John Baez, the most popular educator in Einstein zombie world:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/c4a09f114dcd6052?
John Baez: "When Newton was finally overthrown by Einstein, the birth of the new theory owed much less to the astronomical facts it could explain - such as a puzzling drift in the point where Mercury made its closest approach to the sun - than to an elegant theory of electromagnetism that had arisen more or less independently of ideas about gravity. Electrostatic and magnetic effects had been unified by James Clerk Maxwell, but Maxwell's equations only offered one value for the speed of light, however you happened to be moving when you measured it. Making sense of this fact led Einstein first to special relativity, in which the geometry of space-time had the unvarying speed of light built into it, then general relativity, in which the curvature of the same geometry accounted for the motion of objects free-falling through space."

According to Maxwell's theory the speed of light is variable and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the aether and v is the speed of the observer relative to the aether. Baez's "one value for the speed of light, however you happened to be moving when you measured it" is a lie that has been repeated so many times that now it is an absolute truth (in accordance with Goebbels's principle).

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

In fact, the statement:

1. According to Maxwell's theory the speed of light is constant.

is just one of Einsteiniana's three FUNDAMENTAL lies that have become absolute truths. The others are:

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Einstein's 1905 light postulate.

3. In accordance with the equation frequency=(speed of light)/(wavelength), it is the wavelength that varies with the frequency while the speed of light remains constant.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

ARGH!

Dammit, listen to what the theory is stating.

The speed of light isn't constant, it is MEASURED to be constant, regardless of your motion, because as you move faster, you change the way you move through time, and thus adjust your measurement accordingly.


IT IS NOT ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT BEING CONSTANT, EINSTEIN TOOK THAT POSTULATE, AND EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF SPACE AND TIME AND OUR MOTION THROUGH IT.


Maxwell assumed the constant speed, not Einstein.


Einstein assumed only that the measured speed will be constant, because of the way we move through spacetime.

Einstein started with Inertial frames. Whether anybody understands that "within an inertial frame nothing can move" or not, this is the logical situation: if something does move within the frame it is in yet another frame.

So, within an inertial frame there is no time, because nothing moves. In reality, everything is moving. His idea is just a construct. In Special Relativity, the frames move without acceleration, or force. They move with velocity. (Constant velocity is redundant, because velocity is constant speed in an unchanging direction.)(Velocity that is not constant, is accelerated.) The motion is measured between frames.

In General Relativity, the imaginary frames are still there. They are still imaginary. Still, time does not pass within each frame. The only difference is that the frames themselves are allowed to accelerate. Acceleration is second order motion. In second order motion, time is squared. Within each frame there is no time, because nothing moves, thus, within the imaginary frames, acceleration cannot be measured. So the logic falls apart for acceleration in GTR. (incidentally the "T" in "GTR" stands for "Theory.")

You misunderstood your very first sentence.

"With an inertial frame, nothing can move."

Oops, no, within an Inertial frame, nothing can change it's rate of motion.

You can model acceleration with SR, you can model rest frames with GR.

They haven't been disproved yet, unless you have some master thesis hiding somewhere which isn't based on an erroneous assumption you reached through logical mistakes.

That's why everyone is rushing to your paper to find out about reality.

A frame of reference cannot have anything inside it move with reference to anything else inside it. If it could, then your buddy Einstein would not have had to go into detail about two different frames of reference.

One can visualize a "frame of reference" as a noun. "Inertial" is an adjective. another adjective would be "accelerated." A frame of reference could be either one.

Either way, all the stuff within the frame of reference has to be going the same speed in the same direction. If something in there is going a different direction and/or speed, that something is in a different frame of reference. Get this into your pretty little head.

You failure to appreciate this fact has allowed you to appear quite foolish. Hate to be so blunt about the problem. Face up.

Oops, you did it again.


Curt: A frame of reference cannot have anything inside it move with reference to anything else inside it. If it could, then your buddy Einstein would not have had to go into detail about two different frames of reference.

One can visualize a "frame of reference" as a noun. "Inertial" is an adjective. another adjective would be "accelerated." A frame of reference could be either one.

Either way, all the stuff within the frame of reference has to be going the same speed in the same direction. If something in there is going a different direction and/or speed, that something is in a different frame of reference. Get this into your pretty little head.

You failure to appreciate this fact has allowed you to appear quite foolish. Hate to be so blunt about the problem. Face up.



Max: You are very mistaken about that. Completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. An inertial frame of reference, by definition, means the observer in question can experimentally determine that they are not accelerating. (tossing a ball, watching light bounce between mirrors, whatever you wish)

It does NOT imply anything about the rest of the universe in relation to that frame, only how the observer IN that frame observes the rest of the universe.


The only thing in the frame of reference which has to be going the same speed/direction is the observer. Relative to him, objects can be whizzing all over the place, as long as he does not detect any change in his velocity/direction, he could thus claim he is at rest.


You haven't even grasped the concept of SR yet, apparently. You really should look into it more before you claim it is wrong.

Re: Max, EINSTEINIANA: THE ETERNAL LIES October 16 2008, 5:08 AM

Max,
”You are very mistaken about that. Completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. An inertial frame of reference, by definition, means the observer in question can experimentally determine that they are not accelerating. (tossing a ball, watching light bounce between mirrors, whatever you wish)”

Sorry Max, it is you who is wrong, an observer can not claim absolute motion, if two observers, then neither can claim absolute motion. Einstein knew it and that’s why the analogies of SR always have one observer at a position which is (perceived) to be stationary, such as a train platform, an optical illusion created by a mental illusion.

bob s

Even if you have a good map, which is questionable in your case, if you mistakenly assume you are some where that you are not or you mistakenly assume the landmarks, you are still lost.

Your ability to not understand what an inertial frame is does your theory a fatal crash.

Seriously guys, you missed the point of the thought experiments.


The inertial frame you're claiming is baffling to me, it isn't what Einstein was talking about though.


Remember, though you may dislike me, I'm trying to help you understand where you went awry in your reading of the theories. I don't dislike any of you. You don't need to toss insults.



I explained it to my girlfriend earlier in the car.

I handed her a pair of sunglasses, had her close her eyes, and drop them.

They landed in her lap.


I was on a smooth flat road, holding a steady speed.


I asked her if she could tell if she was moving or not, she said no, as you'd expect of someone in a semi-inertial frame of reference.


I picked the glasses up, had her hold them again, close her eyes, and then when I let the car start to slow down, I had her drop them again.

This time they hit her knees.


I asked her if she could tell if she was moving then, she said yes, she could feel that she was slowing down.


An inertial observer will not be able to perform an experiment and confirm if they are at rest or moving at a steady rate of speed.

If you're flying through space at a million miles an hour, but not accelerating, and "drop" an object.

It will float along next to you.

You could argue that you're at rest, since it didn't move at all.

Now, you're accelerating, you "drop" the object which is now no longer connected to your rocket engine or whatever, and it falls behind you.


You could argue that you're in a gravity field, or accelerating, either way you know you're not in an inertial frame of reference.


If you're flying through space at a million miles per hour, but maintaining a stable speed, not accelerating, decelerating (which includes changing direction, btw) you could argue that you're sitting still, and everything in the universe is moving past you at a million miles per hour.


The galaxy is falling through space at something like a million miles per second, but it's doing so at a steady rate.

The sun is orbiting the galaxy at another velocity, but again, it's a steady rate.

The earth orbits the sun, again, it's a steady rate.

The earth spins, yet again, it doesn't seem to speed up or slow down significantly.


While you're sitting on the earth, the reference frames you can claim, are one where you're accelerating towards the earth, while moving with it through the universe.

OR

one where the earth is rising up beneath you, and the universe is whirling around you.

Ok Max, you are a dis-likable condescending pompous Ass.

I'm sorry you feel that way bob, I was just trying to help.

You're just misguided.

I may be pompous, but when I speak about Relativity and Einstein, I understand what I'm talking about. You don't seem too, so I sought to assist your understanding.

Perhaps I started making too much sense, perhaps you just got sick of me destroying your arguments, and decided to start insulting me. Doesn't matter.

You are delusional to think you have destroyed my arguments Max. The fact that you disagree proves nothing more than you disagree. I proved that GPS used Lorentz Relativity and you disagree...So! I have little doubt that it is your girlfriend that has to tell you when you are being insulted.

You have no evidence, no connection with reality, your argument is founded on a misunderstanding.

Sorry to be so honest about it, but being nice makes me appear pompous apparently.

If there is a misunderstanding Max, it is on your part not mine. I well informed you as to what you can expect from me when I respond to you. You fool around with girls in a car going 100mph and you call me foolish. We may share different realities Max, but I have sensibility on my side. I am not so arrogant as to think I am more intelligent than you but I am confident enough to know that you are not as intelligent as me.

Ah, but that is just the kind of mistake I am talking about.

I never said I was more intelligent than you are.

I believe firmly that everyone has the same capacity for learning and understanding, it is only in how you use that capacity that perceived gaps in intelligence arise.


I am simply saying your argument that Relativity is wrong is not based on Relativity, instead it is based on a completely understandable mistake.



I tried to be civil at first and simply ask why these views arise, where these claims came from. It worked a little, but unfortunately didn't carry the appropriate weight.



There is indeed a mistake in Relativity as you understand it.

Unfortunately, Relativity as you understand it doesn't seem to be the same Relativity that the Universe abides by.


I can see why you would claim the things you do, I've considered arguments like them myself. They certainly appear to mesh with Reality at first glance.

Unfortunately, Reality is not what it may appear to be at first glance.

True: first glances are misleading. People seem to think they are multitasking, when, in reality, they are merely overlooking the obvious.

For example: putting time on a fourth axis. A different coordinate system that doesn't require each to be perpendicular to the others would be a good start. Better yet, realize that time latency is all we are talking about, and that can be pictured on concurrent three dimensional coordinates, one for time and one for distance.

Re:Max, EINSTEINIANA: THE ETERNAL LIES October 17 2008, 6:54 PM

Max,
"Ah, but that is just the kind of mistake I am talking about.
I never said I was more intelligent than you are."

Again Max, again the mistake is yours, I did not make a statement that you did claim to be more intelligent than me. Why is it that you are not able to read a paragraph and understand what it says? I will repeat my statement;
"I am not so arrogant as to think I am more intelligent than you but I am confident enough to know that you are not as intelligent as me."

Why Max, why? was that statement so difficult for you to understand.

However, being condescending does imply superior intelligence.

You have called me arrogant specifically, the way you phrased your statement implied that arrogance was the same as you attribute to me, and you felt I was belittling your intelligence. Then you contradicted yourself: I'm not so arrogant as to say a > b, but I am confident enough to say b < a.


Play with words all you want, this isn't an I.Q. comparison contest, and I'm sorry if you felt I was being condescending about your intelligence. I'm only basing my assumptions on the level of understanding you've shown thus far.



I don't believe it is a lack of intellectual ability that is your problem, just an aesthetic ideal which causes you to extrapolate some concepts in manners which are inaccurate at the least.



Regarding time, you can't simply measure lapses in distance as equating to time, if you don't know why, then this is a perfect example of the incomplete understanding I am referring to.

Re: EINSTEINIANA: THE ETERNAL LIES October 19 2008, 9:31 AM

Max,
"You have called me arrogant specifically, the way you phrased your statement implied that arrogance was the same as you attribute to me, and you felt I was belittling your intelligence. Then you contradicted yourself: I'm not so arrogant as to say a > b, but I am confident enough to say b < a."

I made no contradiction Max, You just don't have a very good grasp of the English language. You should parse what I said not what you think I said! But you are right, this isn't an I.Q. comparison contest.... not by a long shot!

bob s: Again Max, again the mistake is yours, I did not make a statement that you did claim to be more intelligent than me. Why is it that you are not able to read a paragraph and understand what it says? I will repeat my statement;
"I am not so arrogant as to think I am more intelligent than you but I am confident enough to know that you are not as intelligent as me."



If you weren't claiming that I was being arrogant, and making allusions to being more intelligent than you, then what exactly is the point of that statement, pray tell?

You don't seem unintelligent, you demonstrate a decent grasp of some aspects of SR and GR.


You also demonstrate that you have missed or ignored the most important aspect of the theories. The mistake doesn't actually suggest much about how smart you are, because it is quite normal to err in this manner.


The way we perceive time, think about time, describe time... and the nature of spacetime don't seem to mesh well. For most, it is natural to assume our perception of time is actual, and to be trusted.


The concept of a universal moment of simultaneity, an absolute Now, is very hard to let go of. If only because it is hard to even imagine how to describe time without that shared Now being the same everywhere.


That is the keystone of SR and GR, it isn't something which is a guess or a theory, it is experimentally confirmed that bodies with mass interact with time as describe in SR/GR.


Misunderstanding that leads to 99% of the confusion about Relativity, and most of the claims that Einstein was wrong, or a hoax, or a fraud, or a fool.

Max, my statement means exactly what I intended it to mean;
"I am not so arrogant as to think I am more intelligent than you but I am confident enough to know that you are not as intelligent as me." If you need help understanding what I said your girlfriend should be able to help she is out of school today.

Actually I have called you a pompous Ass, condescending and arrogant, what I really "think" should not be put to print. If you think that you are here teaching (us) as children is "not" being an arrogant condescending pompous Ass then you should upgrade to dating a 12th grader they have a better mastery of the English language.

I think Einstein would be ashamed if he knew the likes of you were defending him. Unlike most of his followers he had integrity. "Anti-relativists" is defamatory while "anti-non-relativists" is not.

Oh, I don't think I've been teaching you.

I've tried, but you're very stubborn, unwilling to accept the possibility that you could in fact be helped to understand certain concepts which you currently do not.

It's sad because for a short time there you seemed to set aside the hardheaded mule-like stubbornness which is so common among anti-relativists, non-relativists, cranks, crackpots, whatever label you pick.

Perhaps I made too much sense, and rather than consider that the mistake may have been your own, you decided you had been insulted and set out to return the insult.

Damn shame, sorry for failing to help you.

There is a legal term for your activities. You are an "Officious Interceder."
That is someone who happens along, jumps in where no one is needed, does unnecessary, unessential acts, and then expects to be paid for their uncalled for deeds. (Cops are another example)

I know you don't, in your gracious way, expect to get paid, but you do expect homage for your illogic.

Wait, cops are not needed?

So if someone robbed you, you wouldn't call the police?

Strange.

I don't know, Max, What would you call them? Especially when they don't show up. And when they do, they write you a ticket?