Nobody has done more damage to our psychological view of the universe than him. The idea of a "cosmic speed limit" cages us into earth. It limits our horizons and our vision.
>>540870816Okay? So? Are you claiming that his equations are incorrect? Or just that they present a conclusion that you do not like?
>>540870849Yes. He was a hack, nothing he told you was true, except what he stole from other people.
>>540870816Uh... No. First of all the "cosmic speed limit" comes from Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transformation that holds the physics invariant under frame changes.What Einstein added was claiming that you can't tell if you're moving or not if you're in uniform motion similar to the Galien transformation. Which has a problem: you can tell. You can tell because there's high energy radiation coming from the direction of your travel and you only see starts in front and behind you. tl:dr. Einstein didn't have anything to do with Maxwell or the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was flat out wrong about relativity"
>>540870909Can you please expand on this? Why do you think he was a hack?
>>540870951What's the noticeable difference between you moving at a constant speed towards particles versus particles moving at a constant speed towards you?
>>540870816But he didn't do that.>>540870951This.
>>540870976Theory of relativity was known before. He just gave it a wonky new mathematical formulation (that doesn't make sense btw) and called it his own. He didn't get the Nobel Prize for relativity because it wasn't a new discovery. He was an understudy of Max Planck who coached him through his career, and they even roomed together in Vienna. The Photoelectric effect is based on Planck's research, he just assigned Einstein to the problem. They gave him the Nobel for that one because of immense pressure to give him one, and that technically was something he worked on. Max Planck was the actual genius behind Einstein. The notion of a "cosmic speed limit" comes from Einstein's wonky math. He also made some really weird absurd claims about momentum and energy.
>>540871113I shall look into this. Thanks.
>>540871051If you're moving relativisticly wrt to the universe, you know it.
>>540871329How?>inb4 it's just a feeling you getBe more specific.
>>540871051The thingy that actually is moving has to be accelerated first. I’m sure your argument is some sort of logical fallacy. Objectively it doesn’t matter if you notice the difference if there is a difference. Relativity is a very feminine, low IQ theory.
>>540871588So look. If a signal travels back to you, there's a delay, right? It takes, 10 seconds or something. Einstein says, forget the delay. Let's assume there's no delay at all. Instead assume space is shifted. So rather than you observing the object slightly out of sequence, instead the timeline itself is stretched and compressed so things are out of sequence. Einstein's weird forumlation doesn't actually make sense if you think about it. This is where the Speed of Light being some kind of "ultimate speed limit" comes from.More likely there's an ether, and the speed of light is just the speed through the ether.
>>540871588To insist that there's an unnoticeable difference between two things sounds pretty unscientific to me.Are you depending upon divine revelation to reveal this difference?
>>540870951Einstein was basically doing the equivalent of, instead of solving the equation, you stretch the axes to make your equation a straight line, then solve that problem instead. In that case, the problem is all the same, it's just you have funky axis instead. That's literally what Einstein did.
>>540871664That’s the assumption you made. Since you claim one object is moving while the other is at rest, one object has been accelerated. This is what you are saying.
Anon, his theory has been influencing for less than a century out of thousands of years of civilization. Look at what has been accomplished. We will find a way.Praise SOL
>>540872242I said no such thing. What I implied was that there's no noticeable difference between the two, which you seemingly agreed with.
>>540872297In scenario (1) you have been accelerated.In scenario (2) the particles have been accelerated.In both scenarios there’s a real physical difference, as one object has been accelerated. It doesn’t matter if your feminine mind can’t tell the difference because there is an objective difference. Typical women.
>>540872532There's also a real speed because there is an ETHER which nobody is considering. Your speed relative to the ether matters.
>>540872532I refer you to the word "constant". You can struggle with that for a couple days; I'm going to bed.
>>540870816Is anyone ITT or on this forum higher educated? They teach you in general engineering how to decompose a problem with fixed trajectories into a potential field,so you don't compute the forces directly,you instead move the object through the field along your fixed trajectory and the forces acting on the object are a consequence of this.Einstein's contribution is that he realized this mathematical formulation that is valid for wheels on a track is actually also valid for objects in a gravitational field, because (unlike EM radiation) all (known) objects respond to gravity the same way. So while the notion of a top speed c already existed before Einstein, no one was able to calculate the more esoteric effects of relativity before then, like the error of Mercury's orbit or the clock tickrate difference (too small to make an engineering impact, obliterated by daily GPS recalibrations anyway, but proven to exist already in orbit vs on the ground).That's all there's to it: realizing that because the gravitational force is (as far as we know) universal, you can use potential field equations (i.e. giving spacetime "geometry" and a "curvature").Except that the law of the gravitational force isn't universally constant, which is why we're currently coping with dark matter, dark energy (because DM wasn't enough) and an expanding universe (because DE wasn't enough) that is predicted to accelerate to beyond-lightspeed expansion rates in the future.Whatever criticism you want to point at the bestest jew Einstein, you first have to produce an alternative, non-relativistic take as to why local time and local speed of light is the same for anyone anywhere in any state, and he always sees everyone else as fucked up by relativistic speed effects and not himself
>>540872831>like the error of Mercury's orbit or the clock tickrate difference (too small to make an engineering impact, obliterated by daily GPS recalibrations anyway, but proven to exist already in orbit vs on the ground).These are just statements that light is affected by gravity. Ok, but that doesn't justify his curved-spacetime stuff. The ether is more concentrated closer to the earth than further away, so the tickrate difference makes sense.
>>540870816Fucking jew
>>540873012So instead of making light affected by gravity, you make ether affected by gravity and light by ether? You introduce "dark matter, light edition", perfectly imperceptible and unmeasurable except for the effects it has on light?Cool, you do you. Not much worse than holding galaxies together with dark duct tape (which is humiliating when MOND does stabilizes galaxies without any special effects... then again, that is the only thing MOND gets right and it was specifically made up to explain this one thing only).So, etherboy, how do you break the light barrier in space and give us the stargate universe?
>>540872831The non-relativistic explanation is that:(1) Time dilatation is due to clocks physically slowing down as you accelerate. (2) Lenght contraction likewise is a physical contraction as you accelerate. (3) Speed of light is only constant in two way measurements (one way speed of light can’t be measured).(1) and (2) have been formulized but have been buried by academia. (3) is self-evident.If you don’t immediately understand the 3 above points then you have exposed yourself as a low IQ cretin.
The paper shows that Einstein was a fraud who only described a non-linear generalization of something Maxwell figured out. This also means gravity is just a special case of the dynamics of electromagnetic fields which act according to their four potentials.https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1956/1/012017Of the four fundamental forces of nature, the strong nuclear force is the strongest.The strong nuclear force is only noticeable on the subatomic level. Everything larger than that is governed by electromagnetics. The aether is electromagnetic energy that permeates the universe.The aether is like a fluid lattice that forms the medium of a given energy.Physical matter is "hardened" electromagnetic radiation and/or "frozen light" derived from the aether. The aether is what moves all the electrons/protons/neutrons in the universe, and the vibration of those charges become atoms. Those atoms interlock based on electrical charges to become matter that the universe is subsequently made of.Physical matter is an oscillating energy field that condenses once observed and/or interacted with.Particles are excitations of ubiquitous fields of energy making up a single field.Ether electricity uses electrons. Aether electricity uses ions, and ions are anti-matter. Ether electricity manifests in a single helical pattern and aether energy, derived from electromagnetic fields, is observed to have a double helix pattern.Aether is also observed to manifest both AC and DC electricity at the same time.Aether electricity does not electrocute when you simultaneously touch both positive and negative terminals and it continues to operate while submerged underwater without shorting.The luminiferous aether, dipole, and steady-state cosmological model are correct, in which the universe is essentially a 3-torus or a convection current of electromagnetic energy.
>>540873430>You introduce "dark matter, light edition", perfectly imperceptible and unmeasurable except for the effects it has on light?No dude, I think it's a real thing. It's just hard to measure because it's so small. I think if you just reason it out based on everything we know, the ether must exist. There probably are ways to test for it that we haven't considered. >how do you break the light barrier in space and give us the stargate universe?Well the speed of light is basically the speed of the ether. So you have to learn how to move the ether itself. It's like travelling faster in water, by moving the water. Or since the ether is made up of many randomly moving small particles, you'll find some way to select the fast ones, a maxwell's gate of sorts, and that will propel you
>>540873637time dilation and length contraction are explicitly relativistic effects schizo.Do you also behave like a nigger and claim South Central LA stole Malmo culture?
>>540873776But anon, if you simply allow the signal travel time back to the observer, you get the same shit. You get time dilation, length contraction.Like if a spaceship is travelling fast, it takes the signal from the front of the ship longer ot reach your eye than the signal at the back. That's so-called "time dilation".This was literally known before einstein. There's entire theoretical models built around this.What einstein did was to construct these "reference frames" built out of a network of sychronized clocks. And with respect to this reference frame, there's some sort of "space contraction" and "time dilation". But it's mathematically exactly the same.
>>540873755That's fair.A cut above the rest that just claim relativism is wrong and don't have an idea even where to start with their new world.Actually a respectable position
>>540873776Time dilatation is the relativistic explanation of why a clock ticks slower as you accelerate it. The real explanation is of course that as you accelerate the clock the clock ticks slower, time itself doesn’t slow down. It’s the clock that ticks slower. This have already been formulized but has been buried by academia. Lenght contraction is the same thing. As you accelerate an object physical forces squeeze it together, this is a real contraction, not a relativistic effect as described by Eggstein. This has also been formulized but yet again buried by ajew controlled academia.
>>540873851the problem with the analogy of the spaceship that has a length is that outside observers also have to see the ship's time dilation just as the captain sees time dilation between himself and the engine room - that's the case where a surface-bound observer sees the tickrate of a satellite develop a small but consistent-across-satellites error.I'm not one to claim Einstein figured out the keys to the universe - he offered a seemingly small contribution in reformulating the equations as universal geometry, but that reformulation allows us to finally calculate relativistic effects accurately, up to but not including event horizons(event horizons are not just the boundaries of massive black holes, but also anything that goes faster than the speed of light; with Relativity as Einstein knew it, breaking the light barrier would create an event horizon and obliterate nearby observers in a mathematically-perfect gravitational crush ... if you could ever afford the energy budget, because Relativity fails at event horizons and divergess into infinite energies and densities).To give you an accurate idea where "Einstein is wrong", modern engineering still doesn't have an equation for airflow *at* the speed of sound. There's a general equation for flow that you would have to resolve in real time basically for every air molecule to get accurate results at the speed of sound; there's equations that a human mind can solve with pen and paper that easily describe flows from standstill up to speed of sound; there's equations that easily and accurately describe flows from the speed of sound up until low-hypersonic. No accurate and stable equation exists to describe flow *at* the critical speed of sound, excelt for solving the general equation of fluid flow, resolved to micrometers of size and microseconds of time.I.e. it might be Einstein is entirely correct in the sub-light regime of speeds and we are thus far wholly ignorant of an entirely different set of physics
>>540874245>but that reformulation allows us to finally calculate relativistic effects accuratelyI mean we had it calculated before. Einstein didn't change anything with special relativity. When it comes to GR he insisted that light is some kind of universal axiom, and since light bent in gravity, that means all these other things shifted in gravity too, like time. He could be right, for other reasons. Since light travels through an ether, and the ether changes with gravity, that could explain it. His reasoning is tortured. It's what I posted here: >>540871783>breaking the light barrier would create an event horizon This is just speculation, because his equation has a 0 at the bottom when you go the speed of light. It's like saying "I divide by zero therefore the universe explodes". These equations are never true to life, they're always just approximations. I don't think his reasoning flows.
>>540873739Thanks. Pretty much puts everything about the aether I sensed as a more unifying force of nature and life together perfectly. I never could take anything about modern physics seriously because it all had those cultish, authoritarian takes on something too advanced for the speaker to innately convey, proving they did not understand the forces of nature and thus themselves. Feels completely like some sort of vanity project when the die-hard sience boy gets hyped up and can dedicate their inner nerds to exploring some theorem og screw bolts into some sort of hyper advanced rock crusher og giga-collider or whatever while real mad max orcs could literally smash some over unity device together in their back yard from scrap and pure insight into real physics without needing some Jewish professor to jack off to.
>>540871646There has to be an aether. There must exist some sort of substrate within which all matter is fixed. And E=MC2 truly makes no sense at all. It's a pointless redundancy added unto physics. It's all so bizarre how aggressively it's pushed and imposed on everything.
>>540874951no the ether isn't some fixed substrate that locks the whole universe in place. That's what they assumed, and that's why the theory was rejected.No the ether is created by matter itself. So like, the earth creates an ether bubble around it. The sun has an ether bubble around it....etc. Think of it like a smell, or something, that surrounds every atom.
>>540871051All you need is conservation of energy, actually.When you drive a car, do you actually create infinite energy by accelerating the Earth beneath you?
>>540875009With your understanding of the Ether, what's with the big intergalactic voids, where Ether should be thin to non-existent - should extreme velocities be easier to achieve there, like flying in thin air?
>>540875110I think light can't travel there. That might be why there's big voids. There's no ether to support the travel of light.
>>540872831You just remove relativity from it. You're making relativity self referential. Things are not relative beyond their relationship of one to the other. They are set within an absolute, and are subject to limits and dimension. There is an absolute up and and absolute down. Light may well be instantaneous. You cannot measure the gravitational field. And there are reasons for that. And you cannot calculate something you cannot ultimately measure.
>>540874533I'll post about it here later. Not sure when. Maybe months.https://executiveconcern.substack.com/
>>540874533Creation: The Physical Truth & Physics Without Einsteinby Harold Aspdenhttps://archive.org/details/PhysicsWithoutEinsteinAspdenHarold/Modern%20Aether%20Science%20-%20Aspden%2C%20Harold/mode/1up
>>540870849He was correct about a null result which ultimately makes him fucking >>540874042Time CANNOT exist
>>540878091fucking worthless*. I won't even get into his other trite involving "dilation" let alone the meme argument that "GPS depends on his equations" despite the fact they don't and never did and anyone who tells you otherwise would have to be a literal glownigger with DoD clearance. Yeah it's still a secret...explain why the government would keep it secret if he already went giving velocity composition equations to everyone? The real secret is all of these retards are held back by a clown rappers question.
>>540878091time dilation is the length of a bent arc vs a straight line.its because gravity bends light via refraction. when you visually track a spaceship trajectory, you can not intercept it without taking this bending into account.einsteinians are jews and thus cant understand this.
>>540875050>All you need is conservation of energy,What is "energy"? I know some smart ass will chime in saying it's "the ability to do work". Which just repeats the ultimate premise of the question...yeah "how does it do that"? I've never seen my personal work "conserved" as it was when it came from me. The inert bricks I lay are "energy"...how? What is "energy"?>>540872699Gravity is a "constant" and yet no one can tell me the cause of it. They can tell me it's "the mutual acceleration of masses" and still be unable to explain how the fuck they're actually doing that past simply describing the action with a number and the word "gravity" as if that explains anything.
>>540870849They aren't "HIS"he's a hackTheif+liarJew promoted Dick Head
>>540878484No no no. Look mate. When you observe a moving train with your naked eye, it takes longer for the front of the train to reach you. Therefore you see the front of the train slightly in the past, compared to the rear of the train. This means that by your sight, the train is shorter. It also means that events will be out of sequence. Hence, a simultaneous explosion at the front and the rear of the train will not be simultaneous for you. Einstein says this is true in an abstract reference frame, and thus spacetime itself is different. But it's mathematically the same, it's just a weirder way to put it.
>>540870976Because of his content of character and consistency. Why don't you know this already? Hmmmm... Jews, Mayhaps?
>>540878484>time dilation is the length of a bent arc vs a straight line.Show me a straight line in the universe. >gravity bends"Gravity" is a description. How does mass "bend" this allegedly massless "particle"?>when you visually track a spaceship trajectory, you can not intercept it without taking this bending into account.And you cannot explain this "bend" past a mathmatical description of it simply existing. It's like "Flux" in magnetism, oh they never end or begin and you have no clue why.>einsteinians are jews and thus cant understand this.I actually believe pilpul , dualism and Judaism are what make it impossible for them to understand anything let alone how the universe actually functions. They will NEVER understand anything past it because they assume the universe works like an eruv line and have poisoned the well of science with their own jabberwocky too much. For every jew "physicist" or god forbid quantum quack there's another layer of confusion added to the equation...because that's literally how their materialistic views on their own god work.These retards actually now believe the dual slit experiment was not only performed but also "perform-able" despite the jewish conjurer of the thought experiment saying it would be impossible.
>>540870816It's an objective speed limit, not a subjective one. That is to say, you can wizz past stars at any rate you'd like (stars per subjective second) given enough energy.
>>540878529So look. You know the integral for work right?Integral F dot dxIt turns out you can actually shift things around in this integral, such that you get 1/2 m v^2 out. In other words, work is just another way to say 1/2 m v^2. But this only holds true under one particular condition, that the vector field you're daling with is "conservative". A 1/r^2 force is conservative, therefore 1/r^2 forces are pretty much necessary for this to be true. 1/r^2 also happens to be the density if you assume partiticles are being shot out of the center, to create the force. Like it spreads out sphereically by 1/r^2. So that could be one explanation for why all forces seem to go like 1/r^2. To put it one way. It's like if you took a particle from one part of an electric field, moved it all around in different paths and configurations. If you returned it back to its original place, it would have the same energy, no matter what. It's just something that emerges from vector calculus. All of this stems from vector calc. There are certain functions which you can define potential-functions for. That is, you can integrate them and then interpret them in terms of the integral. These are called "potential functions". Oftentimes working with potentials just makes problems way easier. This is also a technique in Laplace transforms. You integrate a function into a different space. Then do some algebra. Then get back to your original space later. It's just a fancy calculus technique. Similar concept.
