Was Einstein Wrong?
- Thread starter munty13
- Start date
It's known that Einstein didn't necessarily get taken seriously to begin with in physics. Some thought him completely off the beaten track, however he did challenge them in a way to find fault in his theories. This is how he tested what has come to be Science through peer review. Some have even suggested that without a women in his life, he might never have been able to explain things at the level necessary for other physicists to relate to, however I can't give you any sources on that thanks to my own inefficient use of memory.
No.
The speed of light in water is, for example:
v = c*(1/1.33)
or something like that.
The speed of light in vacuum is c.
No. For example, light in water is slower than light in vaccuum, and is affected by the motion of the water. But that's a bit off the track.
---
Edit - beaten by the Man!
Hi Stryder. Thanks for the informative reply. But I wonder by what mechanism you are dictating that the box's movement maintains the same speed. If I am following you correctly, it appears you are falling into the exact same trap that I'm trying to expose. The rate of perception, the rate at which signals in the brain are produced, is dictating the speed of the view box.
If I was able to process the world twice as fast as you because my rate of perception was twice that of yours, we could both watch the same view box moving across the screen with different ideas about time. Watching it normally, you count to 5 as it moves from left to right. Okay, now let's try as my rate of perception is increased to being twice as fast. Well, now I count to 10 as it moves from left to right. Do you see? There's no such thing as spacetime.
Time is energy in motion. Motion denotes time. Our rate of perception dictates the speed at which we observe this energy in motion. If I increase my rate of perception, effectively, the motion of the energy slows down. This especially applies to the speed of light.
That makes me wonder if animals with bigger brain perceive things slower than humans.
must be watching the thread too
you are fool and stay here baffling around. you know little about universe.
the universe is expanding at increasing rate. I bet you don't know this simple theory, but Einstein predict it is expanding at decreasing speed which is proven wrong. You don't even know this common knowledge, if you had studied Master in Science and Cosmology, you should understand better what i had written, but this is not the case for you.... GO BACK TO SCHOOL BOY!!!...
and i puzzle you can post so many nonsense abusive post, over 5000. you should spend time on your decent job and earn some money and don't just play internet all day long. I don't have time to entertain you all day long as I got job to do.
Qualified scientist or not is not important for me, as long as i am earning money doing research and experiment in a laboratory. if you don't trust me you can visit my workplace and i buy you a cup of coffee.
Last edited:
Munty, how fast you count has nothing to do with measuring time and speed.
That's why we have standard units. The standard unit of time is the second, which is unrelated to any observer's perception. If you are shrunk by some amount and your personal 'rate of perception' doubles, you might count faster but you'll still measure the same number of seconds as an unshrunk observer.
I'm no fool OR boy, you ignorant child! I now have time, as I have told you before, because I am a fully-retired researcher. Sorry to break your little bubble but I know and have applied FAR more science than you will probably ever come into contact with.:bugeye:
Case in point, I worked in what was at that time THE world's leading research lab - AT&T Bell Labs. You mentioned one lab in your native country (I take it) and suggested the someone - Scott, I believe - that he should work there. Well, I checked out your "great" lab and found that it didn't even meet the latest ISO requirements!!!! I would never, ever even apply for a job at a rinky-dink outfit like that - much less suggest it to someone else!!!
I also strongly doubt that you are much beyond the age of 20 or 21 because you sound like an egotistical little kid who most likely has a job in some second-rate outfit washing glassware.
Also, I've posted REAL science here long before you ever arrived and since that time I've seen you post nothing more than erroneous garbage.
And WHO doesn't know about the expanding universe????? It's been taught to every young school child in my country for YEARS! Yet you sound as if you've just found out about it.:bugeye:
Do you have a brain tumor or something which produces explosive behavior???
Did someone force you to read any or all his post AND respond to it OVER&OVER???
Stop discouraging people who are at least trying to reason.
Did someone force you to read any or all his post AND respond to it OVER&OVER???
Stop discouraging people who are at least trying to reason.
If you are talking to me, kid, you can quickly butt out.
I'm not explosive at all, in fact, probably the calmest and most unemotional person you could ever hope to meet.
HOWEVER, having said that, I do have a strong aversion to individuals who have proven themselves to be liars and outright frauds as albertchong has done more than once in these forums. He HAS claimed to be a scientist, yet he talks and writes like a snot-nosed school child. He has displayed a level of scientific knowledge that is FAR below that of the average kid of 16 attending school in the U.S. And despite your silly comment to the contrary, he is making NO effort to try and reason. All he's doing is blowing smoke and pure nonsense.
Therefore he's proven himself a liar and as such, totally deserves all the contempt that anyone wishes to pile on him.
Now... are you at least starting to get the message??????????????
Hi Pete. I agree, this has nothing to do with how fast I count. Both observers , big and small, are not counting fast. They are both using the metronome of the mind - a conscious thought - to count steadily. It just so happens that when you compare the results of the two observers - then the dramatic difference becomes apparent.
Time is something we use. We need time to guide us through our day, but it's only a tool. Time is an illusion. It's not something concrete that binds the Universe. If we can be this wrong about the speed of light in a vacuum, well, what about the speed of light in the rest of the Universe?
The problem with the originall post is that it is devoid of quantitative analysis. Rather than relying on precise mathematical analysis of the system you describe, you avoid that and thus leave yourself open to the fallacy of 'arm waving'. If you begin with a vaguely described qualitative system, there's no way you can use it to get a quantitative result, which is what you need if you're going to disprove something as well tested as relativity, which (in the case of special relativity) is also known to be mathematical consistent, since it reduces to a particular form of geometry.
If you are going to make claims about X seeing Y take longer to move a distance Z etc then you need to be quantitatively precise. Without that you are not supporting your claims at all. This means that there's nothing for us to retort.
If you are going to make claims about X seeing Y take longer to move a distance Z etc then you need to be quantitatively precise. Without that you are not supporting your claims at all. This means that there's nothing for us to retort.
This is the difference between a Scientific Standard for measuring time and a persons own personal "perception". A standard is formulated to be independent of the observer, therefore it stays the same no matter what altered state of perception an observer claims to have. Therefore the box in my simplified animation will move at the same speed no matter how fast you perceive it.
As for the speed of light in the universe... well I'm sure you know of Doppler Shifts, Light shifts in it's frequency range dependent on the spacetime it travels through. (This is what Cosmologists theorize about and Astronomers observe.) Light won't speed up or even slow down, it just changes form. I guess you can say it follows energy conservation.
This is precisely my problem in trying to convey the idea about the rate of perception. How can I quantify my results, when I am asking an observer to no longer trust anything which is quantified.
It can appear like 'arm waving'. I know I need a method to better convey the rate of perception. It would be nice to throw something quantative on the table. For the moment though , I am asking each of you to bare with me, and use a bit of imagination.
Try to imagine that each moment that passes, that each moment we so greedily consume and discard, that each moment could be stretched into an experience lasting years - millions of years - if the rate of perception was fast enough.
Yes munty... but that has nothing to do with Einstein's theories of relativity which relate to measured time. Measured by clocks, not by any 'mental metronome'.
Yes, personal perceptions of time may vary due to internal mental processes. No, this has nothing to do with Einstein.
Yes, personal perceptions of time may vary due to internal mental processes. No, this has nothing to do with Einstein.
This has everything to do with Einstein. The speed of light in a vacuum is presumed to be a constant. The entire theory of spacetime hinges on the speed of light being a constant. My simple thought experiment shows that this is simply not true. Indeed, it shows that the speed of light hinges upon the rate at which it is observed.
Spacetime creates the fallacy that time is something which is real in the Universe. It enforces the notion that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, because we are told the speed of light in a vacuum is the speed limit of time. My experiment breaks this illusion down into its basic components - energy and the rate of perception.
Some believe that if it were possible to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum we could go back in time. This experiment paves the way for idea that if EMR did propagate faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, then you would simply have a type of EMR that propagated faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
Einstein's choice as the speed of light in a vacuum for the entire Universe has reinforced our idea that space is four dimensional, but four dimensional space exists only in the mind. The next question that arises is, if the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant throughout the Universe - why is the speed of light 300, 000 km/s in a vacuum on planet Earth?
You are WAY off the deep end here, little man!!!
Exactly what makes YOU, a puny little obviously undereducated individual, think that you know MORE than all of the professional scientists of the entire world?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
THAT is about the height of arrogance AND stupidity combined!!!:bugeye: It doesn't get any worse!