/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15023697]

Do you believe that Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity are correct?

Please vote here, and please do not share this link elsewhere, and please only vote once. This is to gauge the consensus among /sci/ users, not among anyone else. https://strawpoll.com/polls/mpnba5bBQy5/results

Before anyone (janny or otherwise) mistakes this as a troll thread: No, I am genuinely curious. I know people post stuff about the topic to troll, but this thread is because I genuinely want to know what percentage of people here subscribe to the prevailing idea that Einstein was right.

>inb4 Einstein didn't invent relativity
This is specifically about Einstein's version of relativity. Poincare, Lorentz, etc didn't invoke time dilation or relative simultaneity, for example. If you believe in their stuff on relativity but not in Einstein's ideas on time that he involved in SR, then do not vote yes.

[Anonymous No.15023706]

>>15023697
Let me make the popsoientist killer question:
Ekhm....
*ding* *ding*

Why is it easier to accelerate at 0.5c than it is at 0.9999c?

spoiler: aether

[Anonymous No.15023708]

>>15023706
I don't think this question supports or opposes Einsteinian Relativity Theory. There are plenty of explanations, like that it requires more energy, or that there is more aether resistance, or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15023728]

>>15023706
Because kinetic energy is mass times velocity squared. Which means it takes more work to go to the same difference in velocity when dealing with higher velocities. Ergo no aether

[Anonymous No.15023848]

>>15023728
That doesn't imply anything about aether

[Anonymous No.15023958]

>>15023697
>This is specifically about Einstein's version of relativity. Poincare, Lorentz, etc didn't invoke time dilation or relative simultaneity, for example. If you believe in their stuff on relativity but not in Einstein's ideas on time that he involved in SR, then do not vote yes.
Time dilation etc are an inevitable consequence of any "version" of relativity, which you would know if you were not a posing pseud

[Anonymous No.15023976]

>>15023958
>being this retarded
wow

[Anonymous No.15024037]

>>15023706
that would still be the case if you add an aether to SR

[Anonymous No.15024324]

>>15023697
>Do you believe that Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity are correct?
I don't have to believe anything, I know what's correct and what's not.

[Anonymous No.15024333]

>>15024324
>I know what's correct and what's not.
retard

[Anonymous No.15024417]

>>15024324
Why didn't you aethershitters link this in the other threads? This is the only thing I've seen that looks at least worth reading

[Anonymous No.15024490]

>>15024417
It's been linked before, this board just has a very short memory.

>This is the only thing I've seen that looks at least worth reading
It's worth reading. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.15024499]

>>15023728
velocity relative to what dear?

[Anonymous No.15024500]

>>15024499
Relative to itself dumbass
>inb4 another retard that doesn't understand what a frame of reference is

[Anonymous No.15024510]

>>15024333

[Anonymous No.15024520]

>>15024500
velocity relative to yourself is 0

[Anonymous No.15024532]

>>15024510
I didn't say anything about doppler, retard. I know that SR is pseudoscientific garbage and I know that doppler effect may be why some of SR's math works. It doesn't change the fact that you are a retard for pretending to be omniscient.

[Anonymous No.15024659]

>>15023706
?

[Anonymous No.15024673]

Why do we need a thread on the same topic every fucking week?

[Anonymous No.15024676]

>>15024532
>>15024510
I love seeing schizos fight each other.

[Anonymous No.15025277]

>>15024673
we never had this poll before

[Anonymous No.15025532]

>>15024659
GR/SR and einstein denies aether exists, but for speed of light to exist, it needs to be limited along a absolute frame of reference, speed of light is relative to aether itself, because aether exists and is real.

If there is no aether then there is no speed of light limit

[Anonymous No.15025739]

>>15025532
SR explains exactly how you can have a constant speed of light in every reference frame. I'm not saying that no alternative is possible, but the mechanism of SR is consistent.

[Anonymous No.15025898]

>>15023697
Correct? No. Useful? Yes.

[Anonymous No.15025912]

>>15025898
EINSTEIN
EPSTEIN
SAME GUY.

[Anonymous No.15027373]

>>15025898
Based.

[Anonymous No.15027427]

>>15023697
Lorentz is pretty weird. Why light stretches space. But his is just math in dimensions on that root factor

[Anonymous No.15028648]

>>15025739
You can pretend to have "constant speed of light in reference frames" but that doesn't answer the question of acceleration

[Anonymous No.15028669]

>>15024673
You know, the power of tradition.

[Anonymous No.15028835]

>>15028648
That's what GR is for

[Anonymous No.15029024]

>>15023697
No, unless all of modern cosmology is wrong, which it could be.

[Anonymous No.15029095]

>>15023697
Do I believe the math is correct? Sure, or rather, it is the best theory we have. So I believe it is a paradigm likely to survive for another century or the best description of the natural world? No.

With the first point, plenty of physicists have come out and said that space-time as a concept has significant flaws. There have been attempts to reconsider it, but none have been successful enough to spark a paradigm shift. I do like Wilzek's The Lightness of Being on this.

Second, the core concepts behind relativity are incoherent. Space and time are abstractions. I think this is more readily accepted for time in the physics community and in the population at large. A physical phenomena can't bend an abstraction.

Pure time is the abstract dimension in which energy is relevant. Pure space is an abstraction in which matter is relevant. The specifics of these abstractions are defined by specific physical quantities, but it seems pretty silly to start saying the abstractions bend due to interactions with physical quantities. I'm glad to see objective logic and dialectics moving back into the sciences (there seems to be a renaissance here). It took decades to get out from underneath the thumb of Copenhagen orthodoxy, and only know, after the incoherence at the center of Copenhagen has been exposed in mainstream forums do we also start to see a movie away from the positivists dogmas surrounding relativity.

Third, I'm somewhat convinced by critiques against modern physicalism as a whole from Hoffman, Pinter, etc. Our intuitions about space and time may come more from a sort of data compressing code than anything central to reality itself. People readily accept that things don't have a taste or smell sans first person experience, but have a much harder time dropping their similar sensations of space and time. I think this is due to the fact that sensory data tied to vision, touch, hearing, and body position all tie back to this same model and reinforce it.

[Anonymous No.15029102]

>>15029095
Our sensory systems are kept surprisingly distinct given how much they could conceivably be allowed to blend with each other. Touch is experienced as very different from taste or sight for example. Synesthesia appears to confer a good deal of benefits, so it makes sense to question why different sensory systems are kept remarkably discreet across the animal kingdom.

My guess is that this is done to allow one sense to cross check another. If something looks light, we might be able to feel it and discover it is heavy. Space and time are a larger integrated model that allows for a coherent analysis of data from different systems.


But at the end of the day it's just a model, and sensory systems evolve to confer fitness benefits, not to accurately reflect reality.

[Anonymous No.15029208]

>>15024520
Only if you're not accelerating.

[Anonymous No.15029850]

>>15029208
not the point

[Anonymous No.15030631]

Fuck aethertards. You guys are only 1 level above of Flat Earthers.

[Anonymous No.15030636]

>>15030631
its just one determined schizo

[Anonymous No.15031042]

>>15030631
The truth is out there.

[Anonymous No.15031097]

>>15023706
>spoiler: aether
did the problem with the aether having to be solid, in fact colossally solid with a very high Young-modulus, go away while I did not pay attention? required for transversal electromagnetic waves, you know.

[Anonymous No.15031107]

>>15024673
For newfags like me

[Anonymous No.15031151]

>>15031097
The elastic-solid aether model isn't the only possible model. However, most work on the development of the aether theory ground to a halt after 1905, so most aether models are constructed from the experimental results available in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.15031180]

>>15023697
>Do you believe that Einstein's Special Relativity and General Relativity are correct?
No, I astral travel to other starsystems, and return to my body within hours on the same day. That doesn't square away with time dilation as described in special relativity. Does the field of consciousness follow a different set of rules than the electromagnetic field? Perhaps, as it can see standing waves of photonic energy, something not described by any known phenomena.

[Anonymous No.15032807]

>>15031180
that's cool sweetie, now take your meds please