Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

Two dark spots are inequivalent:

Inequivalent?
I did not say that word.
I said so: It's like.

Shoemaker-Levy impact was HOTTER than surrounding planet. Sunspots are colder than surrounding star.

Yes!
This is another (fifth) my argument.

5. Sunspots are cold. This is because the comet has made ​​of ice of different chemical composition.
If sunspots were the result of internal processes of the Sun, then the sunspots would be hotter than the surface of the Sun.

Then detailed observation of sunspots shows that they have a signature structure unlike the Shoemaker-Levy impact.

Of course!
The surface temperature of Sun reaches 6000K.
The surface temperature of Jupiter 150K.
Temperatures vary greatly.
For this reason, the comet matter behaves differently.

Multiple lines of evidence support the finding that Masterov is wrong. Again.

Masterov is wrong? Again?

I'm wrong?! Again?!

I was sure that I annihilate Einstein's theory.
It is my opponents were defeated, because the theory that they were defending, was logically inconsistent.

What did you mean when you said?: "Masterov is wrong. Again."

 

[przyk]

Your correspondents might say that these things can't be reduced to simplicity, but I find that hard to accept. Note, from Einstein himself ..

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. .

I would take that with a grain of salt (or a whole pile) if I were you. As far as I know Einstein never said any such thing. He is also frequently quoted as saying "If you can't explain it to your grandmother then you haven't understood it", yet that seems to be a false attribution. Feynman apparently made some similar comments, but also quipped that if he could summarize the discovery that won him the Nobel prize in a single sentence, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize.

Then there's the fact that just because someone says something like that doesn't make it true. In reality it isn't that simple for two reasons: first, being able to explain things well is a skill in itself, so someone's ability or inability to explain something does not necessarily reflect their level of understanding. Second, not everything can be made simple to understand to someone whose background in the subject matter is too weak to begin with. The problem with these "if you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it" quotes is that I see them too often used as a weapon and excuse for laziness: "if you can't explain it within the limits of my attention span then I don't have to deal with you".

The second is the case with SRT here. Reciprocal time dilation and twin paradox-like scenarios are ridiculously easy to understand and visualise - if you understand SRT well to begin with. Masterov's questions are overly simplistic and indicate not only that he doesn't fully understand relativity, but that he has no interest in even trying to understand it. Despite that, he has been given a number of replies and detailed explanations, all of which he has ignored.

For anyone having trouble with time dilation and twin paradox-like scenarios, I would invite them to explain what they did not understand in [POST=2982398]this post[/POST], which as far as I can see nobody has acknowledged or responded to in any way.

 

[Lakon]

I would take that with a grain of salt (or a whole pile) if I were you. As far as I know Einstein never said any such thing. He is also frequently quoted as saying "If you can't explain it to your grandmother then you haven't understood it", yet that seems to be a false attribution. Feynman apparently made some similar comments, but also quipped that if he could summarize the discovery that won him the Nobel prize in a single sentence, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize.

Then there's the fact that just because someone says something like that doesn't make it true. In reality it isn't that simple for two reasons: first, being able to explain things well is a skill in itself, so someone's ability or inability to explain something does not necessarily reflect their level of understanding. Second, not everything can be made simple to understand to someone whose background in the subject matter is too weak to begin with. The problem with these "if you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it" quotes is that I see them too often used as a weapon and excuse for laziness: "if you can't explain it within the limits of my attention span then I don't have to deal with you".

The second is the case with SRT here. Reciprocal time dilation and twin paradox-like scenarios are ridiculously easy to understand and visualise - if you understand SRT well to begin with. Masterov's questions are overly simplistic and indicate not only that he doesn't fully understand relativity, but that he has no interest in even trying to understand it. Despite that, he has been given a number of replies and detailed explanations, all of which he has ignored.

For anyone having trouble with time dilation and twin paradox-like scenarios, I would invite them to explain what they did not understand in [POST=2982398]this post[/POST], which as far as I can see nobody has acknowledged or responded to in any way.

I got the AE quotes from wikiquote ..

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

.. which I understood was a fairly accurate source.

Of course just because he said it doesn't make it so - but neither does it obviate it.

Spending a half hour or so reading all his quotes gives a fascinating insight into the mind of this brilliant man, and some of them could equally label him a religious nut, a fruit cake, a renegade, etc.

I particularly mused upon this one of his on his relativity theory, which he made in several forms (extract from wikiquote page) ..

When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity. An explanation of relativity which he gave to his secretary Helen Dukas to convey to non-scientists and reporters, as quoted in Best Quotes of '54, '55, l56 (1957) by James B. Simpson; also in Expandable Quotable Einstein (2005) edited by Alice Calaprice
William Hermanns recorded a series of four conversations he had with Einstein and published them in his book Einstein and the Poet (1983), quoting Einstein saying this variant in a 1948 conversation: "To simplify the concept of relativity, I always use the following example: if you sit with a girl on a garden bench and the moon is shining, then for you the hour will be a minute. However, if you sit on a hot stove, the minute will be an hour." (p. 87)

Was he joking ? Was he serious ?

I just wanted to reply to your 'Einstein quote' comments at the moment. Thank you for your interesting and informative post, which I'll read more later, and reply further if I have to.

 

[origin]

This is another (fifth) my argument.

5. Sunspots are cold. This is because the comet has made ​​of ice of different chemical composition.
If sunspots were the result of internal processes of the Sun, then the sunspots would be hotter than the surface of the Sun.Of course!

This is just a statement with no logical reason. Why would a sunspot be hotter?

You clealy do not know anything about sunspots why would you come up with an idea when you don't even know the background?

I am tempted to list all of the reasons that your idea is idiotic. But it is useless, once you get an idea in your head, no amount of factual information will sway you. I mean you actually think you have destroyed SR - it is absurd.

Look do yourself a favor and google sunspots. I know you won't, you don't need any facts or data to interfere with your delusional world.

 

[przyk]

I got the AE quotes from wikiquote ..

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

.. which I understood was a fairly accurate source.

The quote is in a big pink box with the title "misattributed".

Of course just because he said it doesn't make it so - but neither does it obviate it.

No, but we normally put the burden of proof on the person advancing a claim. So if you want to claim that anyone who can't explain something in simple terms doesn't understand it, then it is up to you to substantiate that claim, and preferably on a stronger basis than "this famous guy said so once".

I particularly mused upon this one of his on his relativity theory, which he made in several forms (extract from wikiquote page) ..

When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity. An explanation of relativity which he gave to his secretary Helen Dukas to convey to non-scientists and reporters, as quoted in Best Quotes of '54, '55, l56 (1957) by James B. Simpson; also in Expandable Quotable Einstein (2005) edited by Alice Calaprice
William Hermanns recorded a series of four conversations he had with Einstein and published them in his book Einstein and the Poet (1983), quoting Einstein saying this variant in a 1948 conversation: "To simplify the concept of relativity, I always use the following example: if you sit with a girl on a garden bench and the moon is shining, then for you the hour will be a minute. However, if you sit on a hot stove, the minute will be an hour." (p. 87)

Was he joking ? Was he serious ?

I wouldn't take those quotes too seriously. If they're meant as analogies for relativity, they're not very good or accurate ones.

 

[Masterov]

This is just a statement with no logical reason. Why would a sunspot be hotter?

You clealy do not know anything about sunspots why would you come up with an idea when you don't even know the background?

I am tempted to list all of the reasons that your idea is idiotic. But it is useless, once you get an idea in your head, no amount of factual information will sway you. I mean you actually think you have destroyed SR - it is absurd.

Look do yourself a favor and google sunspots. I know you won't, you don't need any facts or data to interfere with your delusional world.

If I'm right, then you ( as an honest man) will end the career of a scientist.
Ye shall answer for your's words.
If you are an honest man.

If I'm not right (sunspots have inward origin), then I will end the career of a scientist.
I pledge one's word of honour.

Agreed?
==========================

Если я прав, то вы (как честный человек) закончите карьеру ученого.
Нужно отвечать за свои слова.
Если вы честный человек.

Если я не прав (солнечные пятна имеют внутреннее происхождение), то я закончу карьеру ученого.
Я даю слово чести.

Согласны?

 

[Masterov]

This is just a statement with no logical reason. Why would a sunspot be hotter?

Because the upper Sun layers are most coldest.
The temperature of the surface layers rise proportional to the depth of the layer.

You clealy do not know anything about sunspots why would you come up with an idea when you don't even know the background?

I am tempted to list all of the reasons that your idea is idiotic. But it is useless, once you get an idea in your head, no amount of factual information will sway you.

Prove that I'm wrong.
Prove that sunspots are the result of internal dynamics, and are not a consequence of the fall in the sun a comets or like it.
Докажите, что я неправ.
Докажите, что солнечные пятна являются результатом внутренней динамики, а не являются следствием падения на солнце, кометы или её подобного тела.

I mean you actually think you have destroyed SR - it is absurd.

These words are the spells of the religious fanatic, because you have an opportunity to have arguments to prove your words.
But you refuse to answer.

I repeat to you the questions that you persist otkazyvatsya answer:

уou argue that the physical properties of matter are change by acceleration, and it leads to slower time?

1. What are these physical properties of matter. Name it.

2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.

If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?

Look do yourself a favor and google sunspots. I know you won't, you don't need any facts or data to interfere with your delusional world.

You look like a fanatic-maodzina what Mao's Citations puts into opponent nose instead argument.
Вы похожи на фанатика маодзина, который вместо аргумента цитатник Мао оппоненту суёт в нос.

 

[OnlyMe]

If I'm right, then you ( as an honest man) will end the career of a scientist.
Ye shall answer for your's words.
If you are an honest man.

If I'm not right (sunspots have inward origin), then I will end the career of a scientist.
I pledge one's word of honour.

Agreed?
==========================

Если я прав, то вы (как честный человек) закончите карьеру ученого.
Нужно отвечать за свои слова.
Если вы честный человек.

Если я не прав (солнечные пятна имеют внутреннее происхождение), то я закончу карьеру ученого.
Я даю слово чести.

Согласны?

Masterov, this challenge or bet does not make sense, even attempting to re-translate it.

Sun spots are not caused by comets or asteroids hitting the sun.

I could not explain the actual dynamics, but they occur far more frequently than asteroid, comet or meteor impacts do.

They are the result of the sun's internal dynamics.

 

[Masterov]

Masterov, this challenge or bet does not make sense, even attempting to re-translate it.

Sun spots are not caused by comets or asteroids hitting the sun.

I could not explain the actual dynamics, but they occur far more frequently than asteroid, comet or meteor impacts do.

They are the result of the sun's internal dynamics.

Again religious spells instead of arguments.
Снова религиозные заклинания вместо аргументов.

 

[origin]

If I'm right, then you ( as an honest man) will end the career of a scientist.
Ye shall answer for your's words.
If you are an honest man.

I am not a scientist - I am an engineer. However if you are right, that comets, meteors, etc impacts cause sunspots, I swear I wil cut the soles off of my shoes, live in a cave and eat only flapjacks for the rest of my life.

If I'm not right (sunspots have inward origin), then I will end the career of a scientist.
I pledge one's word of honour.

You are not a scientist either - but all I ask of you is if you are wrong then you will shut the hell up.

Agreed?

Sure.


Unfortunately, comets do not cause sunspots and you will never ever admit that, so there is really no point to this; is there?

 

[Mazulu]

Sunspots are caused when something interferes with the convection currents of the sun. When convection is interfered with, that part of the sun cools down and it's blackbody radiation appears as a dark spot. Intense magnetic fields are said to cause sunspots. I have no idea if a comet could also cause a sun spot. But if it can disrupt the convection currents, then maybe it could.

I am no expert on sunspots. But it seems to me that a comet would cause a big splash. I don't think that would necessarily interrupt convection currents.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi everyone. About sunspots etc, some observations:

- magnetic field contortions (due to sun rotation/coriolis effects) and the plasma flows which are also redirected accordingly will result in localised (upper layer) 'pinch-offs' and 'fusion events' over and above those going on deeper under the usual gravity-containment pressure mediated fusion event from which the heat migrates upwards more slowly and evenly than is observed to happen at the surface layer events which sometimes are violent and energetic enough 'locally' to overwhelm the gravity/magnetic containment in those upper layers (hence Coronal Mass Ejections and Sunspot whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/waves observed).

- Sunspots are not 'cold' or 'hot', but merely that their energy flows are more/less along/perpendicular to those containment field lines. Also, it depends on which wavelength the observation is made in. Spots that look 'cold' in visible/infrared wavelengths may be 'hot' in X-ray/gamma wavelengths.

- If the surrounding surface layers/events (whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/connections etc) is ALSO included in the measurement/observation, the whole 'local SPOT system' is always much the same 'temperature' overall the connected 'ingoing and outgoing' whorls which define the SUN 'spots' in connected flow/magnetically connected PAIRS.

- Whereas any 'spots' on planets like Jupiter from comet collisions will be SINGULAR events/spots and not 'connected in pairs' like those spots on the Sun. Naturally, the number of 'singular event' spots on Jupiter will depend on the number of 'fragments' hitting any one location. These are not 'paired', but merely scattered' according to actual individual piecemeal 'events' when a comet 'fragments' before impact.

I trust this helps to distinguish between planetary 'impact-spots' and solar 'sunspots' (which latter may be more or less in number according to the harmonic 'recovery times' in the sun's magnetic field contortions since the last 'pinch-off/reconnections events....which seems to be approximately 11 years generally, except for the additional contributions from rare events where the occasional 'convection hot spot' perturbation from deeper layers intrudes into the upper layers activities as described).

Back to the OP discussions, anyone?

 

[origin]

Hi everyone. About sunspots etc, some observations:

- magnetic field contortions (due to sun rotation/coriolis effects) and the plasma flows which are also redirected accordingly will result in localised (upper layer) 'pinch-offs' and 'fusion events' over and above those going on deeper under the usual gravity-containment pressure mediated fusion event from which the heat migrates upwards more slowly and evenly than is observed to happen at the surface layer events which sometimes are violent and energetic enough 'locally' to overwhelm the gravity/magnetic containment in those upper layers (hence Coronal Mass Ejections and Sunspot whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/waves observed).

- Sunspots are not 'cold' or 'hot', but merely that their energy flows are more/less along/perpendicular to those containment field lines. Also, it depends on which wavelength the observation is made in. Spots that look 'cold' in visible/infrared wavelengths may be 'hot' in X-ray/gamma wavelengths.

- If the surrounding surface layers/events (whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/connections etc) is ALSO included in the measurement/observation, the whole 'local SPOT system' is always much the same 'temperature' overall the connected 'ingoing and outgoing' whorls which define the SUN 'spots' in connected flow/magnetically connected PAIRS.

- Whereas any 'spots' on planets like Jupiter from comet collisions will be SINGULAR events/spots and not 'connected in pairs' like those spots on the Sun. Naturally, the number of 'singular event' spots on Jupiter will depend on the number of 'fragments' hitting any one location. These are not 'paired', but merely scattered' according to actual individual piecemeal 'events' when a comet 'fragments' before impact.

I trust this helps to distinguish between planetary 'impact-spots' and solar 'sunspots' (which latter may be more or less in number according to the harmonic 'recovery times' in the sun's magnetic field contortions since the last 'pinch-off/reconnections events....which seems to be approximately 11 years generally, except for the additional contributions from rare events where the occasional 'convection hot spot' perturbation from deeper layers intrudes into the upper layers activities as described).

Back to the OP discussions, anyone?

Geeze, what a bunch of gibberish!

 

[RealityCheck]

Geeze, what a bunch of gibberish!

That tells us that you know nothing about magnetic field line contortions and reconnections as part of the sun's upper layer/corona dynamics. Or why the sun's corona is higher temp than the surface layers. Or that sunspots come in pairs where the plasma flows between them along magnetic field lines connecting the two 'poles' where the spots appear. You probably don't know anything about this at all except what you will now go and read up on in wiki. Way to show your own ignorance, origin. Glass houses.

 

[Masterov]

I am not a scientist - I am an engineer.

Sunspots are scientific question.
I.e. are outside your competence.
This can be seen more because you can not argue with this question.
I see no reason for the flatness(rigidity) of your judgments on the issue in which you do not have sufficient expertise.
Categoricity of your judgment is not based on knowledge, but on faith in religious dogma.

Maybe you try to answer the question: "Why a wind blow?".
No. This question is too complicated for you too.

However if you are right, that comets, meteors, etc impacts cause sunspots, I swear I wil cut the soles off of my shoes, live in a cave and eat only flapjacks for the rest of my life.

I appreciate the sense of humor.

Unfortunately, comets do not cause sunspots and you will never ever admit that, so there is really no point to this; is there?

No, isnt there.
I gave five arguments.
You do not have any arguments.

You are not a scientist

I given a link to my monograph.

 

[Masterov]

Sunspots are caused when something interferes with the convection currents of the sun. When convection is interfered with, that part of the sun cools down and it's blackbody radiation appears as a dark spot. Intense magnetic fields are said to cause sunspots. I have no idea if a comet could also cause a sun spot. But if it can disrupt the convection currents, then maybe it could.

I am no expert on sunspots. But it seems to me that a comet would cause a big splash. I don't think that would necessarily interrupt convection currents.

A comet is a huge snowball.
Once it hit in the atmosphere of the sun, the snow thaw (evaporate and ionization of water and of gass), absorbing heat.
This leads to a decrease in temperature, as observed in spots.

Take another look at that photo.
Try to answer the question: how should look like a huge chunk of falling ice and snow in the sun.
If not so, as shown in this photo, then - how?

If sunspots were caused by the internal dynamics of the Sun, then the spots are more hot than the upper atmosphere.
Cold just no exist to deep in the solar atmosphere.

 

[Mazulu]

A comet is a huge snowball.
Once it hit in the atmosphere of the sun, the snow thaw (evaporate and ionization of water and of gass), absorbing heat.
This leads to a decrease in temperature, as observed in spots.

Haven't you ever dropped ice cubes on the coils of an electric oven? The ice cube melts after about 10 seconds. Then the coild is dark for about 1 second. After that, the coil is bright red again. The same thing would happen if a giant comet hit the sun. It would melt in seconds, it would darken the sun for a few seconds, and then there would be no sign of it.

Real sunspots last for months, sometimes even years.

 

[Masterov]

Haven't you ever dropped ice cubes on the coils of an electric oven? The ice cube melts after about 10 seconds. Then the coild is dark for about 1 second. After that, the coil is bright red again. The same thing would happen if a giant comet hit the sun. It would melt in seconds, it would darken the sun for a few seconds, and then there would be no sign of it.

Real sunspots last for months, sometimes even years.

30 years ago, when I was a student, a professor (on a lecture) asked us: How many does the sun will shine less, if each of its 200 pounds will generate as much heat as a person selects.

Answer very surprised me.
The professor said, the sun will shine as 200,000 suns.
Bigger. (No smaller!)

I say to that: the heat is generated only at the center of the sun. And to him to get to the upper layers require thousands of years.
In the upper atmosphere of the sun there is no source of energy.
All the heat comes from the deep layers of the Sun.
It comes out slowly.
Not like in your oven.

The surface area of man body (to one pound of mass) a lot more than a sun has it.

 

[Lakon]

The quote is in a big pink box with the title "misattributed".

Yes, one of them is in the misattributed section and a variant of the "if you can't explain it to your grandmother .. " quote (the one you previously mentioned).

The other one ..

All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking

.. is not misattributed (it's in the 1930's subheading).

No, but we normally put the burden of proof on the person advancing a claim. So if you want to claim that anyone who can't explain something in simple terms doesn't understand it, then it is up to you to substantiate that claim, and preferably on a stronger basis than "this famous guy said so once".
I wouldn't take those quotes too seriously. If they're meant as analogies for relativity, they're not very good or accurate ones.

Einstein or not, I believe rather strongly in the idea that "All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking". Or are we saying that certain parts of science are beyond reproach, are the province of an elite group, and are incommensurable to everyday thinking (shades of the church circa few hundred years ago) ?

You might respond that you have to learn the science, but I haven't learnt the science of planetary motion, yet comprehend that the earth turns on it's axis, orbits the sun, etc. Similarly there would be a plethora of scientific / physics concepts that I comprehend in everyday terms, but do not comprehend, and would never hope to comprehend, the (say) hundred pages of equations thereof.

Like some people I do take an interest in things beyond my comfort zone. One thing I never got is time dilation, and sometimes I wonder whether it's a fiction. Now note, I didn’t say it IS a fiction, I'm saying I wonder whether it is one, particularly given the (not misattributed)comments from the man himself (back to the wikiquotes page) ..

-When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity.
-As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
-Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.
-Since others have explained my theory, I can no longer understand it myself.

We are in the least, as entitled to pay attention to them, as to your ..

I wouldn't take those quotes too seriously. If they're meant as analogies for relativity, they're not very good or accurate ones.

I tell you what - I’d love to come up with a source that gives a simple, credible explanation of SRT and time dilation, and that answers all the ‘simplistic’ questions that might arise in a curious, though non - scientific person’s head. Do you know of any ?

 

[AlexG]

I’d love to come up with a source that gives a simple, credible explanation of SRT and time dilation

Why do you think the universe should be simple?