Was Einstein Wrong?
- Thread starter munty13
- Start date
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Are you on drugs or something?????? I've never said ONE word about NASA or JPL!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are correct you did not.
You said I got my info from blogs.
I was proving you wrong and put up a link to the nasa video witch is where I got my info on the FTL in a black hole.
The info about the universe expanding FTL was in scientific american magazine.
I do not remember the scientists name it was a foreign name and hard to read le alon pronounce.
You said I got my info from blogs.
I was proving you wrong and put up a link to the nasa video witch is where I got my info on the FTL in a black hole.
The info about the universe expanding FTL was in scientific american magazine.
I do not remember the scientists name it was a foreign name and hard to read le alon pronounce.
You're still babbling! I never once mentioned blogs either!!!! What's wrong with your mind, anyway?????????
And I watched your video. It did NOT back up what you said and neither was NASA or JPL even once mentioned as being associated with it's production.
Seriously - go away and come back after the drugs or whatever has worn off!:bugeye:
ooops forum not blog...my bad
If your claiming that then you did not watch it.
You've crossed the line now, kid, by calling me a liar. This will be my final response to you before placing you on permanent ignore.:bugeye:
I most certainly DID watch your video!! For some reason it was jerky on my high-speed DSL and I could save it to play later since it was a Flash file. But I caught just about every word the guy said and saw/heard nothing of what you claimed to be in there. I also didn't hear him mention NASA or JPL nor were the mentioned in the header. All it said was his name and that he was basing it on Einstein's work. Looked like nothing but an independent production to me - not sanctioned or produced by any governmental agency.
Now... goodbye and good riddance to you!!!
At last!! Someone who understands relativity. Einstein supposes that the speed of light in a vacuum will always be the same for any two observers anywhere in the Universe. That's why relativity uses any number of scenarios (including black-holes and spaceships) to convey the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for any two observers.
My simple experiment exposes a fundamental problem with relativity. The speed of light in a vacuum is dependent on the rate of perception of the observer. It could be said that it is dependent upon the size of the observer.
This is mind gymnastics. It's not easy, but the key is seperating the brain from the clock on the wall. The frequency of EMR is determined by the rate at which it is observed by the brain and NOT the clock on the wall. If you modify the size of the observer, then the frequencies at which the EMR are observed also change. The brain is regulating the speed of light!!!! And not the Universe itself.
I hope to plot this out in a graph, or something visual.
Special relativity is only concerned with observers to the extent that:
- it's a theory that makes predictions about physical systems and observers are physical systems, so STR's predictions in particular apply to observers.
- you can take the view that all of physics, including relativity, ultimately predicts what observers will see over time.
The most abstract, precise, and general statement of STR that I know of (Lorentz covariance) is only concerned with the transformation laws of physical quantities and the symmetrical properties of covariant theories, and doesn't explicitly deal with observers. You can check that the wiki page on this doesn't even mention observers.
Er...
Your simple experiment exposes your own fundamental misunderstanding of relativity. You've only found a problem with a theory you invented that is very definitely not the one physicists call "relativity".
Rather than trying to understand why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't work, Einstein effectively took the result as his starting point. He made the basic assumption that the speed of light is a fundamental constant in the universe and that all observers in any reference frame that is not accelerating will measure the same value for the speed of light.
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/einsteins_special_relativity
Special relativity is based on two premises. First, light has the same speed for all observers regardless of their relative motion. Light velocity provides an upper limit for the speed of all forces, effects, and material objects. Second, the equations of physics are the same for observers moving at different relative speeds.
https://www.llnl.gov/str/May05/Aufderheide.html
@munty13
I have very serious doubts. And I am wondering why you never replied to me. May be i missed it.
1. Suppose if your observation is true that the two observers from different species have different measurement of time(in case of Einstein the observer was always a human being) and ones brain can be processing information faster than the other, is it the same for
a) a different member of the same species
b) a different species with a bigger brain than humans
2. Isnt it possible that they have additional and sharper sensory inputs which humans call instincts. Like in the cases of animals who can sense an earth quake or volcanic eruption few hours or even days in advance?
I have very serious doubts. And I am wondering why you never replied to me. May be i missed it.
1. Suppose if your observation is true that the two observers from different species have different measurement of time(in case of Einstein the observer was always a human being) and ones brain can be processing information faster than the other, is it the same for
a) a different member of the same species
b) a different species with a bigger brain than humans
2. Isnt it possible that they have additional and sharper sensory inputs which humans call instincts. Like in the cases of animals who can sense an earth quake or volcanic eruption few hours or even days in advance?
Last edited:
Could some type of appartus be built to prove/disprove Munty13's hypothesis? A credible theory should stand up to testing, no?
Hi theobserver. I'm sorry. My bad.
This is only a thought experiment, so it's a pretty rough guide, but I have based the rate of perception on the density of signals in the brain, and the speed at which these signals travel in the brain. The speed at which these signals travel will be affected by the distance they travel. This is why it is easier in terms of shrinking the observer, or expanding the observer. Importantly perhaps, it also preserves the size of the eyes in relation to the rate of perception, and thereby confirming which aspect of the EMR spectrum becomes visible light.
For a different member of the same species to have a markedly different rate of perception than other members, it would need to have a vast difference in brain size, and signal speed. I can think of one example where this might be possible within the same species - the fight or flee response. It is possible that the fight or flee response increases the rate of perception, effectively slowing down the motion of the outside world, so an animal has time to select its' response - fight, flee or freeze. Combat veterans describe a similar experience under life or death scenarios. Also stress disorders, such as schizophrenia, ADHD, post-taumatic stress disorder, follow a trend of manic states. These manic states could be induced by a faster rate of perception.
Of interest, small animals including fish, rodents, birds, reptiles and insects can see into the UV. It is not known why. Maybe what we proscribe as UV is actually the visible spectrum of these small animals. Our visible spectrum normally falls in the range of 400nm -700nm. If we shrink a human observer to a point where his/her rate of perception is twice as fast as normal, their visible spectrum will fall in the range of 200nm - 350nm. For our observer, the visible spectrum is 200 nm - 350 nm. Normally, we observe this part of the EMR spectrum as UV.
I think animals are certainly more sensitive to the world around them. I think that perhaps, they are more aware of the tension which surrounds them.
Last edited:
munty, if you think reading a few popular accounts of relativity makes you an expert on the subject, please think again. You're acting as an example of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: I've seen many users here post about how relativity was so obviously "flawed" for various reasons; not one had learned relativity to anywhere near the level of (for example) the wiki link I supplied in my last post.
To specifically address what you seem to be (deliberately?) misinterpreting: the time units physicists use are defined in terms of naturally occurring processes. For example, the current definition of the second is (source):
There's nothing subjective about this definition: your neural activity has no effect whatsoever on the spectrum of caesium atoms or on the number 9,192,631,770. The whole point of coming up with definitions like this is that it permits meaningful objective comparisons of quantities that depend as little as possible on the subjective perceptions of observers.
In physics (and all the exact sciences for that matter), quantities are considered the same if the numerical values are the same when expressed in the same units. To a physicist, 300,000 kilometres per second = 186,411 miles per hour = 30,000 kilometres per "mosquito second" (if a "mosquito second" is a tenth of an SI second). When you're guessing at what Einstein might have meant by a statement like "the speed of light is the same for all observers", remember that Einstein was a physicist.
There is a way of cracking what I am saying, and that is - when you view EMR, do you see it with your eyes and brain, or do you see it with a clock?
Throw away the clock, and you find that you still observe EMR. Your brain is defining the rate at which you observe EMR. In theory, the rate of perception of the brain is a variable.
Forget the clock. The only thing which is real is this moment.
Hi Steve100. The visible spectrum is the stimulation of cones in the retina. Normally, the retina is stimulated by EMR waves in the range of roughly 400 - 700 nm. Basically, if the eyes are stimulated by EMR waves, the electrical signals that are sent to your brain denote the colours of the visible spectrum. With your retina and brain, simply because of the way it has been designed, you would never see UV or infrared - it will always appear as the visible spectrum.
When we shrink an observer, it is quite easy to imagine that we also shrink the retina, and therefore the size of the EMR waves it responds to. What we normally find as x-rays could, if we were shrunk small enough, become our visible spectrum.
In a scenario where we have a 'normal' observer, but s/he is pumped up on adrenaline, the brain will be thinking faster, but the retina will remain sensitive to a visible spectrum in the range of 400 - 700nm. Effectively then, the motion of the Universe appears to slow down, because we can now produce more thoughts.
Interestingly, if we were able to manipulate the rate of perception, we would have a very real contender for the elixir of life.