Theory of relativity.

[Anonymous No.15103747]

Why are there still people who disargees on the theory of relativity? It's been proven with countless experiments (like atomic clocks disinc) and a lot of techonology, like GPS or laser gyroscopes work on calculations derived from it.

Do they have models with the same or even better predictive or explanatory power? Maybe there are some facts that contadict theory of relativity and that cannot be explained with it? If not, what's this all about?

[Anonymous No.15103750]

>>15103747
Why do I get the feeling you already know all the answers to this question and just made this thread to attract the electric universe type schizos?

[Anonymous No.15103803]

>>15103750
>you already know all the answers to this question
I don't, it just seems strange to me, because relativity is a beautiful and practical theory. The only thing that concerns me is how Einstein kvetched about QM.

[Anonymous No.15103811]

>>15103803
Curious how you completely avoided quoting the electric universe schizo part. Is this an attempt at deflection?

[Anonymous No.15103815]

>>15103811
>electric universe
Never heard of it.

[Anonymous No.15103824]

>>15103815
You haven't convinced me yet but ok

[Anonymous No.15103827]

>>15103824
Haven't convinced what?

[Anonymous No.15103899]

>>15103747
Bump.

[Anonymous No.15103984]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.15104010]

>>15103747
>Do they have models with the same or even better predictive or explanatory power?
Yes, classical Doppler shift.

[Anonymous No.15104016]

>>15103899
>>15103984
desperate

[Anonymous No.15104041]

>>15104010
Wait... It really was doppler shift all along?

[bodhi No.15104070]

>>15103747
if you have to ask you are too dumb to understand the answer. Move along

[Anonymous No.15104081]

>>15104070
Cope, schizo.

[Jealous No.15104086]

Spin isn't conserved in GR, neither is energy I think, and Mach's principle has to be added in as an axiom. Still, it seems to be true that objects at rest move on geodesics in Riemannian spacetime.

[Anonymous No.15104089]

>>15103747
>It's been proven
No theory can ever be "proven". You can corroborate it.
>Maybe there are some facts that contadict theory of relativity and that cannot be explained with it? If not, what's this all about?
Relativity theory and quantum theory seem to contradict each other anyway, so at least one of them has to be false. Maybe both of them are false.

[Anonymous No.15104099]

>>15104089
>quantum theory seem to contradict each other anyway
What is there besides quantum entengalment?

[Anonymous No.15104102]

>>15104086
>neither is energy
Why?

[Anonymous No.15104108]

>>15104041
Always has been.

[Anonymous No.15104523]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.15104529]

>>15104089
>No theory can ever be "proven".
Wrong. Atomic theory proven to be right, germ theory of disease proven to be right, round earth theory, etc.

[Anonymous No.15104721]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.15104970]

>>15103747
>and a lot of techonology, like GPS or laser gyroscopes work on calculations derived from it.
No. GPS doesn't. you'd have to have a clock in your phone with more than one part per trillion accuracy. No one does. Not even one part per billion. The satellite relative motion is no where the speed of light . Relativity doesn't apply.

[Anonymous No.15105000]

>>15104970
Dude, are you kidding?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKwJayXTZUs

[Anonymous No.15105001]

>>15105000

[Anonymous No.15105021]

>>15104970
>No. GPS doesn't
Wrong.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

>you'd have to have a clock in your phone with more than one part per trillion accuracy
Why?

>The satellite relative motion is no where the speed of light .
And? Most of the correction is for gravitational blueshift, not time dilation from the movement of the clock.

>Relativity doesn't apply.
Based on what calculations? If you actually did any, they're wrong.

[Anonymous No.15105268]

>>15105000
>>15105021

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/

equation 35
rate correction = 4.4X10^-10
or one part in 2,272,727,273

https://www.google.com/search?q=quartz+clock+accuracy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS960US960&sxsrf=AJOqlzWMckwq4WpvoDREC6WADxwWIf02LA%3A1673058282107&ei=6te4Y5iYBtuv0PEPlPOz0AY&ved=0ahUKEwiYtd_ks7T8AhXbFzQIHZT5DGoQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=quartz+clock+accuracy&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIHCAAQgAQQDTIGCAAQBxAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDOggIABAIEAcQHkoECEEYAEoECEYYAFAAWIwJYI8MaABwAXgAgAGaAYgB0QSSAQM1LjGYAQCgAQHAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Standard-quality 32768 Hz resonators of this type are warranted to have a long-term accuracy of about six parts per million (0.0006%) at 31 °C (87.8 °F): that is, a typical quartz clock or wristwatch will gain or lose 15 seconds per 30 days

your cell phone is no where near precise enough to measure a shift in time due to relativity.

[Anonymous No.15106049]

>>15105268
>Standard-quality 32768 Hz resonators
Non sequitur. GPS satellites use much more accurate clocks than a standard clock.

>your cell phone is no where near precise enough to measure a shift in time due to relativity.
??? Your cell phone doesn't need to measure any such thing. The satellite clocks need this correction in order to be synced with ground stations to receive updates to their location correctly. None of this has anything to do with the time on your cell phone. Did you not even do basic research on this topic or are you deliberately making shit up?

[Anonymous No.15106089]

>>15106049
>or are you deliberately making shit up?
Yes, just like Einstein deliberately made up his theory of relativity. Why he can do it but i can't?

[Anonymous No.15106100]

>>15106089
Einstein was correct, you're just a pathetic liar.

[Anonymous No.15106866]

>>15106100
Nonsense! He is the liar. and his hair are ridiculous!

[bodhi No.15106872]

>>15104081
I am coping with the fact you are an idiot? ok

[Anonymous No.15106877]

>>15106872
You are coping with the fact that your imaginary structures pointing at disproving theory of relativity are so ridiculous that anyone would aknowledge it at first glance, therefore you would never say it in public.

[Anonymous No.15107050]

Its just plain retarded. Imagine if we only had device that uses sound to measure time and a device that uses sound to measure distance. What a suprise, we would adjust everything with function of c where c is speed of sound.

Relativity: söyence science grand prince. QM is of course the grand emperor söyfullest science all tine

[Anonymous No.15107147]

>>15107050
But photon is the fastest thing because it have zero mass.

[Anonymous No.15107162]

>>15107147
>it have zero mass.
How did they measure it?

[Anonymous No.15107164]

>>15107162
If photons had mass, they could not reach the speed of light, according to relativity.

[Anonymous No.15107165]

>>15107164
>it's the fastest thing because it has zero mass because it's the fastest thing
Nice logic.

[Anonymous No.15107169]

>>15107165
It's just massless, okay?

[Anonymous No.15107180]

>>15106049
>Non sequitur. GPS satellites use much more accurate clocks than a standard clock.
so? it's your cell phone that needs to do the triangulation retard.

>The satellite clocks need this correction in order to be synced with ground stations to receive updates to their location correctly
ok. but who cares where the satellite is? I want to know where I am, and I don't carry around a satellite. I only have a cellphone.

[Anonymous No.15107212]

>>15107180
Cellphones don't even use satellites. "GPS" is done entirely by triangulation from land-based towers.

[Anonymous No.15107288]

>>15107212
>Cellphones don't even use satellites. "GPS" is done entirely by triangulation from land-based towers.
probably, today, in cities you are correct. anyways, no one is having relativistic equations solved on their cellphones to get to a heading to the nearest Walmart.

[Anonymous No.15107315]

>>15103747
nope it didnt help gps or laser or anything currently used in technology, youre misinformed

[Anonymous No.15107465]

>>15107180
>it's your cell phone that needs to do the triangulation retard.
It's actually trilateration, not triangulation. The satellites send signals to the receiver with their precise locations and time, so there is no need for an atomic clock in the receiver itself. Ground stations use atomic clocks to accurately update the satellites' with their locations.

>but who cares where the satellite is?
All GPS receivers, because that's how trilateration works. You need locations and distances to those locations.

>I want to know where I am, and I don't carry around a satellite.
You carry around a receiver for signals to the satellites. Are you pretending to not understand even the basics of GPS?

[Anonymous No.15107496]

Special and General Relativity have had a bunch of philosophical interpretations associated with them that are not actually entailed by the mathematics of the theory themselves or Minkoski space-time.

A big one is the idea of the block universe, the idea that all real events exist at all times and that past, present, and future are merely subjective terms.

It's of then presented as: "everyone believed in absolute Newtonian time, then we learned that an externalist block universe exists from Einstein.

But the connection is very weak, often based on flawed analysis of the Twin Paradox that ignores how proper time works in special relativity. The works of Robb and Alexandrov have become less well known over time and the block universe as fact thing has really grown out of control.

There is, in fact, totally consistent ways to have local becoming and a present that work with relativity. But moreover, the arguments for the block universe are, in general, based on bad analogies and misunderstandings of what time even is.

Newtonian absolute time was never absolutely popular. Gallielo recognized that time and motion were relative. Aristotle recognized that time was emergent from change, something Liebnitz followed him on.

Others are straight critics of the model as a whole, see Nima Arkani-Hamed.

[Anonymous No.15107503]

>>15107496
Space-time and Quantum Mechanics are the pillars of our modern understanding of fundamental physics. However, there are storm clouds on the horizon indicating that these principles are approximate and must be replaced with something deeper. The union of quantum mechanics and gravity strongly suggests that “space-time is doomed”, and there are related indications of fundamental limitations to quantum mechanics in both the early and late universe. This talk will review these paradoxes and describe indications for a new picture where space-time and quantum mechanics will be seen to emerge hand-in-hand from more primitive principles, making contact with new areas of mathematics. The talk will present a concrete example of how these ideas work in the context of particle collision experiments of the sort performed at the Large Hadron Collider”

https://pswscience.org/meeting/the-doom-of-spacetime/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

Pic related is a good starting point. Tim Maudlin has a good intro if you know some physics, the Princeton series.

[Anonymous No.15108229]

>>15107496
>>15107503
Pointless time wasting philosophical drivel.

The non-issue of absolute vs relative time is incredibly simple to understand.

Light clocks are not a perfect standard of time, therefore it's asinine to presume that they are.
There goes all the philosophical critique Special Relativity deserves. It's an insult to Galileo to compare his principle of relativity to SR.
Galileo also recognized that if you look out of the window of the ship, then relativity doesn't hold. Relativists don't even acknowledge the fact that the Sagnac effect gives a procedure to discern a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light.

[Anonymous No.15108232]

>>15107496
>>15107503
Thank, i will check it out.

[Anonymous No.15108378]

>>15108229
>Light clocks are not a perfect standard of time
Because...?

>Galileo also recognized that if you look out of the window of the ship, then relativity doesn't hold
Because...?

>the Sagnac effect gives a procedure to discern a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light.
How?

[Anonymous No.15108406]

>>15103747
>It's been proven with countless experiments
wrong.
it has been proven that relativity theory is a good model to describe several physical phenomena, but not that Einstein's schizo theories are true.

[Anonymous No.15108414]

>>15108406
What's the difference? How do you "prove a theory true?"

[Anonymous No.15108436]

>>15108378
>>Light clocks are not a perfect standard of time
>Because...?
Their observed period is affected by relative motion, as shown by SR, so they don't describe Newtonian absolute time, by definition. So there is no contradiction between the two, other than a conflation of notions.

>>Galileo also recognized that if you look out of the window of the ship, then relativity doesn't hold
>Because...?
That's what Galileo said in his thought experiment about the ship. You seem to have some required reading to do.

>>the Sagnac effect gives a procedure to discern a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light.
>How?
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609222
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/650166
>When a loop is closed there is no longer unrestricted applicability of relativity of simultaneity. Relativity of simultaneity is still applicable for synchronization along arbitrary subsections of the perimeter. However, for self-consistent synchronization all the way around there is no relativity of simultaneity. All the way around there is only a single synchronization.

[Anonymous No.15108450]

>>15108436
>Their observed period is affected by relative motion, as shown by SR
Yes, that's called time dilation. It's not an error in a particular type of clock, it's just a feature of spacetime.

>so they don't describe Newtonian absolute time, by definition.
Because absolute time doesn't exist.

>That's what Galileo said in his thought experiment about the ship.
He did not. He said that without looking out the window you couldn't tell that something is moving uniformly. The classical principle of relativity is that movement is relative to the observer, which still holds if you look out the window because you see the water moving past you.

>>When a loop is closed there is no longer unrestricted applicability of relativity of simultaneity. Relativity of simultaneity is still applicable for synchronization along arbitrary subsections of the perimeter. However, for self-consistent synchronization all the way around there is no relativity of simultaneity. All the way around there is only a single synchronization.
There is no mention of a preferred frame here. Please answer the question.

[Anonymous No.15108458]

>>15108450
>Yes, that's called time dilation. It's not an error in a particular type of clock, it's just a feature of spacetime.
... where "spacetime" is defined as the relative time and space derived from light clocks. Conflation of notions, as I said.

>Because absolute time doesn't exist.
Neither does Minkowski spacetime. They're both ideal mathematical notions that are useful insofar they apply to the real world. I already stated the realm of application of each.

>He did not. He said that without looking out the window you couldn't tell that something is moving uniformly. The classical principle of relativity is that movement is relative to the observer, which still holds if you look out the window because you see the water moving past you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_ship
>To prove the point Galileo's fictional advocate Salviati proposed the experiment described below to show the classical principle of relativity according to which there is no internal observation (i.e. without, as it were, looking out the window) by which one can distinguish between a system moving uniformly from one at rest.
Look out the window = can distinguish between a system moving uniformly from one at rest = classical principle of relativity fails to obtain.

>There is no mention of a preferred frame here. Please answer the question.
From the link:
>In a Minkowski spacetime that loops back on itself, however, there is a global procedure that identifies a globally preferred frame.
You're a clown.

[Anonymous No.15108463]

>>15108406
I like it when schizos like you call well established science schzio.

[Anonymous No.15108469]

>>15106866
/thread

[Anonymous No.15108544]

>>15108458
>where "spacetime" is defined as the relative time and space derived from light clocks.
No, spacetime is a four dimensional manifold containing events.

>Neither does Minkowski spacetime.
Yes, actual spacetime has a lot of stuff in it so is not Minkowski. What is your point?

>Look out the window = can distinguish between a system moving uniformly from one at rest = classical principle of relativity fails to obtain.
This is gibberish. What you just quoted says that Galileo's thought experiment confirmed the classical principle of relativity. When you look out the window of the ship, you see the waves moving past you. That doesn't violate classical relativity.

>In a Minkowski spacetime that loops back on itself, however, there is a global procedure that identifies a globally preferred frame.
Ah, I see your confusion. This treats the optic fiber as its own spacetime, ignoring everything else. So "globally preferred frame" doesn't refer to a globally preferred frame for our universe, but for this hypothetical universe made up solely of a loop. So stating that the Sagnac effect gives a globally preferred frame is false. GR proves there is no such frame.

[Anonymous No.15108564]

>>15108544
>This treats the optic fiber as its own spacetime, ignoring everything else. So "globally preferred frame" doesn't refer to a globally preferred frame for our universe
Grasping at straws. If you add in the rest of the universe, it gives a globally preferred frame for the rest of the universe, too.
>So stating that the Sagnac effect gives a globally preferred frame is false.
So this is false.
>GR proves there is no such frame.
And in direct contradiction to this claim. GR is compatible with a preferred frame (harmonic coordinates).

Also notice that you're still trying to derail the discussion into technicalities about spacetime, when the presence or absence of a preferred frame according to either theory of "relativity" is irrelevant to the discussion of relative and absolute time and space. Even with a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light, nothing is said about absolute time. Because light clocks are not a perfect standard of time, by definition.
Relativists simply do not understand the issue, and how it is not an issue, but they love to pretend that they do.

[Anonymous No.15108801]

>>15108564
>If you add in the rest of the universe, it gives a globally preferred frame for the rest of the universe, too.
No. The rest of the universe isn't a Minkowski space and doesn't loop. You have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of misrepresenting quora answers why don't you learn GR?

>GR is compatible with a preferred frame (harmonic coordinates).
Gibberish. Coordinate systems don't change the laws of physics, which are invariant in every reference frame. Instead of desperately googling why don't you try to understand physics? If you did you would learn that general relativity is based on and named after that principle, that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Your entire argument is a contradiction by definition.

>Also notice that you're still trying to derail the discussion into technicalities about spacetime
No, I'm trying to explain your misunderstanding to you. If you don't like that, then don't make such errors and talk about something else.

>Even with a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light, nothing is said about absolute time.
Then why did you bring up preferred frames of reference? You're complaining to me about your own confusion. LOL

>Because light clocks are not a perfect standard of time, by definition.
They are, your definition is incorrect since it assumes time is absolute.

>Relativists simply do not understand the issue
Projection. Your lack of understanding was demonstrated several times.

[Anonymous No.15108830]

>>15108544
>>15108564
Both of you are worthless talentless undergrads at best like this faggot >>15108806
Both of your definitions of spacetime are not the accepted version.

Physics become even harder when worthless idiots like you try to blend in mathematics while that would mean the neediness of a polymath abilities both at physics and math

[Anonymous No.15108834]

>>15108801
>The rest of the universe isn't a Minkowski space and doesn't loop.
Agreed, the universe doesn't care about how we describe it. That's why pointless diatribes about relativity and spacetime and the "nature of time" are pointless and unscientific. Newton gave clear definitions of what is meant by relative and absolute time and space, and it's clear from those definitions what the subject of special relativity is.
This has nothing to do with the procedure to find a preferred frame of propagation for light. As I said before, the two issues are wrongly conflated by special relativity. The procedure still works though.

>Gibberish. Coordinate systems don't change the laws of physics.
Thanks for proving me right. I agree: coordinate systems don't change the laws of physics. I'm glad that we agree that special relativity, and general relativity with it, are an intellectual exercise at the very best, and a pointless waste of time that misrepresents the concepts it purports to describe at worst.

>Then why did you bring up preferred frames of reference? You're complaining to me about your own confusion. LOL
Special relativity conflates a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light with absolute time and space, because it wrongly presumes that a light clock is a perfect standard of time, therefore I have to bring up preferred frames of reference for the propagation of time, and how it is wrong to assume that they represent absolute time and space. It is very simple logic.

>They are, your definition is incorrect since it assumes time is absolute.
Nonsense.

>Projection. Your lack of understanding was demonstrated several times.
Petitio principii is not a valid method of proof.

[Anonymous No.15108854]

>>15108834
Kill yourself and I will bully you because you are worthless and think you are right

[Anonymous No.15108858]

>>15108854
This is what admission of defeat looks like.

[Anonymous No.15108860]

>>15108858
Funny although I'm not even the other idiots that was arguing with you, I'm supporting him if anything just because I like bullying worthless talentless trash that think this little board makes them right.

It does makes me right, but not because of the board itself.

[Anonymous No.15108862]

>>15108830
>Both of your definitions of spacetime are not the accepted version.
Please explain how spacetime is not a four dimensional manifold.

[Anonymous No.15108864]

>>15108860
Good for you, but you're actually wrong.

[Anonymous No.15108865]

>>15108830
>Physics become even harder when worthless idiots like you try to blend in mathematics
LOL, OK schizo. Keep crying about math in physics while calling people undergrads. You sound like an electric universe retard.

[Anonymous No.15108869]

>>15108865
I will bully you for fun because you are a worthless schizophrenic retard thinking he's right

[Anonymous No.15108871]

>>15108869
Midwit take.

[Anonymous No.15108882]

>>15108834
>Agreed
Thanks for admitting you misrepresented your source.

>That's why pointless diatribes about relativity and spacetime and the "nature of time" are pointless and unscientific.
Thanks for admitting your posts are pointless and unscientific.

>This has nothing to do with the procedure to find a preferred frame of propagation for light.
Then why did you bring it up?

>The procedure still works though.
It would, if the universe was a looped Minkowski space. It isn't.

>Thanks for proving me right.
How? You just contradicted yourself.

>I agree: coordinate systems don't change the laws of physics.
Then why did you claim harmonic coordinates are "a preferred frame?"

>I'm glad that we agree that special relativity, and general relativity with it, are an intellectual exercise at the very best, and a pointless waste of time that misrepresents the concepts it purports to describe at worst.
We don't agree, you just don't understand, at the most basic level, what you're talking about. You don't know what SR and GR are or say at even an introductory level. There's really no excuse for this level of deliberate ignorance besides mental illness.

>Special relativity conflates a preferred frame of reference for the propagation of light with absolute time and space, because it wrongly presumes that a light clock is a perfect standard of time
That doesn't follow. You're just piling your own misunderstandings on top of each other.

>Nonsense.
It's as sensible and simple as can be. GR is fundamentally based on the principle that there is no preferred frame. The laws of physics are the same in all frames. You have no argument.

>Petitio principii is not a valid method of proof.
Then stop using it.

[Anonymous No.15108885]

>>15108869
Confirmed electric universe schizo.

[Anonymous No.15108897]

>>15108882
This post added nothing to the discussion. My argument is consistent, my terms are well defined, every post but the last I have added substance to my claims. You have done nothing but contradict and misrepresent. My argument is contained in >>15108229 and >>15108436. You are unable to accept facts, such as the consequences of the Sagnac effect, and contradict them with dogma you yourself do not understand. I have won, you have lost. I am right, you are wrong. Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.15108914]

>>15108564
>GR is compatible with a preferred frame (harmonic coordinates)
Lmao, what a fucking moron you are

[Anonymous No.15108923]

>>15108897
>This post added nothing to the discussion
Neither did the post it responded to. You just repeated the same errors that were already explained.

>My argument is consistent
Not really, you contradicted yourself several times (like when you agreed the laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems after saying a coordinate system was a preferred frame), and complained about the discussion of ideas only you introduced. It was consistently wrong, if that's what you meant.

>You have done nothing but contradict
No, I contradicted and explained what you got wrong.

>and misrepresent
Where?

>My argument is contained in >>15108229 # and >>15108436 #.
And my responses destroy them.

>You are unable to accept facts, such as the consequences of the Sagnac effect
Projection. You just agreed the universe isn't a looped Minkowski space.

You're clearly mentally ill and can't accept even basic definitions of the concepts you're talking about that prove you wrong. Get help.

[Anonymous No.15108949]

>>15108923
>Not really, you contradicted yourself several times (like when you agreed the laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems after saying a coordinate system was a preferred frame), and complained about the discussion of ideas only you introduced. It was consistently wrong, if that's what you meant.
Minkowski spacetime mathematics doesn't care whether you are taking the Lorentzian or Einsteinian interpretation of the Lorentz transformation.
You imagine that mathematics tells you more than it can actually tell you.

>No, I contradicted and explained what you got wrong.
No, you contradicted with points that I had already debunked. You are taking special relativity's conflation of notions as sacrosanct, and you are unable to follow definitions in order to acknowledge this fact, possibly because you know that doing so would mean admit your own defeat. This is the petitio principii I was talking about.

>Projection. You just agreed the universe isn't a looped Minkowski space.
And yet, the procedure, performed in reality, will still find a preferred frame for the propagation of light. Curious thing.

>You're clearly mentally ill and can't accept even basic definitions of the concepts you're talking about that prove you wrong. Get help.
You made enough of a fool of yourself when we talked about Galileo's ship. You should give up lest you make even more clear that you're a joke of a person.

[Anonymous No.15108969]

>>15104010
Explain discrepancies in muon lifetime measurements with doppler shift.

[Anonymous No.15109020]

>>15108969
>muon
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.15109031]

>>15108969
Wild photons make muon decay. With speed near c it kinda escapes them gaining more time before death

[Anonymous No.15109069]

>>15108969
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

[Anonymous No.15109126]

>>15108414
Epicycles were a good model to describe several physical phenomena, but they were still schizo.

[Anonymous No.15109205]

>>15107465
>The satellites send signals to the receiver with their precise locations and time, so there is no need for an atomic clock in the receiver itself.
so you think the satellites just know what my location is at all times and just send me my coordinates? I'm struggling to conceive of your misunderstanding of GPS. You seem to think the GPS receiver is completely passive and does nothing to determine it's own position?

[Anonymous No.15109209]

>>15107503
>Space-time and Quantum Mechanics are the pillars of our modern understanding of fundamental physics.
ironically, they contradict. They are both somehow accurate to 100 decimal places, but one completely disallows the existence of the other.

[Anonymous No.15109319]

>>15108949
Didn't you say goodbye?

>Minkowski spacetime mathematics
Is irrelevant.

>You imagine that mathematics tells you more than it can actually tell you
How so?

>No, you contradicted with points that I had already debunked.
Where?

>You are taking special relativity's conflation of notions as sacrosanct, and you are unable to follow definitions in order to acknowledge this fact
Which notions and definitions?

You're being excessively vague and not responding to my points.

>And yet, the procedure, performed in reality, will still find a preferred frame for the propagation of light.
You haven't given explained or proven any of this. All you've done is misrepresent a quora answer. It looks like you just googled it.

>You made enough of a fool of yourself when we talked about Galileo's ship.
Projection.

[Anonymous No.15109322]

>>15109126
That doesn't answer my question.

[Anonymous No.15109328]

>>15109322
Actually it does. Epicycles provide the ideal case study of why a schizo theory is different from the truth. They did work to predict every aspect of stellar motion, to a degree of precision that was unparalleled in their time, but they turned out to be a mathematical contortion of insufficient theoretical frameworks made to approximate reality rather than a true description of it.

[Anonymous No.15109331]

>>15109205
>so you think the satellites just know what my location is at all times
Are you illiterate? That's the exact opposite of what you just quoted. The satellites know their own locations and send those locations to your phone. Your phone only has to trilaterate from the given positions of the satellites to determine your location. No atomic clock needed.

>I'm struggling to conceive of your misunderstanding of GPS.
Because i have no misunderstanding, and you don't even know the basics.

[Anonymous No.15109332]

>>15109328
I should clarify that my point is that just because something appears to predict certain behaviors, does not mean it is actually correct. You can predict things accurately and be completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.15109334]

>>15109328
>but they turned out to be a mathematical contortion of insufficient theoretical frameworks made to approximate reality rather than a true description of it.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.15109335]

>>15109328
Again, you didn't answer my question. My question was not asking for an example of a failed model, I asked how you tell the difference between theory and reality.

[Anonymous No.15109340]

>>15109334
>How do you know?
Because the gravitational alignment of the solar system around the sun has been observationally proven through our exploration of space, whereas epicycles fell apart at scale even before the advent of rocketry.

[Anonymous No.15109343]

>>15109335
>My question was not asking for an example of a failed model, I asked how you tell the difference between theory and reality.
The difference between a schizo theory and reality is that the schizo theory falls apart when the scope of the observations is inconvenient to the math of the theory. Reality operates contiguously at all levels, it isn't broken up into GR sections and SR sections.

[Anonymous No.15109342]

>>15109340
So it's not a good model. How do you tell the difference between a good model and reality?

[Anonymous No.15109345]

>>15109343
>The difference between a schizo theory and reality is that the schizo theory falls apart when the scope of the observations is inconvenient to the math of the theory.
That just means the model isn't good.

>Reality operates contiguously at all levels, it isn't broken up into GR sections and SR sections.
SR is just a special case of GR, so this just displays your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.15109346]

>>15103750
does electric universe give predictions as accurate as SR and GR?

[Anonymous No.15109347]

>>15109340
>gravitational alignment of the solar system around the sun has been observationally proven through our exploration of space
>NASA said so, therefore it must be true
Not how science works.
>epicycles fell apart at scale even before the advent of rocketry.
How so?

[Anonymous No.15109351]

>>15109345
>That just means the model isn't good.
This is just pilpul. You agree with me but used different words to pretend like that's not exactly what a theory is. Theories are models that attempt to fit reality. Bad theories are bad models of reality. Models of reality are bad if they have to be massaged with corrective constants and unknowns to fit observations of reality.

[Anonymous No.15109353]

>>15109331
>Your phone only has to trilaterate from the given positions of the satellites to determine your location.
explain how that is accomplished without an accurate clock in the phone.

[Anonymous No.15109356]

>>15109346
>does electric universe give predictions as accurate as SR and GR?
what predictions are those?
inb4 GPS

[Anonymous No.15109360]

>>15109351
>This is just pilpul.
Schizo buzzword. It's your own argument:

>it has been proven that relativity theory is a good model to describe several physical phenomena, but not that Einstein's schizo theories are true.

It looks like you're never going to answer my question.

[Anonymous No.15109369]

>>15109360
As I have continued to explain to you, fruitlessly I might add, you can contort your math to model any physical phenomena some of the time, but it will always fall apart at scale. Epicycles are the best case study of why this is true.

[Anonymous No.15109374]

>>15109356
I don't know. If there are no predictions, then the answer is "yes" trivially. Is it?

[Anonymous No.15109377]

>>15109374
>If there are no predictions
there are definitely none anyone can reproduce in a lab.

[Anonymous No.15109384]

>>15109377
So the answer is yes. I'm not surprised. The universe is not relative but electric I guess.

[Anonymous No.15109387]

>>15109353
A PLL is used to get the time delay between signals. It doesn't even use the phone's clock.

[Anonymous No.15109389]

>>15109369
>Epicycles are the best case study of why this is true.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15109396]

>>15109387
>get the time delay between signals.
>It doesn't even use the clock.
this is some mental gymnastics. You measure a time delay without a clock, but atleast we are going in the right direction now. This "PLL" in your phone is how precise?

[Anonymous No.15109399]

>>15109389
What's a better case study? The miasma theory of disease (correctly correlating sewage with illness with the wrong causal mechanism)?

[Anonymous No.15109449]

>>15108406
>but not that Einstein's schizo theories are true.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.15109463]

>>15109369
You still haven't answered my question.

[Anonymous No.15109464]

>>15109449
A model which is generally wrong can still predict some natural behaviors some of the time if the math behind it was carefully massaged to fit those behaviors.

[Anonymous No.15109467]

>>15109463
What is your question?

[Anonymous No.15109480]

>>15109396
>this is some mental gymnastics.
No, it's just the answer to your question. I know your mental illness prevents you from accepting basic facts, so I'll just ignore these pointless insults.

>You measure a time delay without a clock
The phone's clock is a crystal clock. The PLL is a separate circuit.

>This "PLL" in your phone is how precise?
It's as precise as the input signal.

[Anonymous No.15109484]

>>15109467
See >>15108414

[Anonymous No.15109485]

>>15109480
just answer the question, retard, I grow weary of your mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.15109489]

>>15109485
What question have I not answered?

[Anonymous No.15109503]

>>15109480
>The phone's clock is a crystal clock. The PLL is a separate circuit.
PLLs are accessories to an existing clock signal. You're still talking about a clock somewhere creating a signal for the PLL to amplify.

[Anonymous No.15109505]

>>15109489
Why are you gay?

[Anonymous No.15109508]

>>15109489
>What question have I not answered?
how precise is your cell phone in measuring the time delay? I want a number.

[Anonymous No.15109526]

>>15109484
The difference was explained to you here >>15109328, here >>15109332, here >>15109343, here >>15109369, and here >>15109464.

To put it into terms you might understand, the difference is in determining the cause. A theory might posit a mathematical relationship between observations. This relationship may be predictive sometimes. If it is not predictive all of the time, it is more than likely false about the conclusions it makes regarding the cause of an observed relationship, but this does not make it useless because it still works some of the time.

We knew epicycles were likely false long before we had a good grasp on the way the solar system was organized, but they could still make some predictions that were valid for people who didn't care about the cases where they failed. Now that we can go out into space and make direct measurements we know that our modern understanding of the underlying relationship between nearby celestial bodies is accurate (based on gravitational forces) and there's no need for mathematical trickery to fit observations to the theory.

[Anonymous No.15109567]

>>15109526
>about the cases where they failed.
Demonstry such cases.

[Anonymous No.15109578]

>>15109567
Where epicycles failed? They drift out of alignment over time because the theory failed to account for the fact that the bodies we see are orbiting other bodies, not the Earth. This is more true of distant visible stars, whose precession doesn't follow a pattern that could be reduced adequately to epicycles.

[Anonymous No.15109598]

>>15108406
>but not that Einstein's schizo theories are true.
Explain why processes in the objects flow slower when their speed in space increases.
>idk hehe...
Than fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15109610]

>>15109503
>PLLs are accessories to an existing clock signal.
The signals in this case are from the satellites, not from the phone's clock.

[Anonymous No.15109617]

>>15109508
>how precise is your cell phone in measuring the time delay?
I already answered this, it's as precise as the input signals. It determines the exact frequency of the input signals.

[Anonymous No.15109623]

>>15109598
>Explain why processes in the objects flow slower when their speed in space increases.
They don't. That's the schizo part.

[Anonymous No.15109625]

>>15109526
If it's not predictive then it's not a good model. Again, you're not telling me the difference between a good model and reality. You said that even if it makes good predictions, that doesn't mean it's real. You still haven't told me how you can tell the difference.

[Anonymous No.15109652]

>>15109623
>They don't.
Explain experiment with atomic clocks.

[Anonymous No.15109656]

>>15109617
>I already answered this, it's as precise as the input signals
No. You didn't. I'm actually asking you for a number with unit. Your cell phone, and you agree on this, determines it's location by measuring delay times. You said this yourself. Now I want to to tell me, by submitting a number with units, how precise this measurement is. I don't want garbage like "as as accurate as something else", or "as precise as it needs to be". I'm not talking about a metaphysical form of a phone or average of phone either. I' literally talking about the phone in your pocket. If you can't find that exact number then use a model of phone you are familiar with. You will fail unless your answer looks literally and exactly like the following

x units

where x is a number and units is the appropriate units. If you can't provide this number then you lose the argument, because my thesis is "you aren't carrying around any hardware on you that can measure time intervals on the order of magnitude that relativistic effect are on for the given speed of all the bodies of interest." So actually start giving numbers here to make an argument.

[Anonymous No.15109661]

>>15109652
>Explain experiment with atomic clocks.
confirmation bias and inability to control all the variables since none are ever done in a lab.

[Anonymous No.15109670]

>>15109652
https://archive.is/LxyYl
Changes in the electromagnetic environment change the rate of radioactive decay. Atomic clocks are subject to an unknown rate of error due to this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.15109682]

>>15109625
>You said that even if it makes good predictions, that doesn't mean it's real. You still haven't told me how you can tell the difference.
By whether its assumptions about the underlying mechanism are true or false. If false, it will not be generalizable. If true, it will be.

[Anonymous No.15109687]

https://youtu.be/QC52vRmtQoU?t=2547
This guy says ring laser gyroscopes work on relativity, is this true?

[Anonymous No.15109701]

>>15109670
Interesting, thank.

[Anonymous No.15109760]

>>15109656
1e-11 seconds

[Anonymous No.15109761]

>>15109661
Explain delayd pion decay at higher speed.

[Anonymous No.15109782]

>>15109760
thank you. we can proceed. now where did you get this number? can you provide a citation? it seems pretty unbelievable I have something in my pocket that can measure time delays down to 10ps. I mean, measurement modules for oscilloscopes with this much precision can cost tens of thousands of dollars. In 10ps light can only travel 3mm. is the GPS in your phone actually accurate down to 3mm? seems bizarre. Where did you get this information?

[Anonymous No.15109785]

>>15109761
>Explain delayd pion decay at higher speed.
I already did here >>15109661

[Anonymous No.15109795]

>>15109785
What? Half-life of pions literally increases at high speed. You can't explain it without relativity, it's fucking over!

[Anonymous No.15109798]

>>15109795
>You can't explain it without relativity, it's fucking over!
I did, right here. >>15109661

[Anonymous No.15109800]

>>15109798
>confirmation bias
Confirmation bias causes pions to decay slower at higher speed? Are you an idiot?

[Anonymous No.15109802]

>>15109800
Confirmation bias causes people to assume the existence of a thing called a "pion" when the strong nuclear force is known to be an abstract electromagnetic effect.

[Anonymous No.15109803]

>>15109800
strawman fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15109811]

>>15109656
>No. You didn't.
Yes, I did.

>I'm actually asking you for a number with unit.
Too bad.

>If you can't provide this number then you lose the argument, because my thesis is "you aren't carrying around any hardware on you that can measure time intervals on the order of magnitude that relativistic effect are on for the given speed of all the bodies of interest."
That doesn't follow. There is no relativistic calculation necessary for your phone. The relativistic calculations are to maintain the sync between satellite clocks and ground stations, and to update the satellites on their locations. This was already explained to you but you ignored it and kept on displaying your mental illness that prevents you from arguing honestly. Thanks for admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.15109815]

>>15109682
>By whether its assumptions about the underlying mechanism are true or false.
How do you tell? By predictions. So the only measure of whether the model is true is whether it's accurate or good. Hence your argument fails.

[Anonymous No.15109816]

>>15109802
Who made you believe pions aren't real? Maybe you think electrons aren't real too?

[Anonymous No.15109817]

>>15109670
>no follow-up on claim in 13 years
Interesting article and poses some interesting questions, but hardly definitive evidence against relativity.

Incidentally Sturrock's case was for neutrino flux affecting decay rates, not the electromagnetic environment (the former having far more basis than the latter). If that were the case, effects on atomic clocks would actually be fairly easy to determine by looking at measurements made of the same phenomena as the Earth's position around the Sun changes (average neutrino density would scale like the inverse distance squared law).

[Anonymous No.15109820]

>>15109811
>Too bad.
you lost the argument.

[Anonymous No.15109831]

>>15109815
>How do you tell? By predictions. So the only measure of whether the model is true is whether it's accurate or good. Hence your argument fails.
You're a complete midwit. I'm seriously wasting my time here trying to drill this into your dense skull.

You can make a model which accurately predicts some things despite your theory being flawed if you use constants and variables to skew the math to fit observations. After enough manipulation, in those specific cases, you make some accurate predictions. Your model is therefore useful and may seem correct to others for a time, but it fails to make universally consistent sense when its assumptions are extrapolated outside of the best case examples.

We're talking about the difference between "good enough" (predicts some behavior, but falls apart at other scales) and "generally accurate" or "true" (predicts behaviors in all areas related to its theory within the margin of measurement error).

[Anonymous No.15109835]

>>15109817
>Interesting article and poses some interesting questions, but hardly definitive evidence against relativity.
It is definitive evidence against atomic clock experiments at least.

[Anonymous No.15109836]

>>15109816
Of course electrons are real. Are you a retard?

[Anonymous No.15109842]

>>15109816
>Who made you believe pions aren't real?
>>15109802
>Confirmation bias causes people to assume the existence of a thing called a "pion"
>>15109800
>Confirmation bias causes pions to decay slower at higher speed?
>>15109795
>Half-life of pions literally increases at high speed.
>>15109761
>Explain delayd pion decay at higher speed.

Pions are indeed real, and yes they do decay at higher velocities. pic related is the Feynman diagram. in pion decay a quark going forwards in time encounters a antiquark going backwards in time to produce a muon going backwards in time and a muon neutrino

[Anonymous No.15109847]

>>15109842
>in pion decay a quark going forwards in time encounters a antiquark going backwards in time to produce a muon going backwards in time and a muon neutrino
You cannot possibly believe nonsense like this.

[Anonymous No.15109849]

>>15109847
>You cannot possibly believe nonsense like this.
and why not?

[Anonymous No.15109851]

>>15109849
Time travel? Really? I mean seriously.

[Anonymous No.15109852]

>>15103747
>It's been proven with countless experiments
Do any of these "tests of relativity" actually test a null hypothesis that distinguishes their predictions from alternate theories? If so, where is the null hypothesis discussed? It's already been demonstrated that the Michelson-Morley experiment and its optical cavity replications cannot distinguish between the predictions of relativity and the Doppler effect.

In order for these :tests of relativity" to have any value, they should discuss what results they expect to see otherwise, and thoroughly justify their explanation.

[Anonymous No.15109859]

>>15109811
>There is no relativistic calculation necessary for your phone. The relativistic calculations are to maintain the sync between satellite clocks and ground stations, and to update the satellites on their locations.
lets explore this. the correction from relativity is theoretically on the order of 10^(-11) seconds. Lets just wonder for a moment. what if we didn't have an Einstein to invent relativity? fools that we'd be all of our time delay measurements would be off by 10^(-11) seconds! How terrible! but how does this translate into location accuracy? light only goes 3mm in 10ps, so the locations of the earth and satellites and you would be off by 3mm! Praise be to Einstein .... but wait? isn't GPS only accurate within 3meters anyways? would we even notice?

[Anonymous No.15109861]

>>15109851
>Time travel? Really? I mean seriously.
you can see the Feynman diagram yourself here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion

it's a spacetime diagram arrows going backwards means backwards in time.

[Anonymous No.15109868]

>>15109861
Pure nonsense. Time travel has never been experimentally exhibited.

[Anonymous No.15109872]

>>15109868
>Pure nonsense. Time travel has never been experimentally exhibited.
it is whenever we observe a muon decay. An antimatter particle flying backwards in time annihilates it.

[Anonymous No.15109876]

>>15109835
Did some digging
>In retrospect, we can see that the interpretation of beta-decay variability as a manifestation of decay-rate variability was a red herring that jeopardized our understanding of neutrino variability and beta-decay variability and their relationship: counter-intuitively, variability of beta-decay products does not require variability of beta-decay rates.
>The picture that emerges from these investigations is as follows: Neutrinos do not influence whether or not decay occurs. However, the direction of emission of decay products is influenced by the ambient neutrino flux, if and when decay occurs.
So Sturrock has changed his original argument to be that neutrinos do not affect the decay rate, but suggests rather that they may introduce a slight preferentiality in the direction of the emitted decay particles, which *could* *slightly* alter the detection rates from monodirectional detectors.

However, even Sturrock admits that the experimental evidence indicates that the variations in measurements, if any, are *very* small. Certainly not large enough to declare atomic clocks as unreliable, merely enough to make their error bars a smidge bigger. Definitely not enough to throw out things like the muon decay experiments.

[Anonymous No.15109879]

>>15109872
What result suggests this is happening? All you're seeing is a minuscule release of energy but you're extrapolating something entirely unsubstantiated from it. Your entire worldview rests on a fiction.

[Anonymous No.15109891]

>>15109879
>Your entire worldview rests on a fiction.
it's the standard model, guy.

[Anonymous No.15109972]

>>15109891
Reiterating that you believe in nonsense doesn't prove it correct.

[Anonymous No.15110553]

>>15109891
I miss when people like you limited themselves to "God did it" and "it's in the Bible"

[Anonymous No.15110556]

>>15109879
>All you're seeing is a minuscule release of energy but you're extrapolating something entirely unsubstantiated from it.
That's because Relativity fits perfectly with Langmuir's definition of pathological science.

>The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
>The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
>There are claims of great accuracy.
>Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
>Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

[Anonymous No.15110559]

>>15109876
>muon decay experiments
>>15109069

>atomic clock experiments
Louis Essen invented them and rejected relativity and atomic clock experiments.

[Anonymous No.15110719]

Ok, schizos, now explain why speed of light is the same for all observers.

[Anonymous No.15110751]

>>15110719
you cant measure one-way speed of light soiboi

[Anonymous No.15110753]

>>15110751
Why?

[Anonymous No.15110867]

>>15103747
the assumption that there is a finite amount of matter.
its axioms are flawed.

[Anonymous No.15110871]

>>15110751
semi-conductors take a minute amount of time to register

[Anonymous No.15110926]

>>15110753
your schizo einstein theories prevent that dummy

[Anonymous No.15110930]

>>15110926
Wrong, it's 100% possible to measure speed of single light particle.

[Anonymous No.15110973]

>>15109820
No, I didn't. Your logic doesn't follow as I explained. You have no response to your fundamental misunderstanding of what the relativistic corrections are for and where they are implemented. Thanks for admitting you lost.

[Anonymous No.15110976]

>>15103747
Because I can

[Anonymous No.15110979]

>>15110976
No you can't, chud.

[Anonymous No.15111061]

>>15109831
>but it fails to make universally consistent sense when its assumptions are extrapolated outside of the best case examples.
Again, you're just describing a modern that fails to make accurate predictions. You're not telling me how you can tell the difference between a good model and reality. Because you don't know. It's OK to admit this instead of just twisting the same non sequitur in slightly different language over and over.

[Anonymous No.15111104]

>>15110973
>No, I didn't.
you failed to demonstrate that GPS relies on testing of relativistic phenomenon. You failed to demonstrate anything. You failed

[Anonymous No.15111141]

https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>ctrl+f: relativistic
>8 results
>This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic SV
clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay
bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the
user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a
term to perform this function.

[Anonymous No.15111152]

>>15111141
What is this, schizo?

[Anonymous No.15111155]

>>15111152
Seethe. Relativity deniers like you are the same as flat earthers

[Anonymous No.15111159]

>>15110719
It's not. Bradley aberration disproved this centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.15111343]

>>15109859
>the correction from relativity is theoretically on the order of 10^(-11) seconds
This is nonsensical. 10^(-11) seconds over what time frame? You just pulled this number out of your ass.

>fools that we'd be all of our time delay measurements would be off by 10^(-11) seconds!
You're seriously mentally ill. As I've already explained to you many many times, there is no relativistic correction needed for the time delay between signals from satellites to your phone. The relativistic corrections are needed to keep the satellites synced with ground stations so that they can be updated on their locations. If the satellites don't know their own locations, the receiver cannot trilaterate. Why do you continue to deliberately misrepresent this? Mental illness is the only reason I can see.

[Anonymous No.15111355]

>>15111104
>you failed to demonstrate that GPS relies on testing of relativistic phenomenon.
I did, in my first post on this thread: >>15105021

You utterly failed to respond to this, even though I explained it to you several times. You continue to repeat the same mistakes I pointed out to you early on in the thread, as if they represent my argument. You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15111369]

>>15103747
>It's been proven with countless experiments
You really need to read up on the scientific process, your use of "proven" shows you are missing something crucial.

Secondly, in real sciences it is perfectly fine to disagree. The onus is on you then to to bring up something convincing.

Thirdly, the theory of relativity does not mesh well with quantum theory.

Finally (I think) the standard model is known to be incomplete.

[Anonymous No.15111468]

>>15109872
>An antimatter particle flying backwards in time annihilates it.
Where does that particle come from? Since it's "from the future" in your view, it must have an origin point within the experimental apparatus at some time. What process causes it to emerge? Has its emergence been measured?

[Anonymous No.15111696]

[Anonymous No.15111701]

>>15103750
If you dislike bait threads and shitposts you don't belong on this website

[Anonymous No.15112728]

>>15103747
The big issue with relativity (general) is that it makes forces to interact with nothing. Everything interacts trough this abstract medium called space-time that nobody really knows what the fuck is.
Its not intuitive, is just a weird solution based on the light speed limit, just because this mathematical and abstract solution agree somehow with the observation doesn't mean its right.
Quantum mechanics with all its weirdness, is actually a theory based on sensical interactions between real elements.
This is why every effort to bring GR into QT has failed, because the graviton should interact with empty space that somehow has substance and can exchange energy packs.

[Anonymous No.15112770]

>181 replies
>29 IPs
cringe

[Anonymous No.15113200]

>>15112728
>Everything interacts trough this abstract medium called space-time that nobody really knows what the fuck is.
How is this any different from Newtonian mechanics?

[Anonymous No.15113236]

>>15113200
Objects don't interact with space and time in Newtonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.15113578]

>>15103747
Aren't Lorentz ether theory ans relativity experimental indistinguishable

They preferred relitivty beacuse it's compatible with quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.15113596]

>>15113578
Nope, it's Lorentz's theory that is compatible with quantum mechanics. That's why Dirac, Bell and Bohm wanted the ether back.

[Anonymous No.15113601]

>>15113596
I have seen it some papers on why one is preferred over another
Then I though what if both relativiy and quantum mechanics were wrong

>>15113596
>Nope, it's Lorentz's theory that is compatible with quantum mechanics. That's why Dirac, Bell and Bohm wanted the ether back.
Then why did they go with relaivity?

[Anonymous No.15113630]

>>15113601
Aesthetics, and the relativists were louder. Bell proved that quantum mechanics has to be either non-local with hidden variables, or non-deterministic and local. "Local" here simply means compatibility with relativity.

[Anonymous No.15113742]

>>15113630
>Aesthetics
I think ether is more aesthetical?

[Anonymous No.15113744]

>>15113630
>the relativists were louder

I always had this supicious ,there's some thing off about Einsntein's Annus Mirabilis year

Probably my brain on /pol/

>A little known Einstein published his now famous papers in journal Annalen der Physik in 1905

>A jewish guy, Paul Drude was the editor of the journal from 1900 to 1905

>In 1905 he became the director of the physics institute of the University of Berlin. In 1906, at the height of his career, he became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences.

>A few days after his inauguration lecture, for inexplicable reasons, he committed suicide.

I have Paul Drude's book optics.That's how I stumbled up on this

[Anonymous No.15113747]

>>15113630
>Aesthetics
isn't ether theory more intutive ?

[Anonymous No.15113812]

>>15113744
>>A few days after his inauguration lecture, for inexplicable reasons, he committed suicide.
And his advisor was Woldemar Voigt... interesting.

[Anonymous No.15113824]

>>15113742
>>15113747
>>15113744
Yeah, but that's what they say to justify it.
There was a lot of general confusion about it back then too. There were the priority disputes, too, see e.g. the lack of mentions of Einstein in favor of Lorentz and Poincaré in Whittaker's history of aether and electricity.

General Relativity probably also contributed to the popularization of relativity, because it was thought that Lorentz ether theory couldn't be extended to GR because... no one working on it cared about LET anyway.

[Anonymous No.15113889]

>>15113812
>Woldemar Voigt
Who is that?

[Anonymous No.15113938]

>>15113824
Have read Stefan Marinov papers on electromagnetism and relativity
It's available on archive.org

He is famous for Marinov motor
I read it from KT MCdonald problem collection
http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/marinov2.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frHOpzMDqSg

[Anonymous No.15113942]

>>15113824
Have you guys read Stefan Marinov book papers on electromagnetism and relativity


He is famous for Marinov motor
I read it from KT MCdonald problem collection
http://kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/marinov2.pdf
[YouTube] Stefan Marinov Motor (siberian coliu) Experiment (embed)

[Anonymous No.15115097]

>>15113236
Alright, but what if fields are in the "space-time" bending mode for their own affected particles, QM do use the virtual particle concept to explain fields, what if, somehow, while energy is stored on fields (potential energy) then the particles interactions are done by space/time bending, while self contained fields (free photons) obey the direct interactions that are ruled by QM?

[Anonymous No.15115140]

>>15115097
>immma gooooonnnaa quantooooooommm!!!
>t. 103 iq quantoooooomer

[Anonymous No.15115184]

>>15113942
I'm familiar with his work through J.P. Wesley, who has some technical articles explaining his experiments. I also have Marinov's book on electrodynamics but haven't read it yet. He was mostly an experimentalist.

Doug Marrett has a video of the Marinov motor in action: https://youtu.be/iTuDrJVzCpo

[Anonymous No.15115216]

>>15115184

[Anonymous No.15115269]

>>15115216
Kek, I'm dropping names so that other people can look them up and learn.

[Anonymous No.15115436]

>>15115097
Yeah but what if it's the invisible guardian angels of the particles that move them instead? Will you pay for my large angel collider? The math is being constantly updated to be as in agreement with experimental data as possible, like epicycles were, so you know that it's a good scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.15115740]

>>15109661
>none are ever done in a lab.
Why do you lie?
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

[Anonymous No.15116335]

>>15115740
Because he's a schizo.

[Anonymous No.15116343]

>>15115269
sure you were, kid. keep telling yourself that