Animation of pic rel:https://youtu.be/jv5w_y8fyjMPrecisely why Einstein was stupid:https://youtu.be/aRtKSHvT2-c>hurr the sun is because muh sky geometry
Bottom line: There absolutely IS a universal rest frame, don't let Einsteinists try to slip in one of their "therefore--" fallacies where they string you along with nothing more than an assertion and then claim their misinterpretation of another experiment proves it.Also, don't let them claim an experiment has been done in isolation of the local inertial frame (it has not) *cough*cough* Michelson-Morley... EVERY experiment we have done or currently can do with a photon involves emitting it from the local inertial context. Thus, they can never rule out imparted momentum.The animation above shows how the man on the spaceship merely perceives the combination of his own velocity and the photons velocity (the hypoteneus). There's no bending of time or space; that's geometry, NOT physics.Also, if you ever fell for the "spacetime curvature" claim requiring it's unfalsifiable extra dimension, then you're a gullible fool.
yes
Amen, and Newton is full of shit too. Gravity is a myth. We need to back to teaching the four humours for medicine. Delete the internet. Really, everything since the evolution of the brain was a mistake. Instead of solving problems they just started complaining about them.
>>17004067Einsteinist with no argument detected.
>>17004073If the event horizon of a black hole could expand, then the light cone for future escape velocity would engulf it before the event.
You say the length traveled is the same for both observers, but it clearly isn't. From A's perspective the light travels exactly vertically. It doesn't cover any horizontal distance. From B's frame the light makes the triangle with horizontal distance L1. Because of the difference in the length of the trajectory from each observer, you will get different times of flight.
I'm not watching your videos. You probably forgot relative simultaneity.
>>17004079In the universal frame, absolutely nothing wonky occurred. The photon travelled, reflected, and travelled back. The individual frames of person A and B /differ with respect to the universal frame/ (in both position and velocity) so of course their subjective experiences are different.The only real frame in which one can accurately describe the photon's motion, though... is the photon's. (!)
>>17004076>Types out the most interesting unrelated schizophrenic thought he's recently hadI broke him.
>>17004091It's afraid.
>>17004094Afraid of what, contagious retardation?
>>17004095Afraid to merely even engage with the information.Maybe one of the most cowardly reactions possible.
>>17004096If I told you to watch a Youtube video proving that 2 is an odd number, would you watch it?
>>17004097Yeah. Let's see it. But, your analogy is disingenuous.Expecting us to swallow the horseshit of time dilation as if it's the most obviously mundane and natural conclusion, is the ridiculous position.But sure, I'll watch your video even though you have a tendency to believe in horsecrap. Show me how two is odd.
>>17004098>Yeah.2 is odd because it's 1 times 1 according to that idiot actor, now go watch all his videos to figure out the nature of his brain damage.>Expecting us to swallow the horseshit of time dilation as if it's the most obviously mundane and natural conclusion, is the ridiculous position.What is obvious is that it is not self-contradictory. If you had a real argument against it, you would have posted a real experiment instead of an Einstein-style bullshit "thought experiment" which is clearly what your OP pic shows unless I am to believe you have your own spacecraft on which you have conducted experiments.
>>17004100Well, you tried. No link though. I was looking forward to having my worldview completely obliterated.
>>17004101His name is Terrence Howard, feel free to look up his shit and blow your mind, preferably with a gun.
>>17004103>kys for doubting my sacred cow!Thanks for the bumps.
>>17004106Okay, that was an overreaction. Feel free to blow off your balls instead, that would suffice to keep yourself out of the gene pool.
>>17004109>offers to blow my balls for showing him the lightThat's more like it.
>>17004111Why do you lick Einstein's balls?
>>17004114I'm OP. Keep up.
>>17004117Why do you suck Einstein's cock, OP?Why do you lick his balls?Why is his cum all over your face?
>>17004118
>>17004119I'm sure his spunk tastes really nasty.
>>17004092>The individual frames of person A and B /differ with respect to the universal frame/ (in both position and velocity) so of course their subjective experiences are different.But they cannot be different certain things, like the fact that the photon entered though one hole and left through another. That is something that both must agree on, and yet that means the photon took a different path in each frame.
Is there no physicists left on this shitty board?
>>17004122>Two people cannot see something from two different perspectivesYes they can. You gotta break through the brainwashing.>yet that means the photon took a different path in each frame.No, it means the astronaut in the space ship failed to account for his velocity with respect to the universal frame. It's not complicated, and It's sad to me how bad Einstein brainfucked you all.
>>17004123There are a few, but they fall into a deep ennui when confronted with their cognitive dissonance and instead of posting replies, they just stare at the wall in despair.
>>17004124You keep talking about this Einstein guy. Do you have a crush on him?
>>17004124>No, it means the astronaut in the space ship failed to account for his velocity with respect to the universal frame. This is about what observer B sees. Not anything else. If you see a ball on a pool table roll into the pocket, that happened. You do not need to "account for your velocity" to know that it went in the hole. It is an objective statement.
>>17004132Which part of the animation did you not understand? It's unclear what your question is, because "wether the photon went in the hole" isn't in controversy for either person. While yes, the person in the spaceship *could* certainly take an average of all changing outside distances, and ultimately infer his vector, then subtract that vector from his perception of the photon's motion inside the spaceship -- in fact, it is my very point, that it is merely by his failure to do that, that he might believe the photon travels a greater distance than it does.So again; you appear confused either by what is shown in the demonstration, or by my summary of it.
>>17004136> "wether the photon went in the hole" isn't in controversy for either personI agree. But they do see different trajectories. And that is the nature of relativity. They have to agree on objective results, like the photon going in the hole. But other measurements are relative.>it is merely by his failure to do that, that he might believe the photon travels a greater distance than it does.If the photon didn't travel a longer distance in his reference frame then he wouldn't agree it went in the hole. B cannot be "wrong", he sees what you put in your diagram. The need for relativity, is to relate one set of measurements to any other reference frame.
>cant post his animation as a webm because he needs views for his youtube grifter careerok
>>17004141He is wrong because he fails to be aware of the universal frame. If you close your eyes and claim I disappeared, that does not make your claim defensible. The truth is simply that you "cannot see me", and if you fail to flail your arms around to feel out your surroundings, again, it is true that you are unaware of them, not that they ceased to exist.
>>17004150>He is wrong because he fails to be aware of the universal frame. And how do you determine this frame? >. If you close your eyes and claim I disappearedHow about you stick to the actual physics? A and B both agree the photon goes in the holes.
>>17004151>sophistry is sciencebut it's not.See, i have the advantage of being a third perspective, at high altitude and pulled back, with an orthographic cutaway view of the spaceship and the ability to see the photon itself. As a result, i can observe that the photon exhibits purely vertical motion and it is the spaceship contributes the apparent horizontal motion.
>>17004153But how exactly did you determine that is the only correct frame? How can this be done in the real world?
>>17004155>How can this be done in the real world?>>17004136>the person in the spaceship *could* certainly take an average of all changing outside distances, and ultimately infer his vector, then subtract that vector from his perception of the photon's motion inside the spaceship
>>17004101How about.. two is odd because it's the only even prime.
>>17004156>all changing outside distancesDistances to what in the real world?
>>17004159yea>>17004160distances to the things in the real world.you're overusing the word "determine", as if it's to know with absolute certainty; i said "infer" for a reason. all you can know is the inferences arrivable by the values of your measurements. you cannot know if there is some vector you should sample changes from in order to reproject your internal model.but again, sophistry is not science. whether you can "know" it or not has no bearing on what is. simple logic brings us to the revelation that interface between person A< person B, and ourselves, person C, necessitates a shared frame. in reality, you, me, person A, person B, and our computer monitors are all rocketing through space on god knows how many axes, right now. nonetheless; we /infer/ <- key word, infer, our relative perspectives.I did not say that relative measurements don't exist. I said that time and space dilation do not (and in fact cannot.)
>>17004046>Time Dilation does not exist>Proves that time dilation existsHuh?
>>17004166go on make your argument. you haven't yet.
>>17004167For the person on the ground the time the light is inside the rocket is always the same.For the person in the rocket, the time the light is inside the rocket is longer, the faster the rocket moves relatively to the ground.This is always the case, even if you assume an aether, btw. The interpretation of what's really happening just changes.
>>17004163>distances to the things in the real world.What things? The Earth, other planets, the Sun, stars?>as if it's to know with absolute certaintyYou said there is a universal frame, that must be well determined, absolute and universal. And you said everything makes sense, if observers can relate their measurements to that frame. >simple logic brings us to the revelation that interface between person A< person B, and ourselves, person C, necessitates a shared frame. Why don't you explain that logic.
>>17004171no, the light is not inside the rocket longer. it's vertical component is the same. however, he does see it follow the hypotenuse, which is a /longer distance/ (not longer time). his relative measurement may fail to take into account his own motion, which will give him an incorrect result.you aren't actually addressing capital R "Relativity" though. relative measurements and "Relativity" are not the same thing. Relativity is a theory which includes as one of it's axioms that there is no universal frame of rest. However you can see and (hopefully) reason from your perspective that there in fact is a universal rest frame.Many of you are trying to "trap" me with the idea of relative measurements -- but that's not what's wrong about "Relativity".
>>17004176>that must be well determined,You are incorrect. The universe does not depend on your eyesight to exist. Other way around.
>>17004176>Why don't you explain that logic.The primary logical proof is that we can arrive at agreement on boolean outcomes. If I journey into the forest and place a geocache there, and then come here and tell your the coordinates, and you go there and open it first, you will find the same items I placed in it -- even if I don't tell you in advance what they were. Thus, we can agree that there is a consistent shared universe which both of us affected.If you forget to put the toilet seat down, your wife with almost 100% certainty will yell at you for it. She does not inhabit some quantum state of flux in which maybe you did or maybe you didn't. Try it. The only uncertainty which might affect the results of the experiment is her hormonal state.
>>17004181And so how do you know it exists at all?If you can't actually use it in practice then the whole claim is pretty useless.>>17004183>Thus, we can agree that there is a consistent shared universe which both of us affected.Which does not require a "universal" refereed frame. Relativity also avoids contradictions, and yet it doesn't require a frame. And the point of relativity is that can actually go out and calculate someone else's measurements from your own.
>>17004185No now you're sandbagging Relativity. Relativity does not merely deal with relative measurements. It goes on to attempt to describe nature itself and introduces specific mechanics such as curvature and dilation.
>>17004179>it's vertical component is the same. however, he does see it follow the hypotenuse, which is a /longer distance/ (not longer time). his relative measurement may fail to take into account his own motion, which will give him an incorrect result.What actually happens if you take the absolute frame idea seriously is the following:The rocket and the pilot are held together by electromagnetic forces. If you apply the Maxwell equations to a moving charge the radial field flattens in the direction of movement. As a consequence the entire rocket contracts in the direction of movement and that's not an effect of special relativity. It actually physically happens. The pilot will not notice that because he and his eyeballs contracted as well.In the same way all physical processes will simply move slower. You can see that a moving light clock ticks more slowly without knowing anything about relativity. Now the body of the pilot is simply a collection of light clock like processes which will all slow down.The combined effect of these phenomena is that the pilot will see the light moving inside the rocket with c no matter how fast the rocket moves.Maybe this would've been the standard interpretation if we knew about the CMB back then. Hell, even the fact that stuff is held together by electromagnetic forces was barely known.Although this interpretation provides an explanation as for why we don't have to worry about the CMB and why we can assume that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames when we measure things so we've come full circle and there's no reason to throw away special relativity.Of course now you have to explain things like muon decay in this framework which might be a bit more challengins
>>17004194Curvature is general relativity, you are discussiing SR. Time dilation is also very well supported by numerous experiments. >>17004195> If you apply the Maxwell equations to a moving charge the radial field flattens in the direction of movement. Show us.> You can see that a moving light clock ticks more slowly without knowing anything about relativity. That is time dilation, which you claim doesn't exist.>The combined effect of these phenomena is that the pilot will see the light moving inside the rocket with c no matter how fast the rocket moves.If you agree with that then you agree with special relativity. All observers measuring the same speed of light, and no contradictions leads to all the features, length contraction, time dilation, relativistic energy....> why we don't have to worry about the CMBWhat are you even talking about?
>>17004197>Show us.It's a long calculation>That is time dilation, which you claim doesn't exist.I didn't claim that. I'm not OPFor the rest read the chapter on special relativity in the book "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" by John Bell. Some passages from that chapter are in pic related. He explains how there two interpretation of special relativity that produce the same observable effects contrary to what most people believe.
>>17004206>I didn't claim that. I'm not OPMaybe you could have said that, instead of wasting both our time. OP is not arguing about interpretations.
>>17004211Maybe you should've followed the reply chain
>>17004212Is this you:>>17004092
>>17004216No. >>17004166 Was my first post in this thread
>>17004211>>17004212>>17004216Kek I am OP. He is correct, he (>>17004197) didn't claim time dilation doesn't exist. in fact he was arguing against me. This is me: >>17004092To be very clear: my issue with relativity and time dilation are when it attempts to describe MORE than merely how measurements are perceived, or when it conflates "time taken" with "distance travelled" given light's constant speed.The reason, I argue, is that there IS a universal inertial frame for which constant light speed is valid. But that local inertial frames can bias the results of your measurements.Sophists ITT will puff their cigarette and ask me in their best french accent "but how can you know?" -- yet I did not make the claim that you can know when you have eliminated all local inertial biases.Other sophists will then reply "well if you can't know then it's not worth discussing!" -- which I actually see as one of the central fallacies of modern mathicists. I have neither claimed nor discarded the possibility of knowing the ultimate frame, nor do I acquiesce that not knowing it means it's useless to know that it exists.I simply assert that it does, in fact, exist, as a logical necessity.
>>17004220Then it was you who made the misleading response, I posted much earlier.
>>17004228no, he was replying to me (OP) sarcastically. he still hasn't shown how my example "proves time dilation" (it doesn't)
>>17004221>when it conflates "time taken" with "distance travelled" given light's constant speed.They are equivalent, ignoring the factor of c, when you have a constant speed. >Sophists ITT will puff their cigarette and ask me in their best french accent "but how can you know?" -- yet I did not make the claim that you can know when you have eliminated all local inertial biases.But then how can you use what you are proposing at all, if you have no idea how to do the corrections? >The reason, I argue, is that there IS a universal inertial frame for which constant light speed is valid. But that local inertial frames can bias the results of your measurements.And yet every test for deviations in the speed of light in many different reference frames have found nothing.>I simply assert that it does, in fact, exist, as a logical necessity.Which you haven't demonstrated.
>>17004241>They are equivalent,no, dude, they aren't math is not physics. i'm tired of going around and around with you people stuck on that. >b-but when you have a constant speedi am specifically contradicting whether that constant speed is with respect to a universal inertial frame or without any universal inertial frame.>But then how can you use Left as an exercise for the reader. How can you use math which doesn't describe how reality works, but merely describes how it could (but doesn't) warning: this is a test of your intellectual honesty versus your cult loyalty.>y-y-ou have no idea! how to do the correctionNo, I described how you do the corrections. What I left open as a possibility is that it may not be possible to know when you have done them all, due to the infinity of available reprojection vectors.>and yet tests for deviations in c!might be below detection threshold given your absolute-frame contextB. it might have a capyou are implicitly claiming that you managed to stop time at light speed, which is false.you have never. it is is your theory, and your theory is what is being debated.>y-you haven't demonstrated Yeah I did. The animation above makes it absolutely clear why there must be a universal inertial frame and why you can't play willy-nilly with absolute time.
>>17004244>i am specifically contradicting whether that constant speed is with respect to a universal inertial frame or without any universal inertial frame.Can you derive this frame from Maxwell's equations? >No, I described how you do the corrections. "Just take the average" without specificity how that works in the real world with billions of objects to choose from. And you don't know as you don't know how to calculate the frame.>might be below detection threshold given your absolute-frame contextWhy don't you calculate your expectation for us?
>>17004166We should define it as slowing of clocks and processes not as time dilation. It's a philosophical things, the slowing of everything when you move faster through the aether is real.>>17004221Look into CMB rest frame. The CMB is extremely homeomorphic if you are at rest compared to it. It's a strong sign this is the rest frame.
>>17004298>Look into CMB rest frame. The CMB is extremely homeomorphic if you are at rest compared to it. It's a strong sign this is the rest frame.The CMB rest frame is convenient and fairly robust, but it is only local. Distant observers will different rest frames, even though they are not moving together.
What? It's literally experimentally observable not even a debate anymore
>>17004147Here's OP's video. It's worse than I expected. Totally worthless, not even clear what point he's trying to make.From skimming the thread it seems OP's point is that it could be that one of the frames measures distances and times as what they actually are, and measurements in all the others are just distorted. That is obvious and hardly a novel observation. And if the premise were true, it still wouldn't be accurate to claim "Time Dilation is bullshit." A moving muon still has a longer half-life.
>>17004323On a cosmic scale yes but locally its our rest frame
>>17004147It's not my video. How come you disingenuous fucks always cop out on these same lazy responses?>>17004382>iTsWorSeThAnIeXpeCtedi didn't make the video, and it's completely obvious what it's showing unless you're trying to be obtuse to protect your mathicism cult.what is NOT obvious is why you invoke muh muon when its magnetic moment has already been shown to be inconsistent with all predictions.
