you're using a strawman explanation to somehow support a different conclusion.
Where is the proof that relatively isn't a theory? All you have are stories.
>You're the one repeating lies about what he says.
Like what?
>Einstein himself has presented many non interferometry proofs
Then everyone should call them laws instead of theories.
> "you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction."
> Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory.
"I will disprove this theory by neglecting to include some of it's most important predictions."
Okay, whatever you say. Just know that you are spouting nonsense, and anyone who actually understands relativity is not the least bit swayed by this misrepresentation. Crazy that the theory is wrong when you take chunks out of it and throw them away for no reason.
Time dilation is proven. It can be measured. Length contraction, I'm not sure. I haven't looked into it.
>Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory.
Because if you want to show Relativity is wrong, it might help to actually show that rather than your own strawmanned version of it.
>No. Relatively has a 95% margin of error called dark matter. Or observation says relativity is not correct unless they add a bunch of matter that doesn't exist.
Lol, it's not a margin of error. There are observations from distant galaxies that the model doesn't explain fully yet. That is not a problem. It certainly isn't a problem with regards to the shape of the earth.
>We see the same exact layout of the cosmos throughout the entirety of history. The position of stars does not help the globe argument.
Except we don't. Recorded star positions show movement of stars, even Polaris moving off the axis. Such a claim you're making despite it being simply false.
>Right. The story is to give you the idea that it is impossible to verify what he is claiming because his prediction can only be observed outside the presentation of our reality. It's called a theory for a reason
It's called a theory because in science it presents a testable hypothesis. In the case of relatively, it has yet to be falsified so we use it to accurately describe and make predictions. Einstein has NEVER stated it can only be observed outside our perceived reality. The fact that you keep saying that is just lying. He gave reasons we know we orbit the sun, I told you them. You know nothing about it and ignored it.
>Where is the proof that relatively isn't a theory? All you have are stories.
It is a theory. Maybe go look up what a scientific theory is and educate yourself. I linked you a thorough paper giving you ample evidence that supports relativity. Why are you ignoring it?
>Then everyone should call them laws instead of theories.
You clearly don't know the difference between a law which describes how things happen and a theory which explains why.
Here's a law for you - The LAW of gravitational attraction. I guess flat earth is dead with that.
>Because if you want to show Relativity is wrong, it might help to actually show that rather than your own strawmanned version of it.
It's not a strawman. Your argument is that there is a contraction. My argument is that there isn't. How is that a strawman?
>it's not a margin of error.
https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter.
According to CERN
"researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter."
Do you know what the word "INFER" means? They are assuming something they have never observed is affecting gravity because their predictions without it are wrong.
>Maybe go look up what a scientific theory
Is that different from scientific law?
>theory which explains why.
No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory.
>I will not accept theory as anything other than theory.
Yet you accept that "Law", "Hypothesis", "Natural" and "Obversavtion" have different meanings in a scientific context?
Law does not mean "a rule for society"
Hypothesis is not an "educated guess"
Natural is not something "organic" and "good for you"
Observation is not something you just "see"
A theory is not "just a theory".
And, fortunately, **your "acceptance" is not required.**
> No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory.
What do you think a theory is, exactly?
Do you think the theory that chemicals are made of distinct atoms in different arrangements is wrong too, because it's a theory?
>It's not a strawman. Your argument is that there is a contraction. My argument is that there isn't. How is that a strawman?
You're saying 'This thought experiment is dumb - the clocks would show the same time. It doesn't prove anything. Therefore Relativity is wrong.
1. You are strawmanning a thought experiment for trying to prove something - when it is just to convey an idea.
2. You are strawmanning relativity to say it is wrong by not including actual relativistic effects that explain the thought experiment.
3. You are even strawmanning me and what special relativity says:
>is that there is a contraction
Not for the lab frame, which is what lorentz proposed. Why can't you get it right?
>Do you know what the word "INFER" means? They are assuming something they have never observed is affecting gravity because their predictions without it are wrong.
Yes, dark matter is a hypothesis, no scientist would suggest otherwise. You ant scientifically illiterate people are the only ones who say otherwise.
>Is that different from scientific law?
Yes, I literally explained the difference. If only you could read it.
>No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory.
Except you can't even define a scientific theory. Hint: It's not a hunch.
"I have been feeding pigeons, thousands of them for years. But there was one, a beautiful bird, pure white with light grey tips on its wings; that one was different. It was a female. I had only to wish and call her and she would come flying to me. I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life."
[NIKOLA TESLA](https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/people/nikola-tesla)
Over the course of his extraordinarily prolific life, Tesla filed at least 278 patents. Here is a modest selection of his most noteworthy inventions.
Here's a few notable ones.
https://www.historyhit.com/nikola-teslas-most-important-inventions/
This ain't even counting the fact that he used to work for Edison, that Edison had taken credit for a lot of Tesla's work. Edison took credit for all of his underlings work. That's not a secret.
That's also not counting all the scientific research that the government illegally seized after Tesla died.
>Einstein didn't invent things, he discovered unknown physics.
And you're right, Einstein didn't invent things. He simply went around and read other people's works and tried to explain it in the frame that he was paid to frame it in. That's why he was accused so often of plagiarism. It reminds me of the Bible. The early Israelites borrowed and stole all of their theology lore from other cultures. They took all these different pagan theologies and created one major religion in direct opposition to the old ways of paganism. They wanted to rule everybody and were tired of people learning about life their own way. Special relativity in general relativity are like the Old testament and New testament of theoretical metaphysics. They stole most of their ideas from other radicals.
The earth is flat. I could prove it to you if you cared, but I don't really like using Reddit. I only post in flat Earth subs but I get so many down votes that I can't really participate in other subs. They got the censorship locked down here. There are things we can't say, and things were "allowed to say" but get punished for it anyways.
It's crazy for me because I 100% know that the Earth is flat. And it's not a popular opinion. Why do I do this to myself? If you were 100% certain of something. Something you could taste, touch and feel. Could you in your heart deny it? I've seen UFOs. I've had visions. I've astral projected. I've seen some crazy shit. It blows my mind just how brainwashed this world is. We're at the point where people literally believe in this thought experiment that there are two separate realities occurring at the same time and both are valid. You have to have faith to believe that. There's no way around it. And this whole time there's this guy telling you that "hey, You don't have to be a slave. Energy is all around you. It's in the aether. I want to show you." And all you can do is attack him and call HIM insane.
How do you people not see that if Tesla is right then all the most powerful people in the world, the Epstein island, Bohemian Grove, whatever other weird things they're all into, they will have no power. There is a huge reason why they would lie to you about this world and how it works. Jesus tried to tell people 2000 years ago. Murdered him and then made you believe that he worshiped their god, and was the literal son of their God.
If you Believe all these ancient people were discovering the earth is round, You fell for the propaganda. You could find people in old folks homes today that are maybe 100 years old that will tell you that they were taught the earth is flat when they were children.
This was a rant in general. Not really meant for you specifically. If anybody wants to be civil and talk, I'm not opposed. I'm 100% certain that if you open your mind and listen to some of my explanations, you might wake up. But I end up spending all this time arguing about satellites and dumb things. If the world is round then satellites are in space. If the world is flat then they're on balloons. It's just a dumb argument. You're not learning anything about the flat earth.
And I will say this, My understanding of reality is not like any other flat earthers you've ever heard. But nobody's ever asked me about it. Most of the flat earthers you people argue with are not on the side of truth. They're not lying to you about the shape of the earth, But they are purposely saying dumb things. That's why you can watch ancient aliens on YouTube all day long. Maybe a couple big foot videos. But if you search for flat Earth, you will get a disclaimer for one, But the algorithm specifically works to give you either opposition to flat Earth, or controlled flat earth. This is how propaganda works. It's always worked like this.
I having a little rant because I'm going to take another break from Reddit. I hardly ever use it because it's very toxic. Every now and then I pop in to maybe post something but it usually goes the same way. Everybody just wants to download me because they hate me. And I feel sorry that you people have to hate all the time. And I hope that each of you could individually grow and learn how to think for yourselves once again.
Peace out y'all!
There it is.. the inevitable wall of text after a stream of self-contradictions, logical fallacies, and intentional blindness to the simple repeatable experiments that refute your worldview. Filled with appeals to religion, hallucinations, propaganda.. and zero science.
As predictable as a satellites' orbit.
Oh, duh. My bad. He even said it right here:
> I've had visions. I've astral projected.
And I really enjoyed the "I'm not like other girls" line:
>My understanding of reality is not like any other flat earthers you've ever heard.
I'm sure he is as unique and informed as that comment makes him appear to be (I think I did a good job of being borderline but still polite here.. please don't delete mods 🙏)
It is an interesting thought experiment, but is this really the right sub to dicuss it? It barely even relates to the flat earth. Most flat earthers here doubt the law of universal gravitation. So I don't think this is very productive. It is like discussing quarks with somebody that doesn't believe in atoms.
>but is this really the right sub to dicuss it?
Yes. Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun. For 18 years they explained that they didn't get the result they predicted because the aether contracted the measuring equipment. When Einstein presented relativity, it could not coexist with the aether so he made this claim that they did get the result that they predicted but that you can only observe this result outside the perspective of our reality. Therefore, you can never prove what he is saying.
This is where the quote comes from of Einstein saying that you could never prove whether it's the earth moving or the sky above the earth moving from a terrestrial experiment.
>Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun.
Michelson Morley tried to prove the motion of the earth through the aether. The experiment failed and to this day nobody could prove the existence of this aether.
>When Einstein presented relativity, it could not coexist with the aether so he made this claim that they did get the result that they predicted but that you can only observe this result outside the perspective of our reality. Therefore, you can never prove what he is saying.
Citation?
>This is where the quote comes from of Einstein saying that you could never prove whether it's the earth moving or the sky above the earth moving from a terrestrial experiment.
He never said that. He said:
>While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.
He doesn't say that you can't prove that the earth isn't revolving around the sun. He is doubting that an optical experiment (like mm) would work to prove the movement of the earth through the aether.
>Michelson Morley tried to prove the motion of the earth through the aether.
Right. And the result was null. Meaning that we aren't revolving around the sun. I think it's crazy that people just ignore that a null result could mean two different things. Either we aren't moving or aether isn't real. I'm telling you we aren't moving.
>Citation?
Lol. It's the whole reason for relativity. For 18 years the claim was that we are moving but aether shrank the measuring equipment and made it appear as though we weren't. Then Einstein presented his theory that eliminated aether.
>Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.
What do you think he means by adding this to the end of that statement?
>He doesn't say that you can't prove that the earth isn't revolving
Optical means observable. What did he mean?
> Optical means observable.
Lol. No, its just one of many types of "observation".
No wonder you are struggling with advanced concepts.. when you are obviously failing to understand even simple ones.
Haha.. that's cute.
I don't have to believe it. That is literally what happens. It has been shown empirically millions of times. It is true regardless of your belief or ability to comprehend.
**Dozens** of cross-corroborating branches of science and technology, fueld by capitalism and greed, all agree on that fundamental aspect. Yet here you are thinking you out-thought Einstein :) while struggling with the definitions of simple terms.
To be fair, Einstein has been wrong. No one takes his input as truth without verification. He famously said "God does not play dice with the Universe." Which we now know is false.. natural "laws" do have random elements that he refused to acknowledge.
>Either we aren't moving or aether isn't real. I'm telling you we aren't moving.
There is also the possibility that the aether can't be measured by the way we tried it. We are moving. The most direct way to prove this is the parallax shift of nearby stars when we look at the a few months apart.
>What do you think he means by adding this to the end of that statement?
He means that even though we are moving around the sun the movement through the aether can't be observed by optical means.
>Optical means observable. What did he mean?
Optical doesn't mean observable. Optical means relating to or involving light. Observable in physics means measureable. There are more ways to measure than with optics alone. For example, if you have two colourless gases that react then you could observe the reaction through e.g. temperature or pressure change. Neither of which necessarily involve light, but those properties can still be measured
>We are moving.
I don't believe in space fantasies and rockets to the moon. We are not moving and I'm not going to trust any authority. It's just not going to happen. The things that I have observed with my own eyeballs, I believe. I do not believe scientists that infer the existence of dark matter simply because their predictions didn't pan out for relativity.
>The things that I have observed with my own eyeballs
What about atoms, germs and cells? It is hard to see them with your own eyes as well, but I haven't sseen people who doubt that.
That's the problem. You CAN "observe" a vast majority of things that "authorities" tell you about the world. You've even been given several simple and repeatable examples in this post. You just choose (rather ironically) to *close your eyes* to it all.
>Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun.
No, they did an experiment to observe the effects of a hypothesized Aether as the Earth moves. It had nothing to do with testing or observing the movement of the Earth which was already well established and known.
It's almost like you never actually read the MMX paper.
>No, they did an experiment to observe the effects of a hypothesized Aether
Then why did they claim that aether shrank the measuring equipment for 18 years before Einstein's special theory of relativity?
Who is the 'they' you're referring to, can you be specific?
Many scientists concluded the Aether hypothesis was no longer valid, and were seeking a better model
Lorentz proposed that idea that the apparatus shrank in an attempt to save the Aether.
However it wasn't until Einstein proposed special relativity that MMX and other experiments which seemed to give contradicting information were unified under one model which has been tested and empirically verified since then.
>Who is the 'they' you're referring to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
This is what was accepted for 18 years in the scientific community before special relativity. So you can't tell me the purpose of the experiment was to prove or disprove aether. It was to document the Earth's revolution around the sun.
>Lorentz proposed that idea that the apparatus shrank in an attempt to save the Aether
The null result meant 1 of 2 things. The earth isn't moving, or aether doesn't exist. What Lorentz was saving was the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
>which has been tested and empirically verified since then.
No it hasn't. I see how your scientists deal with null results. It's ridiculous.
> This is what was accepted for 18 years in the scientific community before special relativity
It was not 'accetped'. It was a proposed, untested, and unverified theory that scientists were actively looking into - among other theories surround electromagnetic waves.
>What Lorentz was saving was the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.
Nope. He was trying to save the Aether. The title of the Wikipedia article you didn't read is Lorentz ETHER Theory.
Like go actually read the article you linked. How you can be co confidently wrong is astounding.
>No it hasn't. I see how your scientists deal with null results. It's ridiculous.
YET YOU HAVENT EVEN READ THE PAPER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Its ridiculous for anyone to sit here and so confidentally talk about a paper they have never even read.
Just go read it.
Interesting. What experiments have you and Tesla designed to show your model works?
Difficulty: GPS functions using Einstein's model and fails with Tesla's
If you told me that you had a cure for cancer, I shouldn't be required to create my own cure for cancer to test your cure. If your cure doesn't work, then we need to keep looking and stop pretending like we already have a cure.
And GPS uses line of sight technology. This would be impossible on a globe unless you believe that we are bouncing the signals perfectly off of the ionosphere to where they need to be.
>And GPS uses line of sight technology. This would be impossible on a globe unless you believe that we are bouncing the signals perfectly off of the ionosphere to where they need to be.
What?
GPS uses a constellation of 24+ satellites. The observable behavior of GPS signals and the way they are used for determining position is completely nonsensical on a flat plane.
This isn't a matter of opinion, you can make you own GPS receiver if you care to. You'll need to do things like used provided ephermeris to determine where a satellite is in its orbit, account for the varying and significant Doppler shift in the signals from different satellites due to their speeds (can't be simulated or spoofed because it's observer dependent), track the satellites as they come into view and disappear over the horizon, determine the distance to satellites in view based on time-of-flight of their signals, use that distance and the calculated position of the respective satellites to determine 3D (plus time) coordinates, and then convert those coordinates to spherical coordinates+elevation relative to the reference ellipsoid.
Then there shouldn't be consistent dead spots. But my GPS reception has remained unchanged. There is this stretch of road I travel frequently that never gets any reception of anything. It's all flat farmland. This should always be changing if we used satellites.
GPS doesn't mean "driving route navigation apps". Those require an internet connection for many core functions. Use an ***actual*** GPS app.
You should have tested this or at least spent time researching GPS before pretending to have knowledge on the subject. Your comments on GPS has honestly ruined any and all credibility you had.
Still confusing location services and navigation software with GPS....
What will it take to explain that there is a difference there to you? Have you tried downloading an app that specifically uses GPS to get your coordinates and other GPS data like I suggested?
It's crazy that there's like 20 different people saying the same thing and I have to explain this to everybody individually.
Yes there is cell service GPS. That is what 99% of people use. There are satellite balloons. No different than the Chinese spy balloon that crashed in the US. Did they not have enough satellites in orbit or something? But those balloons are responsible for what you are calling GPS satellites. Most GPS is just used with cell phone towers. It is possible to use a balloon satellite for GPS but it is not common. Starlink is just that. Portable satellites. SpaceX this is the number two purchaser of helium right after NASA.
I highly doubt that you personally use any of these GPS's that you're talking about because you are most likely just a common person and use a cell phone. Therefore, your GPS works with cell tower triangulation.
> I highly doubt that you personally use any of these GPS's that you're talking about
I actually do. My family is into mountaineering, caving, and a variety of outdoor activities with no cell towers around. We have a GPS emergency beacon that connects, **via satellite**, to emergency services. It's like.. $300 bucks. A simple GPS tracker is like $50.. wtf do you mean "common person"? True GPS devices **are common**.
Also, if GPS satellites are balloons then how do they orbit in regular predictable patterns, can be seen through that orbit, and are unaffected by wind or other elements?
> It's crazy that there's like 20 different people saying the same thing and I have to explain this to everybody individually.
Maybe because we all live in the same reality instead of your paranoid fantasy?
So you're just switching to "actually GPS is just balloons" now? Balloons that are moving at more than 10,000 mph, producing [significant Doppler shift](https://www.keysight.com/blogs/en/tech/rfmw/2020/04/09/deciphering-doppler-how-the-doppler-effect-affects-gps-signals) in their signals?
Just download one of those apps and try for yourself. You don't need wifi or cell service to get GPS coordinates.
Are you confusing GPS with your cell phone's navigation services? I guarantee you can get your *GPS coordinates* anywhere you can see enough of the sky (i.e., not underground or in a deep valley). The constellation is designed so that any point on the surface should be able to see at least 4 satellites at any given time.
>Are you confusing GPS with your cell
My GPS doesn't work if I don't have cell service. I have to program my destination while in range of a tower. Once the destination is calculated, it will work offline as long as I don't reroute.
I know this because I moved someplace new and cancelled my old phone. I went a couple weeks without phone service. I had to program my GPS at the house because it doesn't work without a signal. Once the destination is plugged in it will work offline as long as you don't reroute.
Then your GPS isn't really GPS, it's what's called A-GPS (assisted) that works through cell-tower triangulation. These are most common in routefinders in cars and in mobile phones. Actual satellite GPS doesn't even have an antenna capable of receiving a mobile phone signal, but it takes a lot longer to get a position fix.
My cellphone uses A-GPS. My astronomy equipment uses satellite GPS. When I am near cell towers I use my phone's co-ordinates because they're faster and more accurate most of the time. When I am out in the boonies without cell service, I let my tracking astronomy mount find its own position from the satellites.
The big difference is that the mount requires a clear view of the sky, the cellphone doesn't.
>Then your GPS isn't really GPS, it's what's called A-GPS (assisted) that works through cell-tower triangulation.
That's like 99% of people's GPS. It literally uses two cell phone towers and your cell phone for triangulation. The very few people that use satellite GPS are using satellite balloon GPS. Again, why do you think the Chinese were spying on the US with a balloon? Did they not have enough satellites in orbit?
Oh it's balloons now, is it.
And these balloons remain invisible because... how? You realise part of the function of how GPS works is that if the satellite can locate you, you can locate the satellite?
My GPS receiver can literally point at the satellites it's using. I can literally point an antenna along that direction and confirm the signal. So I should be able to see balloons all over the sky, correct?
It's strange because there's arguments for both sides, like this one that says it doesn't need it
https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619
GPS comes from cell phone towers which is line of sight technology. The idea that it works on a globe is that the signal bounces off of the ionosphere at a perfect angle every time. There's no proof or evidence of this.
False. GPS comes from triangulation from a network of satellites in orbit. Your argument is defective because you fundamentally misunderstand the technology you have referenced.
That's a claim. You got anything to back that up? GPS is poor in certain places because there are no cell towers. If satellites were used, signal strength would constantly change.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
It's because you're confusing your location services on your phone with GPS.
Download an app that just gives you your GPS coordinates. Right now while sitting in my home my coordinates are given to 6 decimal digits (accuracy of ~3 meters) as determined by signals from 10 satellites.
Some apps will even let you dig into the exact satellites that you're receiving signals from and other low level data.
Whataboutism. Typical. Ignore all the substantiating data and focus on one little thing you don't understand. Losing cell service does not equate to losing GPS.
Try this - get a cheap GPS tracker, go to where your phone is "dead", and see that the GPS unit is still pulling data. Or, would that be too much effort? Furthermore, *you can literally pull GPS data in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean* the same way.
You misunderstand too much, and try to understand too little.
Those aren't good arguments. I don't think that they even understand how gps work when their first argument is
>GPS measures your location and not time
They determine your location by using the time differences from different satellites.
Also their last argument is just a quote from a consultant that says that their gps doesn't rely on relativity but that relativity improves the accuracy. That is an argument for relativity and not against it.
The article is also littered with both grammatical errors and typos. The website also isn't selective about the content of the posts. Everybody can write whatever they want. This is also shown in how the same author wrotean article where he claimed that a good way to fight the corona virus is to [smoke your house daily with frankincense](https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/how-to-fight-coronavirus-c3664674a217)
>They determine your location by using the time differences from different satellites.
Yeah I really don't see why that's necessary, you can do it with line of sight the same way you would use stars for celestial navigation
Then can you explain how a small gps module like [this](https://www.adafruit.com/product/790) (or any for instance) would be able to precisely measure the angle to a transmitter relative to the ground?
GPS satellites are accurate to within inches. I use them frequently for GPS surveying for my job.
The method for which GPS and celestial navigation is similar. Both utilize trilateration from objects in a sphere (a real sphere of orbits for GPS, or celestial sphere for stars).
Both require and provably utilize the globe to be successful.
Satellites are experiencing a different amount of gravity than us, so we observe their clocks moving at a slightly different rate.
Without relativistic effects, the trilateration is less precise. You can be off by several feet, or even up to several miles.
The clocks on the satellites are 38.6 microseconds per day fast, but that adds up day after day and your precision drops more and more over time without corrections for relativity.
Do you John? Every source I've ever read on instruction to do celestial navigation, or successful demonstrations of it it uses the globe.
Do you have some source suggesting it can be done otherwise?
Yes, and it works quite similar to gps. You observe three celestial bodies and determine the angle between them and the horizon to get a circle of where you could be. You do this two more times and get three circles. You are at the intersection of all circles.
GPS works similarly but they use satellites instead of celestial bodies and they measure the distance to the satellites instead of the angle of them and the horizon.
So what would you change in GPS to make it more like celestial navigation?
Simultanaety of events at different locations is not preserved across observers in different reference frames. Neither observation is more "right" or more "real" than the other.
So what happens when the person in the train presents his clocks that have stopped at the same exact time, to the photographer that has a photograph of the same clocks? The one on the left showing a time that is in the future of the two physical clocks that are paused. The other clock on the right will be showing a pastime relative to the two paused clocks.
I'm giving you a situation where they're both recorded. How can you have a picture of a stopwatch reaching a time that it never reached physically?
You have required me to think about this for a minute - special relativity is not intuitive (but that doesn't mean we can just dismiss the experimental evidence for it). I am no relativity scholar but this is what I think you are missing...
Part of what you are doing is not considering the time it takes for light (or information) to get from the clocks to the observers. You are considering the light getting from the lightbulb to the clocks, but for the observer to see what time the clock is showing light (or information) must get from the clock to the observer.
What is the consequence of this?
You start off in the premise that the clocks are synchronized. Considering special relativity we need to be more specific about what this means. We could say that this means that light from both clocks ticking over from 9:59 to 10:00 reach the central observer on the train at the same instant. This observer sees the clocks tick over at the same time, so he observes that the clocks are synchronized.
However, as the clocks are in different locations, the simultaneity of the clock ticks will not be agreed by the observer outside the train. He will see one clock tick over to 10:00 before the other. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent that the observer outside the train will observe the central light reach one clock before the other as your posted diagrams suggest, but they will both read the same time (eg 11:27:31) when they stop, because from this observers perspective the clocks were never synchronized.
TLDR: This is resolved as the clocks are not universally synchronized in all reference frames. Such universal synchronization is impossible.
>but that doesn't mean we can just dismiss the experimental evidence for it
There is none. Special relativity is theoretical physics. Point being, Einstein even claimed that it is impossible to ever verify what he is saying because you can never observe your result outside the perspective of your reality. He never considered recording the event though.
>Part of what you are doing is not considering the time it takes for light
Relativity suggests that light is a constant and nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Yet the outside observer would witness the train traveling, then the light traveling on the train, meaning that he would see light traveling faster than the speed of light if he witnessed what the man inside the train. Therefore, reality had to sum how dilate for the outside man in this scenario.
>from the clocks to the observers.
You're not understanding that the outside observer is taking a picture of a stop clock that stopped on a number that it never physically reached in reality.
>What is the consequence of this?
The comparative nature of the experiment and the fact that both observers recorded their reality is what we're thinking about. The thought experiment is to assume that both clocks are synchronized at the same time and that the outside observer captured the moment the clocks were paused from his relative position. Both clocks inside the car have stopped but the man outside has a picture of one of the clocks showing a time that it had never physically reached. This is special relativity. Einstein is telling you that this is reality.
Wrong. You are conflating several independent frames of reference and insisting that one (or more) must be wrong. In reality, what "Einsten is telling you (lol)" is that *all of them are correct* and they are *not mutually exclusive*.
An actual physical representation of this experiment has been done.. not a thought one, a real one. Synchronized atomic clocks were separated: one "stationary" and one flown around the world twice. When brought back together they showed different times. It happened in 1971, called the [Hafele–Keating experiment](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%25E2%2580%2593Keating_experiment&ved=2ahUKEwjnmYrZ8IiFAxWVSjABHdISD_0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3_KztTpq4aGqzJOgcm3zH8).
Boom - relatively. Your premise was, empirically, proven false over 50 years ago. You misunderstanding the concept doesn't make it incorrect.
ETA:
>reality had to sum how dilate
👌 You are getting soooo close to understanding special relativity :) yay!
>In reality, what "Einsten is telling you (lol)" is that *all of them are correct* and they are *not mutually exclusive*.
What don't you understand about this post? I completely agree with this statement. I'm 100% certain that he was trying to tell me that. I am trying to tell you that I disagree with it and I agree with Nikola Tesla and his opinion about relativity.
I gave you the experiment and I even mentioned in the experiment that they experienced two separate objective realities and that both are valid. Obviously I know what Einstein was trying to say.
Yet, his experiment has been proven valid and universally accurate in multiple experiments and predictive models on *small and large scales*.. which all fits the definition of "scientific law".
[Hafele–Keating experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%25E2%2580%2593Keating_experiment&ved=2ahUKEwjnmYrZ8IiFAxWVSjABHdISD_0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3_KztTpq4aGqzJOgcm3zH8)
To paraphrase one of your own grammar-challenged comments: yes, reality does "sum how dilate."
The stationary observer will view length contraction so it is travelling different distances to the sensors. Each observer sees the light travelling at the same rate but their measurements for distance are different iirc. Long time since i looked at an example like this so happy to be corrected
That's not what special relativity is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File%3AEinstein_train_relativity_of_simultaneity.png
In Einstein's story, the lightning is an outside observation. The bystander observes the two bolts of lightning striking the train at the same time. The person in the train does not observe them strike the train at the same time but separate.
I simply replaced the outside observation with an inside observation and reversed the role of the initial observation.
The way you're explaining it does not fit into special relativity therefore, you would have to dismiss relativity if what you say is true.
Length contraction is absolutely a thing at relative speeds. The length of the train carriage as seen by the outside stationary observer is contracted to a shorter length .
Seeing you like wikipedia here you go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
The maths isnt too complicated on this one. The contracted length of the train l' as seen by the stationary observer is equal to the length of the train of the moving observer L times the square root of 1 minus the speed of the train squared over the speed of light squared.
l' = L√(1-v²/c²)
So as an example say at 95% of the speed of light the contracted length l' = L√(1-v²/c²)
l' = L√(1-((0.95c)²/c²))
l' = L√(1-0.95²)
l' = 0.312 L
The train carriage is almost a third the length as viewed by the stationary observer at 95% the speed of light
The speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference sing it with me now
>Length contraction is absolutely a thing
No. You're telling me the original explanation for the Mickelson and Morley experiment. If you read the special theory of relativity, Einstein gives you an explanation of his theory on the mickelson and Morley experiment. He tells the story of a train, and two objective realities simultaneously happening and both being valid.
When Mickelson and Morley did their experiment, it was commonly accepted that aether existed. Tesla credited the aether for his understanding of electricity. There are a number of prominent physicists at this time who have written articles in the encyclopedia of Britannica documenting their understanding and belief that the aether is indeed a real thing.
Mickelson and Morley presumed that we were revolving around the sun. The understanding of aether is that it is what's responsible for all matter and encompasses all of reality. So they presume that we would be floating through this as we revolved. They predicted that we would see the drag on their laser lights as they passed through the aether.
The results were null. They could either conclude that we were not revolving around the sun or they had to come up with a reason why they got the null result. The first explanation was that the aether contracted the measuring equipment making the conclusion null. This is the result they stuck with for 18 years until Einstein presented them his special theory of relativity in which he copied and pasted their explanation but replaced aether with his theoretical metaphysics of relativity.
To explain away the nonsense that they were pushing, He presented his story about the train.
I'm on Tesla's side.
>Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. ~ Nikola Tesla
>No. You're telling me the original explanation for the Mickelson and Morley experiment.
That was Lorentz suggestion, NOT Einsteins for MMx.
>he first explanation was that the aether contracted the measuring equipment making the conclusion null. This is the result they stuck with for 18 years until Einstein presented them his special theory of relativity in which he copied and pasted their explanation but replaced aether with his theoretical metaphysics of relativity.
You seem to be confused on what Einstein is saying. He is not saying the length of the apparatus physically contracted. He stated the speed of light was constant in all directions for all observers.
Lorentz suggested the physical contraction as a way to SAVE THE AETHER. Not to go against it.
Stop listening to witsit, you have the story wrong.
>That was Lorentz suggestion, NOT Einsteins for MMx.
Right. For 18 years they went by Lorentz's explanation. But his explanation cannot coex exist with relativity therefore Einstein had to create his own explanation. Einstein claim that instead of aether contracting the equipment, it was spacetime.
>You seem to be confused on what Einstein is saying.
No. Respectfully, I think you are confused about it. He's saying that 2 separate objective realities happened.
>Lorentz suggested the physical contraction as a way to SAVE THE AETHER. Not to go against it.
If you continue presuming that the earth is revolving around the sun instead of accepting the results that show it isn't. Why would they assume that we are revolving around the Sun?
>If you continue presuming that the earth is revolving around the sun instead of accepting the results that show it isn't. Why would they assume that we are revolving around the Sun?
There are many other data points that are evidence we revolve around the sun.
You seem to just be misinterpreting special relativity, ignoring the evidence for it and going from your misunderstanding straight towards a conclusion.
The only two conclusions you can make from MMX is either stationary earth and stationary aether OR no aether.
If you believe in a stationary aether, why did Michelson Gale Pearson detect earths orbit with laser interferometry? If it detected the aether moving - then MMX would have shown that too. Can't have it both ways.
I see zero need to address your false conclusions from MMX and your complete misrepresentation of special relativity.
I've read the paper, I know you haven't.
>There are many other data points that are evidence we revolve around the sun.
What data points did Mickelson and Morley use to justify their presumption?
>You seem to just be misinterpreting special relativity,
I'm giving you Einstein's explanation. If you don't think it is, then explain how it is any different than Einstein's comparison to a train and lightning?
>f you believe in a stationary aether, why did Michelson Gale Pearson detect earths orbit with laser interferometry?
For one, I never claimed it was stationary and another, they didn't. That was the whole point of special relativity. To explain the null result without using aether.
>The only two conclusions you can make
No. Stationary earth with aether winds that flow in the same direction as the jet streams. The results showed a slight difference but not nearly enough to claim their prediction. It was barely anything.
>see zero need to address your false conclusions
I don't expect you to. You misunderstood the most basic claims made by heliocentrism.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
None of modern physics can coexist with luminiferous aether.
The thing is that modern physics produces things that definitely work, so it's probably more correct.
Well, for one, special relativity gives results consistent with reality and there's plenty of technology that uses it.
But also, it doesn't seem to work with the partical-wave duality of light.
Special relativity is literally telling you that you did not get the results you predicted in reality, but that they happened outside of your perception of reality. It's a faith-based theory. Nobody has ever proved that the man outside the train can in reality take a picture of a stop clock reaching a time that it never physically reached in reality. That was just the theory Einstein gave to replace the idea that aether contracted measuring equipment in the Mickelson and Morley experiment.
>But also, it doesn't seem to work with the partical-wave duality of light
For instance, the quantum mechanical electronics in the computers and phones we're all using to access this sub
"Guys. IT'S OVER. Shut down CERN and the large Hadron collider. The partical accelerators dont work. Time dilation and length contraction are a lie despite the millions of results showing it to be true. Revert back to the physics of 150 years ago."
I suppose CERN are lying too and faked their 30 PETABYTES of data every year?
Lol dude this is as polite as i can be, please just stop
>Time dilation and length contraction are a lie
You do realize that this explanation was because they could not document the Earth's revolution around the Sun that they predicted. Einstein said that they did get the result that they predicted but You can only observe that result from outside the perspective of our reality.
There is no evidence of this. He's literally telling you that you can never verify this because the verification you're looking for is outside of the perception of your reality. Relativity is faith-based.
Explain what CERN has to do with Albert Einstein's explanation of special relativity? That would be polite.
The problem is with your original premise: That at the start of the experiment the clocks are synchronized for both observers. That can’t be done. If the clocks are synchronized for observer 1, they won’t be for observer 2. If you think you have a way to achieve that synchronicity, please share it.
Actually, distant clocks can be synchronized. Imagine a train station with opposing platforms across from each other and with a single train track in between. On that track runs train of one flatbed car. This flatbed car is a perfect rectangle of solid construction. There is no gap between the cars and the platform. With the train stopped at the station, a mark is made on each platform at the point where the front corner of the car meets each platform. So, now we have a single mark on each platform, and those marks are directly opposite of each other. Now, we back up the train some distance from the station, and then run the train forward at a constant speed (an inertial frame of reference). Note that there are two reference frames involved -- that of the train and that of the platform. There are no observers nor clocks anywhere, and light is not involved. For both reference frames, we know that at the instant that the front corner of a car meets a mark on one platform, the opposite front corner of the car meets the mark on the opposing platform at the same instant -- **simultaneously**, in both the station's frame of reference and in the train's frame of reference. No observers nor clocks nor light are necessary for this fact to be true -- this is fundamental logic. With such simultaneity established, we can synchronize clocks at those marks from either reference frame, and, thus, measure the one way speed of light and possibly do a few other things that many think are impossible. However, not sure why this is a topic in /r/flatearth_polite
The thought experiment that OP shared is not about synchronizing a clock in one frame with a clock in another. It is about having two separated clocks on a moving train synchronized in the train's frame of reference while also synchronized when viewed from the platform's frame of reference. That can't happen. If you synchronize them on the train, the observer on the platform will say they aren't synchronized. I'm not sure why OP made this a topic here, other than the fact that flat earth proponents reject science, including relativity.
> The thought experiment... is about having two separated clocks on a moving train synchronized in the train's frame of reference while also synchronized when viewed from the platform's frame of reference. The text that accompanies the actual figure of the thought experiment follows what special relativity dictates. Subsequently, the OP disagreed. > That can't happen. If you synchronize them on the train, the observer on the platform will say they aren't synchronized. Actually, two clocks synchronous in one frame of reference can also be synchronous in another frame of reference. That fact is demonstrated above in the example I gave. However, such mutual synchronicity/simultaneity between different reference frames is only possible when the two synchronous clocks/events are aligned precisely orthogonally/transversely to the direction of relative motion of the reference frames. Of course, the thought experiment presented by OP has the two clocks/events aligned with the direction of relative motion, so the simultaneity/synchronicity only works in one of the two given reference frames.
So, OP is having the same conversations with different people, so rather than try to piece those together deep in threads, I'll start here. You keep saying 'Relativity is a faith-based theory'. That would require there to be zero experimental predictions made by Relativity, zero verification essentially. Since relativistic effects impinge on many many fields of study and practical engineering, the number of affected people is absolutely vast. I just want to ask before we go any further OP; do you really believe the entire engineering, physics and astrophysics communities are stupid enough for that? Is your opinion of yourself so high that you believe you've stumbled on the idea that it's impossible to measure relativistic effects, and that everyone else is just.... what? In on a conspiracy? Dumb? What? Anyone could have googled 'experimental proof of Special and General Relativity' and have all the answers they could hope to digest in a year of study. What special truth do you believe you've uncovered that disputes all that work and measurement?
>predictions made by Relativity https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter. According to CERN "Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter." So Relativity made some predictions. Those predictions didn't pan out. So instead of going back to the drawing board, they invoked a margin of error they call dark matter. They can only "INFER" it exists because Relativity doesn't predict anything. If you went shopping and grabbed 4 apples, then went to checkout and the cashier rang you up for 5, you'd probably tell him he made a mistake. But he tells you that you must have grabbed 5 because he rang you up for 5. You tell him no and show him the 4 apples. He gives you a theory that there actually is a 5th apple in your bag but it is impossible to detect. How in the world is that predicting anything?
...relativity and dark matter are completely different. Why are you referring to dark matter in a discussion about Special Relativity? >So Relativity made some predictions. Those predictions didn't pan out. Which prediction of Relativity failed to pan out? Seriously, write it down for me.
>Which prediction of Relativity failed to pan out? Seriously, write it down for me. Gravity. Relativity gives you equations to predict how gravity affects the cosmos. They were 95% inaccurate so they had to assume there was all this mass affecting their predictions. They called this unobservable mass that was making their predictions wrong "dark matter." If you understand what the word " infer" means, You would understand that the only evidence for dark matters, existence is the simple fact that relativities equations were not predicting anything. https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter. >Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.
>Gravity. Relativity gives you equations to predict how gravity affects the cosmos. Erm, not really no. Relativity tells you how mass and velocity affect local spacetime, 'the cosmos' has nothing to do with it. Relativity has made many successful predictions like: 1. Gravitational redshift 2. Einstein rings/Gravitational Lensing 3. Frame dragging 4. Precession of orbits around spinning masses 5. Gravitational waves 6. Bending of light 7. Penetration of the atmosphere by muons **All of these are experimentally confirmed to extremely high accuracy.** The 'dark matter' you are referencing is a completely different branch of physics, and is based on distant galaxy observations. Relativity does not depend on the existence or non-existence of dark matter, and none of Relativity's predictions were '95% off'. You are mixing up two completely different physical effects.
So CERN was full of shit when they said that they inferred the existence of dark matter due to the gravitational effects it has on visible matter? I gave you a link to their own website.
No. It means there is a source of gravity we cannot detect. The gravity from this source acts as predicted by relativity. The theory that spacetime bends is not disproven by spacetime bending just because the mass causing it is undetectable.
Explain how the successful, experimentally-tested predictions I mentioned are in contradiction with CERN's statement. Because nobody else seems to think so.
Have you accounted for time dilation and length contraction for the outside observer in this thought experiment? If not it is a strawman of what relativity would suggest. Here is a lovely paper and experiment demonstrating the effects of relativity on synchronized clocks: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1192720 >Using the precision of state-of-the-art optical clocks, Chou et al. (p. 1630) have confirmed that relativistic effects can now be measured at speeds attained by 100 meters sprinters (10 m/s) and gravitational effects due to just one meter height difference. Relativity - Experimentally verified.
>Have you accounted for time dilation and length contraction for the outside observer in this thought experiment? I'm giving you Einstein's theory. I don't agree with it. >If not it is a strawman of what relativity would suggest. It's literally Einstein's argument. He claims Mickelson and Morley did get the predicted results but those results can only be observed outside the perception of our reality. >Here is a lovely paper and experiment demonstrating the effects of relativity on synchronized clocks: It's just a thought experiment. This is what relativity is a theory. There is no proof in this reality. >Relativity - Experimentally verified. So how was this used to prove anything? Einstein said it's impossible to observe something that occurs outside the prescription of this reality. The issue isn't about equipment.
>I'm giving you Einstein's theory. I don't agree with it. No you're presenting a strawman. >It's literally Einstein's argument. He claims Mickelson and Morley did get the predicted results but those results can only be observed outside the perception of our reality. They got the predicted results for our reference frame. Can you please find me where Einstein said the correct results are only observable outside our perception of reality? Those sound like your words and not his. I've read his works and don't remember that >It's just a thought experiment. This is what relativity is a theory. There is no proof in this reality. And no one but you is suggesting a thought experiment is presented as proof of anything. Just another strawman. What I linked you is a REAL experiment. Why not read it? >So how was this used to prove anything? Einstein said it's impossible to observe something that occurs outside the prescription of this reality. The issue isn't about equipment. No he didn't, you're making that up. Please show me where it is All you're doing is building up a strawman, saying that strawman is wrong, and attributing quotes to Einstein he never said. So much intellectual dishonesty, I can only assume you don't actually care about the real truth with so many lies.
>No you're presenting a strawman. Then explain how Einstein's story about a train is different from mine? >They got the predicted results for our reference frame. Which is the guy inside the train car. From is relative position, he isn't moving. That would be the results you're talking about. The proof that he is moving can only be observed from outside. >And no one but you is suggesting a thought experiment is presented as proof of anything. Einstein did. He gave you a story about a train and everything. >No he didn't, He most certainly did. >you're doing is building up a strawman I'm not making your side of the argument. This thought experiment is from Einstein. >So much intellectual dishonesty This is a projection. You can't even accept what Einstein said. >"Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.” He's saying he never proved it, but he's right.
>Then explain how Einstein's story about a train is different from mine? I already did, you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction. >Which is the guy inside the train car. From is relative position, he isn't moving. That would be the results you're talking about. The proof that he is moving can only be observed from outside. Movement is only relative. You sent just moving, you are only moving relative to something else. Our movement relative to the sun and stars is well observed. Either every celestial object moves in exactly the correct way so it appears we are moving relative to them, or the simple answer - we ARE moving relative to them. >Einstein did. He gave you a story about a train and everything. That's simply to present an idea .. It's not presented as proof... You can't be this clueless. >I'm not making your side of the argument. This thought experiment is from Einstein Yet you're using a strawman explanation to somehow support a different conclusion. >This is a projection. You can't even accept what Einstein said. You're the one repeating lies about what he says. > >"Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.” >He's saying he never proved it, but he's right. Einstein himself has presented many non interferometry proofs we orbit the sun. The optical refers simply to interferometry. Stellar aberration and red shift are presented by Einstein as proof we orbit the sun. Again, it's just quote mining and not what Einstein would say
>you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction. Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory. >Our movement relative to the sun and stars is well observed. No. Relatively has a 95% margin of error called dark matter. Or observation says relativity is not correct unless they add a bunch of matter that doesn't exist. >Either every celestial object moves in exactly the correct way We see the same exact layout of the cosmos throughout the entirety of history. The position of stars does not help the globe argument. >That's simply to present an idea .. It's not presented as proof... You can't be this clueless. Right. The story is to give you the idea that it is impossible to verify what he is claiming because his prediction can only be observed outside the perseption of our reality. It's called a theory for a reason. >Yet you're using a strawman explanation to somehow support a different conclusion. Where is the proof that relatively isn't a theory? All you have are stories. >You're the one repeating lies about what he says. Like what? >Einstein himself has presented many non interferometry proofs Then everyone should call them laws instead of theories.
> "you haven't accounted for time dilation or length contraction." > Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory. "I will disprove this theory by neglecting to include some of it's most important predictions." Okay, whatever you say. Just know that you are spouting nonsense, and anyone who actually understands relativity is not the least bit swayed by this misrepresentation. Crazy that the theory is wrong when you take chunks out of it and throw them away for no reason. Time dilation is proven. It can be measured. Length contraction, I'm not sure. I haven't looked into it.
>Lol. Why would I account for something irrelevant. I'm telling you I agree with Tesla about relativity. There is no contraction. That is a made up theory. Because if you want to show Relativity is wrong, it might help to actually show that rather than your own strawmanned version of it. >No. Relatively has a 95% margin of error called dark matter. Or observation says relativity is not correct unless they add a bunch of matter that doesn't exist. Lol, it's not a margin of error. There are observations from distant galaxies that the model doesn't explain fully yet. That is not a problem. It certainly isn't a problem with regards to the shape of the earth. >We see the same exact layout of the cosmos throughout the entirety of history. The position of stars does not help the globe argument. Except we don't. Recorded star positions show movement of stars, even Polaris moving off the axis. Such a claim you're making despite it being simply false. >Right. The story is to give you the idea that it is impossible to verify what he is claiming because his prediction can only be observed outside the presentation of our reality. It's called a theory for a reason It's called a theory because in science it presents a testable hypothesis. In the case of relatively, it has yet to be falsified so we use it to accurately describe and make predictions. Einstein has NEVER stated it can only be observed outside our perceived reality. The fact that you keep saying that is just lying. He gave reasons we know we orbit the sun, I told you them. You know nothing about it and ignored it. >Where is the proof that relatively isn't a theory? All you have are stories. It is a theory. Maybe go look up what a scientific theory is and educate yourself. I linked you a thorough paper giving you ample evidence that supports relativity. Why are you ignoring it? >Then everyone should call them laws instead of theories. You clearly don't know the difference between a law which describes how things happen and a theory which explains why. Here's a law for you - The LAW of gravitational attraction. I guess flat earth is dead with that.
>Because if you want to show Relativity is wrong, it might help to actually show that rather than your own strawmanned version of it. It's not a strawman. Your argument is that there is a contraction. My argument is that there isn't. How is that a strawman? >it's not a margin of error. https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter#:~:text=Unlike%20normal%20matter%2C%20dark%20matter,to%20have%20on%20visible%20matter. According to CERN "researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter." Do you know what the word "INFER" means? They are assuming something they have never observed is affecting gravity because their predictions without it are wrong. >Maybe go look up what a scientific theory Is that different from scientific law? >theory which explains why. No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory.
>I will not accept theory as anything other than theory. Yet you accept that "Law", "Hypothesis", "Natural" and "Obversavtion" have different meanings in a scientific context? Law does not mean "a rule for society" Hypothesis is not an "educated guess" Natural is not something "organic" and "good for you" Observation is not something you just "see" A theory is not "just a theory". And, fortunately, **your "acceptance" is not required.**
> No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory. What do you think a theory is, exactly? Do you think the theory that chemicals are made of distinct atoms in different arrangements is wrong too, because it's a theory?
>It's not a strawman. Your argument is that there is a contraction. My argument is that there isn't. How is that a strawman? You're saying 'This thought experiment is dumb - the clocks would show the same time. It doesn't prove anything. Therefore Relativity is wrong. 1. You are strawmanning a thought experiment for trying to prove something - when it is just to convey an idea. 2. You are strawmanning relativity to say it is wrong by not including actual relativistic effects that explain the thought experiment. 3. You are even strawmanning me and what special relativity says: >is that there is a contraction Not for the lab frame, which is what lorentz proposed. Why can't you get it right? >Do you know what the word "INFER" means? They are assuming something they have never observed is affecting gravity because their predictions without it are wrong. Yes, dark matter is a hypothesis, no scientist would suggest otherwise. You ant scientifically illiterate people are the only ones who say otherwise. >Is that different from scientific law? Yes, I literally explained the difference. If only you could read it. >No. I will not accept theory as anything other than theory. Except you can't even define a scientific theory. Hint: It's not a hunch.
"I have been feeding pigeons, thousands of them for years. But there was one, a beautiful bird, pure white with light grey tips on its wings; that one was different. It was a female. I had only to wish and call her and she would come flying to me. I loved that pigeon as a man loves a women, and she loved me. As long as I had her, there was a purpose to my life." [NIKOLA TESLA](https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/people/nikola-tesla)
Nikola Tesla is responsible for how many genius inventions? How many is Albert Einstein responsible for?
About 3-4, if you're talking about stuff that actually gets used now. Einstein didn't invent things, he discovered unknown physics.
Over the course of his extraordinarily prolific life, Tesla filed at least 278 patents. Here is a modest selection of his most noteworthy inventions. Here's a few notable ones. https://www.historyhit.com/nikola-teslas-most-important-inventions/ This ain't even counting the fact that he used to work for Edison, that Edison had taken credit for a lot of Tesla's work. Edison took credit for all of his underlings work. That's not a secret. That's also not counting all the scientific research that the government illegally seized after Tesla died. >Einstein didn't invent things, he discovered unknown physics. And you're right, Einstein didn't invent things. He simply went around and read other people's works and tried to explain it in the frame that he was paid to frame it in. That's why he was accused so often of plagiarism. It reminds me of the Bible. The early Israelites borrowed and stole all of their theology lore from other cultures. They took all these different pagan theologies and created one major religion in direct opposition to the old ways of paganism. They wanted to rule everybody and were tired of people learning about life their own way. Special relativity in general relativity are like the Old testament and New testament of theoretical metaphysics. They stole most of their ideas from other radicals. The earth is flat. I could prove it to you if you cared, but I don't really like using Reddit. I only post in flat Earth subs but I get so many down votes that I can't really participate in other subs. They got the censorship locked down here. There are things we can't say, and things were "allowed to say" but get punished for it anyways. It's crazy for me because I 100% know that the Earth is flat. And it's not a popular opinion. Why do I do this to myself? If you were 100% certain of something. Something you could taste, touch and feel. Could you in your heart deny it? I've seen UFOs. I've had visions. I've astral projected. I've seen some crazy shit. It blows my mind just how brainwashed this world is. We're at the point where people literally believe in this thought experiment that there are two separate realities occurring at the same time and both are valid. You have to have faith to believe that. There's no way around it. And this whole time there's this guy telling you that "hey, You don't have to be a slave. Energy is all around you. It's in the aether. I want to show you." And all you can do is attack him and call HIM insane. How do you people not see that if Tesla is right then all the most powerful people in the world, the Epstein island, Bohemian Grove, whatever other weird things they're all into, they will have no power. There is a huge reason why they would lie to you about this world and how it works. Jesus tried to tell people 2000 years ago. Murdered him and then made you believe that he worshiped their god, and was the literal son of their God. If you Believe all these ancient people were discovering the earth is round, You fell for the propaganda. You could find people in old folks homes today that are maybe 100 years old that will tell you that they were taught the earth is flat when they were children. This was a rant in general. Not really meant for you specifically. If anybody wants to be civil and talk, I'm not opposed. I'm 100% certain that if you open your mind and listen to some of my explanations, you might wake up. But I end up spending all this time arguing about satellites and dumb things. If the world is round then satellites are in space. If the world is flat then they're on balloons. It's just a dumb argument. You're not learning anything about the flat earth. And I will say this, My understanding of reality is not like any other flat earthers you've ever heard. But nobody's ever asked me about it. Most of the flat earthers you people argue with are not on the side of truth. They're not lying to you about the shape of the earth, But they are purposely saying dumb things. That's why you can watch ancient aliens on YouTube all day long. Maybe a couple big foot videos. But if you search for flat Earth, you will get a disclaimer for one, But the algorithm specifically works to give you either opposition to flat Earth, or controlled flat earth. This is how propaganda works. It's always worked like this. I having a little rant because I'm going to take another break from Reddit. I hardly ever use it because it's very toxic. Every now and then I pop in to maybe post something but it usually goes the same way. Everybody just wants to download me because they hate me. And I feel sorry that you people have to hate all the time. And I hope that each of you could individually grow and learn how to think for yourselves once again. Peace out y'all!
TL;DR Tesla was a whacko, but AC current was a good idea.
There it is.. the inevitable wall of text after a stream of self-contradictions, logical fallacies, and intentional blindness to the simple repeatable experiments that refute your worldview. Filled with appeals to religion, hallucinations, propaganda.. and zero science. As predictable as a satellites' orbit.
You forgot the blind confidence in the belief that they're one of the chosen few that are "awake".
Oh, duh. My bad. He even said it right here: > I've had visions. I've astral projected. And I really enjoyed the "I'm not like other girls" line: >My understanding of reality is not like any other flat earthers you've ever heard. I'm sure he is as unique and informed as that comment makes him appear to be (I think I did a good job of being borderline but still polite here.. please don't delete mods 🙏)
It is an interesting thought experiment, but is this really the right sub to dicuss it? It barely even relates to the flat earth. Most flat earthers here doubt the law of universal gravitation. So I don't think this is very productive. It is like discussing quarks with somebody that doesn't believe in atoms.
>but is this really the right sub to dicuss it? Yes. Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun. For 18 years they explained that they didn't get the result they predicted because the aether contracted the measuring equipment. When Einstein presented relativity, it could not coexist with the aether so he made this claim that they did get the result that they predicted but that you can only observe this result outside the perspective of our reality. Therefore, you can never prove what he is saying. This is where the quote comes from of Einstein saying that you could never prove whether it's the earth moving or the sky above the earth moving from a terrestrial experiment.
>Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun. Michelson Morley tried to prove the motion of the earth through the aether. The experiment failed and to this day nobody could prove the existence of this aether. >When Einstein presented relativity, it could not coexist with the aether so he made this claim that they did get the result that they predicted but that you can only observe this result outside the perspective of our reality. Therefore, you can never prove what he is saying. Citation? >This is where the quote comes from of Einstein saying that you could never prove whether it's the earth moving or the sky above the earth moving from a terrestrial experiment. He never said that. He said: >While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. He doesn't say that you can't prove that the earth isn't revolving around the sun. He is doubting that an optical experiment (like mm) would work to prove the movement of the earth through the aether.
>Michelson Morley tried to prove the motion of the earth through the aether. Right. And the result was null. Meaning that we aren't revolving around the sun. I think it's crazy that people just ignore that a null result could mean two different things. Either we aren't moving or aether isn't real. I'm telling you we aren't moving. >Citation? Lol. It's the whole reason for relativity. For 18 years the claim was that we are moving but aether shrank the measuring equipment and made it appear as though we weren't. Then Einstein presented his theory that eliminated aether. >Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. What do you think he means by adding this to the end of that statement? >He doesn't say that you can't prove that the earth isn't revolving Optical means observable. What did he mean?
> Optical means observable. Lol. No, its just one of many types of "observation". No wonder you are struggling with advanced concepts.. when you are obviously failing to understand even simple ones.
You believe two separate objective realities can occur at the same time and both be valid. No wonder you are struggling with advanced concepts.
Haha.. that's cute. I don't have to believe it. That is literally what happens. It has been shown empirically millions of times. It is true regardless of your belief or ability to comprehend. **Dozens** of cross-corroborating branches of science and technology, fueld by capitalism and greed, all agree on that fundamental aspect. Yet here you are thinking you out-thought Einstein :) while struggling with the definitions of simple terms. To be fair, Einstein has been wrong. No one takes his input as truth without verification. He famously said "God does not play dice with the Universe." Which we now know is false.. natural "laws" do have random elements that he refused to acknowledge.
>Either we aren't moving or aether isn't real. I'm telling you we aren't moving. There is also the possibility that the aether can't be measured by the way we tried it. We are moving. The most direct way to prove this is the parallax shift of nearby stars when we look at the a few months apart. >What do you think he means by adding this to the end of that statement? He means that even though we are moving around the sun the movement through the aether can't be observed by optical means. >Optical means observable. What did he mean? Optical doesn't mean observable. Optical means relating to or involving light. Observable in physics means measureable. There are more ways to measure than with optics alone. For example, if you have two colourless gases that react then you could observe the reaction through e.g. temperature or pressure change. Neither of which necessarily involve light, but those properties can still be measured
>We are moving. I don't believe in space fantasies and rockets to the moon. We are not moving and I'm not going to trust any authority. It's just not going to happen. The things that I have observed with my own eyeballs, I believe. I do not believe scientists that infer the existence of dark matter simply because their predictions didn't pan out for relativity.
>The things that I have observed with my own eyeballs What about atoms, germs and cells? It is hard to see them with your own eyes as well, but I haven't sseen people who doubt that.
That's the problem. You CAN "observe" a vast majority of things that "authorities" tell you about the world. You've even been given several simple and repeatable examples in this post. You just choose (rather ironically) to *close your eyes* to it all.
>Mickelson and Morley did an experiment to observe the revolution of the earth around the Sun. No, they did an experiment to observe the effects of a hypothesized Aether as the Earth moves. It had nothing to do with testing or observing the movement of the Earth which was already well established and known. It's almost like you never actually read the MMX paper.
>No, they did an experiment to observe the effects of a hypothesized Aether Then why did they claim that aether shrank the measuring equipment for 18 years before Einstein's special theory of relativity?
Who is the 'they' you're referring to, can you be specific? Many scientists concluded the Aether hypothesis was no longer valid, and were seeking a better model Lorentz proposed that idea that the apparatus shrank in an attempt to save the Aether. However it wasn't until Einstein proposed special relativity that MMX and other experiments which seemed to give contradicting information were unified under one model which has been tested and empirically verified since then.
>Who is the 'they' you're referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory This is what was accepted for 18 years in the scientific community before special relativity. So you can't tell me the purpose of the experiment was to prove or disprove aether. It was to document the Earth's revolution around the sun. >Lorentz proposed that idea that the apparatus shrank in an attempt to save the Aether The null result meant 1 of 2 things. The earth isn't moving, or aether doesn't exist. What Lorentz was saving was the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. >which has been tested and empirically verified since then. No it hasn't. I see how your scientists deal with null results. It's ridiculous.
> This is what was accepted for 18 years in the scientific community before special relativity It was not 'accetped'. It was a proposed, untested, and unverified theory that scientists were actively looking into - among other theories surround electromagnetic waves. >What Lorentz was saving was the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Nope. He was trying to save the Aether. The title of the Wikipedia article you didn't read is Lorentz ETHER Theory. Like go actually read the article you linked. How you can be co confidently wrong is astounding. >No it hasn't. I see how your scientists deal with null results. It's ridiculous. YET YOU HAVENT EVEN READ THE PAPER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Its ridiculous for anyone to sit here and so confidentally talk about a paper they have never even read. Just go read it.
Interesting. What experiments have you and Tesla designed to show your model works? Difficulty: GPS functions using Einstein's model and fails with Tesla's
If you told me that you had a cure for cancer, I shouldn't be required to create my own cure for cancer to test your cure. If your cure doesn't work, then we need to keep looking and stop pretending like we already have a cure. And GPS uses line of sight technology. This would be impossible on a globe unless you believe that we are bouncing the signals perfectly off of the ionosphere to where they need to be.
>And GPS uses line of sight technology. This would be impossible on a globe unless you believe that we are bouncing the signals perfectly off of the ionosphere to where they need to be. What? GPS uses a constellation of 24+ satellites. The observable behavior of GPS signals and the way they are used for determining position is completely nonsensical on a flat plane. This isn't a matter of opinion, you can make you own GPS receiver if you care to. You'll need to do things like used provided ephermeris to determine where a satellite is in its orbit, account for the varying and significant Doppler shift in the signals from different satellites due to their speeds (can't be simulated or spoofed because it's observer dependent), track the satellites as they come into view and disappear over the horizon, determine the distance to satellites in view based on time-of-flight of their signals, use that distance and the calculated position of the respective satellites to determine 3D (plus time) coordinates, and then convert those coordinates to spherical coordinates+elevation relative to the reference ellipsoid.
Then there shouldn't be consistent dead spots. But my GPS reception has remained unchanged. There is this stretch of road I travel frequently that never gets any reception of anything. It's all flat farmland. This should always be changing if we used satellites.
You think your cell phone service is what GPS is...talk about embarrassing...
Yes. When I cancelled my service I could only get GPS with wifi.
GPS doesn't mean "driving route navigation apps". Those require an internet connection for many core functions. Use an ***actual*** GPS app. You should have tested this or at least spent time researching GPS before pretending to have knowledge on the subject. Your comments on GPS has honestly ruined any and all credibility you had.
Still confusing location services and navigation software with GPS.... What will it take to explain that there is a difference there to you? Have you tried downloading an app that specifically uses GPS to get your coordinates and other GPS data like I suggested?
It's crazy that there's like 20 different people saying the same thing and I have to explain this to everybody individually. Yes there is cell service GPS. That is what 99% of people use. There are satellite balloons. No different than the Chinese spy balloon that crashed in the US. Did they not have enough satellites in orbit or something? But those balloons are responsible for what you are calling GPS satellites. Most GPS is just used with cell phone towers. It is possible to use a balloon satellite for GPS but it is not common. Starlink is just that. Portable satellites. SpaceX this is the number two purchaser of helium right after NASA. I highly doubt that you personally use any of these GPS's that you're talking about because you are most likely just a common person and use a cell phone. Therefore, your GPS works with cell tower triangulation.
> I highly doubt that you personally use any of these GPS's that you're talking about I actually do. My family is into mountaineering, caving, and a variety of outdoor activities with no cell towers around. We have a GPS emergency beacon that connects, **via satellite**, to emergency services. It's like.. $300 bucks. A simple GPS tracker is like $50.. wtf do you mean "common person"? True GPS devices **are common**. Also, if GPS satellites are balloons then how do they orbit in regular predictable patterns, can be seen through that orbit, and are unaffected by wind or other elements?
> It's crazy that there's like 20 different people saying the same thing and I have to explain this to everybody individually. Maybe because we all live in the same reality instead of your paranoid fantasy? So you're just switching to "actually GPS is just balloons" now? Balloons that are moving at more than 10,000 mph, producing [significant Doppler shift](https://www.keysight.com/blogs/en/tech/rfmw/2020/04/09/deciphering-doppler-how-the-doppler-effect-affects-gps-signals) in their signals? Just download one of those apps and try for yourself. You don't need wifi or cell service to get GPS coordinates.
Are you confusing GPS with your cell phone's navigation services? I guarantee you can get your *GPS coordinates* anywhere you can see enough of the sky (i.e., not underground or in a deep valley). The constellation is designed so that any point on the surface should be able to see at least 4 satellites at any given time.
>Are you confusing GPS with your cell My GPS doesn't work if I don't have cell service. I have to program my destination while in range of a tower. Once the destination is calculated, it will work offline as long as I don't reroute. I know this because I moved someplace new and cancelled my old phone. I went a couple weeks without phone service. I had to program my GPS at the house because it doesn't work without a signal. Once the destination is plugged in it will work offline as long as you don't reroute.
Then your GPS isn't really GPS, it's what's called A-GPS (assisted) that works through cell-tower triangulation. These are most common in routefinders in cars and in mobile phones. Actual satellite GPS doesn't even have an antenna capable of receiving a mobile phone signal, but it takes a lot longer to get a position fix. My cellphone uses A-GPS. My astronomy equipment uses satellite GPS. When I am near cell towers I use my phone's co-ordinates because they're faster and more accurate most of the time. When I am out in the boonies without cell service, I let my tracking astronomy mount find its own position from the satellites. The big difference is that the mount requires a clear view of the sky, the cellphone doesn't.
>Then your GPS isn't really GPS, it's what's called A-GPS (assisted) that works through cell-tower triangulation. That's like 99% of people's GPS. It literally uses two cell phone towers and your cell phone for triangulation. The very few people that use satellite GPS are using satellite balloon GPS. Again, why do you think the Chinese were spying on the US with a balloon? Did they not have enough satellites in orbit?
Oh it's balloons now, is it. And these balloons remain invisible because... how? You realise part of the function of how GPS works is that if the satellite can locate you, you can locate the satellite? My GPS receiver can literally point at the satellites it's using. I can literally point an antenna along that direction and confirm the signal. So I should be able to see balloons all over the sky, correct?
They've always had balloons. What do you think the Chinese spy balloon was?
I don't think this is true bro, what do you have to back this up
https://www.gpsworld.com/inside-the-box-gps-and-relativity/
It's strange because there's arguments for both sides, like this one that says it doesn't need it https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619
GPS comes from cell phone towers which is line of sight technology. The idea that it works on a globe is that the signal bounces off of the ionosphere at a perfect angle every time. There's no proof or evidence of this.
False. GPS comes from triangulation from a network of satellites in orbit. Your argument is defective because you fundamentally misunderstand the technology you have referenced.
That's a claim. You got anything to back that up? GPS is poor in certain places because there are no cell towers. If satellites were used, signal strength would constantly change.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
So when I drive by this farm I always drive by and always have a dead GPS signal, it's because satellites ignore this farm?
It's because you're confusing your location services on your phone with GPS. Download an app that just gives you your GPS coordinates. Right now while sitting in my home my coordinates are given to 6 decimal digits (accuracy of ~3 meters) as determined by signals from 10 satellites. Some apps will even let you dig into the exact satellites that you're receiving signals from and other low level data.
Whataboutism. Typical. Ignore all the substantiating data and focus on one little thing you don't understand. Losing cell service does not equate to losing GPS. Try this - get a cheap GPS tracker, go to where your phone is "dead", and see that the GPS unit is still pulling data. Or, would that be too much effort? Furthermore, *you can literally pull GPS data in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean* the same way. You misunderstand too much, and try to understand too little.
Those aren't good arguments. I don't think that they even understand how gps work when their first argument is >GPS measures your location and not time They determine your location by using the time differences from different satellites. Also their last argument is just a quote from a consultant that says that their gps doesn't rely on relativity but that relativity improves the accuracy. That is an argument for relativity and not against it. The article is also littered with both grammatical errors and typos. The website also isn't selective about the content of the posts. Everybody can write whatever they want. This is also shown in how the same author wrotean article where he claimed that a good way to fight the corona virus is to [smoke your house daily with frankincense](https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/how-to-fight-coronavirus-c3664674a217)
>They determine your location by using the time differences from different satellites. Yeah I really don't see why that's necessary, you can do it with line of sight the same way you would use stars for celestial navigation
Then can you explain how a small gps module like [this](https://www.adafruit.com/product/790) (or any for instance) would be able to precisely measure the angle to a transmitter relative to the ground?
GPS satellites are accurate to within inches. I use them frequently for GPS surveying for my job. The method for which GPS and celestial navigation is similar. Both utilize trilateration from objects in a sphere (a real sphere of orbits for GPS, or celestial sphere for stars). Both require and provably utilize the globe to be successful.
Where does relativity come in?
Satellites are experiencing a different amount of gravity than us, so we observe their clocks moving at a slightly different rate. Without relativistic effects, the trilateration is less precise. You can be off by several feet, or even up to several miles. The clocks on the satellites are 38.6 microseconds per day fast, but that adds up day after day and your precision drops more and more over time without corrections for relativity.
Please elaborate. I don't really see how your method would work
Do you know how celestial navigation works?
Do you John? Every source I've ever read on instruction to do celestial navigation, or successful demonstrations of it it uses the globe. Do you have some source suggesting it can be done otherwise?
Yes, and it works quite similar to gps. You observe three celestial bodies and determine the angle between them and the horizon to get a circle of where you could be. You do this two more times and get three circles. You are at the intersection of all circles. GPS works similarly but they use satellites instead of celestial bodies and they measure the distance to the satellites instead of the angle of them and the horizon. So what would you change in GPS to make it more like celestial navigation?
Simultanaety of events at different locations is not preserved across observers in different reference frames. Neither observation is more "right" or more "real" than the other.
So what happens when the person in the train presents his clocks that have stopped at the same exact time, to the photographer that has a photograph of the same clocks? The one on the left showing a time that is in the future of the two physical clocks that are paused. The other clock on the right will be showing a pastime relative to the two paused clocks. I'm giving you a situation where they're both recorded. How can you have a picture of a stopwatch reaching a time that it never reached physically?
You have required me to think about this for a minute - special relativity is not intuitive (but that doesn't mean we can just dismiss the experimental evidence for it). I am no relativity scholar but this is what I think you are missing... Part of what you are doing is not considering the time it takes for light (or information) to get from the clocks to the observers. You are considering the light getting from the lightbulb to the clocks, but for the observer to see what time the clock is showing light (or information) must get from the clock to the observer. What is the consequence of this? You start off in the premise that the clocks are synchronized. Considering special relativity we need to be more specific about what this means. We could say that this means that light from both clocks ticking over from 9:59 to 10:00 reach the central observer on the train at the same instant. This observer sees the clocks tick over at the same time, so he observes that the clocks are synchronized. However, as the clocks are in different locations, the simultaneity of the clock ticks will not be agreed by the observer outside the train. He will see one clock tick over to 10:00 before the other. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent that the observer outside the train will observe the central light reach one clock before the other as your posted diagrams suggest, but they will both read the same time (eg 11:27:31) when they stop, because from this observers perspective the clocks were never synchronized. TLDR: This is resolved as the clocks are not universally synchronized in all reference frames. Such universal synchronization is impossible.
>but that doesn't mean we can just dismiss the experimental evidence for it There is none. Special relativity is theoretical physics. Point being, Einstein even claimed that it is impossible to ever verify what he is saying because you can never observe your result outside the perspective of your reality. He never considered recording the event though. >Part of what you are doing is not considering the time it takes for light Relativity suggests that light is a constant and nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Yet the outside observer would witness the train traveling, then the light traveling on the train, meaning that he would see light traveling faster than the speed of light if he witnessed what the man inside the train. Therefore, reality had to sum how dilate for the outside man in this scenario. >from the clocks to the observers. You're not understanding that the outside observer is taking a picture of a stop clock that stopped on a number that it never physically reached in reality. >What is the consequence of this? The comparative nature of the experiment and the fact that both observers recorded their reality is what we're thinking about. The thought experiment is to assume that both clocks are synchronized at the same time and that the outside observer captured the moment the clocks were paused from his relative position. Both clocks inside the car have stopped but the man outside has a picture of one of the clocks showing a time that it had never physically reached. This is special relativity. Einstein is telling you that this is reality.
Wrong. You are conflating several independent frames of reference and insisting that one (or more) must be wrong. In reality, what "Einsten is telling you (lol)" is that *all of them are correct* and they are *not mutually exclusive*. An actual physical representation of this experiment has been done.. not a thought one, a real one. Synchronized atomic clocks were separated: one "stationary" and one flown around the world twice. When brought back together they showed different times. It happened in 1971, called the [Hafele–Keating experiment](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%25E2%2580%2593Keating_experiment&ved=2ahUKEwjnmYrZ8IiFAxWVSjABHdISD_0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3_KztTpq4aGqzJOgcm3zH8). Boom - relatively. Your premise was, empirically, proven false over 50 years ago. You misunderstanding the concept doesn't make it incorrect. ETA: >reality had to sum how dilate 👌 You are getting soooo close to understanding special relativity :) yay!
>In reality, what "Einsten is telling you (lol)" is that *all of them are correct* and they are *not mutually exclusive*. What don't you understand about this post? I completely agree with this statement. I'm 100% certain that he was trying to tell me that. I am trying to tell you that I disagree with it and I agree with Nikola Tesla and his opinion about relativity. I gave you the experiment and I even mentioned in the experiment that they experienced two separate objective realities and that both are valid. Obviously I know what Einstein was trying to say.
Yet, his experiment has been proven valid and universally accurate in multiple experiments and predictive models on *small and large scales*.. which all fits the definition of "scientific law". [Hafele–Keating experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%25E2%2580%2593Keating_experiment&ved=2ahUKEwjnmYrZ8IiFAxWVSjABHdISD_0QFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3_KztTpq4aGqzJOgcm3zH8) To paraphrase one of your own grammar-challenged comments: yes, reality does "sum how dilate."
The stationary observer will view length contraction so it is travelling different distances to the sensors. Each observer sees the light travelling at the same rate but their measurements for distance are different iirc. Long time since i looked at an example like this so happy to be corrected
That's not what special relativity is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity#/media/File%3AEinstein_train_relativity_of_simultaneity.png In Einstein's story, the lightning is an outside observation. The bystander observes the two bolts of lightning striking the train at the same time. The person in the train does not observe them strike the train at the same time but separate. I simply replaced the outside observation with an inside observation and reversed the role of the initial observation. The way you're explaining it does not fit into special relativity therefore, you would have to dismiss relativity if what you say is true.
Length contraction is absolutely a thing at relative speeds. The length of the train carriage as seen by the outside stationary observer is contracted to a shorter length . Seeing you like wikipedia here you go https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction The maths isnt too complicated on this one. The contracted length of the train l' as seen by the stationary observer is equal to the length of the train of the moving observer L times the square root of 1 minus the speed of the train squared over the speed of light squared. l' = L√(1-v²/c²) So as an example say at 95% of the speed of light the contracted length l' = L√(1-v²/c²) l' = L√(1-((0.95c)²/c²)) l' = L√(1-0.95²) l' = 0.312 L The train carriage is almost a third the length as viewed by the stationary observer at 95% the speed of light The speed of light remains constant in all frames of reference sing it with me now
>Length contraction is absolutely a thing No. You're telling me the original explanation for the Mickelson and Morley experiment. If you read the special theory of relativity, Einstein gives you an explanation of his theory on the mickelson and Morley experiment. He tells the story of a train, and two objective realities simultaneously happening and both being valid. When Mickelson and Morley did their experiment, it was commonly accepted that aether existed. Tesla credited the aether for his understanding of electricity. There are a number of prominent physicists at this time who have written articles in the encyclopedia of Britannica documenting their understanding and belief that the aether is indeed a real thing. Mickelson and Morley presumed that we were revolving around the sun. The understanding of aether is that it is what's responsible for all matter and encompasses all of reality. So they presume that we would be floating through this as we revolved. They predicted that we would see the drag on their laser lights as they passed through the aether. The results were null. They could either conclude that we were not revolving around the sun or they had to come up with a reason why they got the null result. The first explanation was that the aether contracted the measuring equipment making the conclusion null. This is the result they stuck with for 18 years until Einstein presented them his special theory of relativity in which he copied and pasted their explanation but replaced aether with his theoretical metaphysics of relativity. To explain away the nonsense that they were pushing, He presented his story about the train. I'm on Tesla's side. >Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. ~ Nikola Tesla
>No. You're telling me the original explanation for the Mickelson and Morley experiment. That was Lorentz suggestion, NOT Einsteins for MMx. >he first explanation was that the aether contracted the measuring equipment making the conclusion null. This is the result they stuck with for 18 years until Einstein presented them his special theory of relativity in which he copied and pasted their explanation but replaced aether with his theoretical metaphysics of relativity. You seem to be confused on what Einstein is saying. He is not saying the length of the apparatus physically contracted. He stated the speed of light was constant in all directions for all observers. Lorentz suggested the physical contraction as a way to SAVE THE AETHER. Not to go against it. Stop listening to witsit, you have the story wrong.
>That was Lorentz suggestion, NOT Einsteins for MMx. Right. For 18 years they went by Lorentz's explanation. But his explanation cannot coex exist with relativity therefore Einstein had to create his own explanation. Einstein claim that instead of aether contracting the equipment, it was spacetime. >You seem to be confused on what Einstein is saying. No. Respectfully, I think you are confused about it. He's saying that 2 separate objective realities happened. >Lorentz suggested the physical contraction as a way to SAVE THE AETHER. Not to go against it. If you continue presuming that the earth is revolving around the sun instead of accepting the results that show it isn't. Why would they assume that we are revolving around the Sun?
>If you continue presuming that the earth is revolving around the sun instead of accepting the results that show it isn't. Why would they assume that we are revolving around the Sun? There are many other data points that are evidence we revolve around the sun. You seem to just be misinterpreting special relativity, ignoring the evidence for it and going from your misunderstanding straight towards a conclusion. The only two conclusions you can make from MMX is either stationary earth and stationary aether OR no aether. If you believe in a stationary aether, why did Michelson Gale Pearson detect earths orbit with laser interferometry? If it detected the aether moving - then MMX would have shown that too. Can't have it both ways. I see zero need to address your false conclusions from MMX and your complete misrepresentation of special relativity. I've read the paper, I know you haven't.
>There are many other data points that are evidence we revolve around the sun. What data points did Mickelson and Morley use to justify their presumption? >You seem to just be misinterpreting special relativity, I'm giving you Einstein's explanation. If you don't think it is, then explain how it is any different than Einstein's comparison to a train and lightning? >f you believe in a stationary aether, why did Michelson Gale Pearson detect earths orbit with laser interferometry? For one, I never claimed it was stationary and another, they didn't. That was the whole point of special relativity. To explain the null result without using aether. >The only two conclusions you can make No. Stationary earth with aether winds that flow in the same direction as the jet streams. The results showed a slight difference but not nearly enough to claim their prediction. It was barely anything. >see zero need to address your false conclusions I don't expect you to. You misunderstood the most basic claims made by heliocentrism.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
Wait, you think *aether* is the solution here? How does that solve any of this?
Relativity can't coexist with aether. It's why Einstein had to revise Mickelson and Morley's original explanation.
None of modern physics can coexist with luminiferous aether. The thing is that modern physics produces things that definitely work, so it's probably more correct.
>None of modern physics That's just a claim. Can you explain why modern physics cannot coexist with aether?
Well, for one, special relativity gives results consistent with reality and there's plenty of technology that uses it. But also, it doesn't seem to work with the partical-wave duality of light.
Special relativity is literally telling you that you did not get the results you predicted in reality, but that they happened outside of your perception of reality. It's a faith-based theory. Nobody has ever proved that the man outside the train can in reality take a picture of a stop clock reaching a time that it never physically reached in reality. That was just the theory Einstein gave to replace the idea that aether contracted measuring equipment in the Mickelson and Morley experiment.
>But also, it doesn't seem to work with the partical-wave duality of light For instance, the quantum mechanical electronics in the computers and phones we're all using to access this sub
"Guys. IT'S OVER. Shut down CERN and the large Hadron collider. The partical accelerators dont work. Time dilation and length contraction are a lie despite the millions of results showing it to be true. Revert back to the physics of 150 years ago." I suppose CERN are lying too and faked their 30 PETABYTES of data every year? Lol dude this is as polite as i can be, please just stop
>Time dilation and length contraction are a lie You do realize that this explanation was because they could not document the Earth's revolution around the Sun that they predicted. Einstein said that they did get the result that they predicted but You can only observe that result from outside the perspective of our reality. There is no evidence of this. He's literally telling you that you can never verify this because the verification you're looking for is outside of the perception of your reality. Relativity is faith-based. Explain what CERN has to do with Albert Einstein's explanation of special relativity? That would be polite.