@dicey @gav @hidden @Leaflord @Hyolobrika

Elsa Einstein (18 January 1876 – 20 December 1936)[1] was the second wife and cousin of Albert Einstein. Their mothers were sisters, thus making them maternal first cousins. The couple were also paternal second cousins (i.e., their fathers were first cousins)

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

@shortstories @dicey @gav @hidden @Leaflord @Hyolobrika Yes and No. Lorentz did indeed derived the Lorentz transformation, but in the context of the Aether Luminipherous theory, so it maintained that it existed a privileged reference frame for light, Einstein throw away all that stating that the laws of nature must be the same for all reference frames. That's why Einstein had to state that light had a constant value ( i.e. light particles are massless ) which was the same for all reference frames.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

In physics, an object, like your pants, can shrink when you put them in the dryer. But the dryer can NEVER shrink the “length” of your pants. Length is a static qualitative property that can neither shrink nor expand.....no way in Hell.

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Relativity-Length-Contraction-is-a-FRAUD

Relativity Length Contraction is a Fraud by Fatfist

discover.hubpages dot com

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika you will need to observing an going at least .5c to observe a noticeable length contraction.
And you will need a video camera of at least 1/(.5c) fps to observe it.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

1 / 0.5c = time / length

time / length frames per second makes no sense

This might be some number of seconds per meter per second

or in other words a camera rate of per meter

like some number of meters to the negative one power

Your units are wrong

Rethink and or rewrite what you are trying to say

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

Superstition in Science 3: Relativity Demystified

SteamPunkPhysics

Youtube

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxn9KGH5P1s

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

Supposedly clocks moving at fast speeds relative to one another that started at the same time before they started moving relative to one another will give different results although I have never tested that

But that does not prove Einstein's theory because other theories also give that result

Self contrafictions disprove Einstein's theory

Those who point out Einstein's contradictions are called not smart or antisemitic

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika Then you would have to explain how all the predictions by Eistein's relativity theory have been corroborated by empirical evidence while all other theories have been proven false by experiments.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

No actually I do not have to do that

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika If you want to make a scientific statement, you have to abide to the scientific method. Otherwise, you are just doing pseudo-scientific statements.

That the clocks moved at different rates also doesn't prove that time moved at different rates. It only proves that matter is affected by velocity. Calling that effect "time" is an operational definition at best.

@Humpleupagus @gav @hidden @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika The main problem with Relativity is that it is a non-local theory whereas Quatum Mechanics is a local theory, therefore there is a fundamental clash between the two theories that makes it really hard to unify them into a cohesive theory.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

A car is moving a 0.99 times the speed of light relative to the ground on the race track & the finish line

A wall is a certain distance past the finish line

When the center of the car touches the finish line for both reference frames

From one reference frame the car hits the wall

From the other reference frame the car does not hit the wall

For a certain car length and wall distance from the finish line

So contradictory

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

There are two types of time

1 Order of events

2 The time reading on a physical device called a clock

If the order of events changes that is contradictory and impossible

If the order that people witness events occuring such as due to the finite speed of light and speed of sound is different from one person to another that might not be a contradiction

Two clocks showing two different times does not mean the order changes

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika You are thinking on causality in Newtonian terms, not in Relativistic terms.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

From the reference frame in which the race car is stationary it hits the wall when it's center is on the finish line because the distance from the finish line to the wall is shorter

From the reference frame where the car is moving and the finish line is stationary the car does not hit the wall when it's center is over the finish line becauze the car is shorter

Is the car destroyed when it's center intersects finish line?

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika No, both event happens ( length contraction an time dilation happens for both the car and the wall ), but, from the point of view of the driver and the point of view of the audience, it happens at different times.

Think for example on the problem of an astronaut falling into a blackhole, pass the event horizon, the astronaut stopped moving and will take an "infinite" time to fall into the blackhole, whereas from the point of view of the astronaut he keeps falling into the blackhole with the corresponding acceleration. The issue there is that the self time and the observers time are different and do no advance in the same way.

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika In other words, in both situations the car hits the wall, but they do it at different "times", one is the time observed by the driver and the other is the time observed by the audience.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika time is a thing, it has no frame it as no traits, things do not and can not experience different times, nor do either of these examples exist, nor is their anything to indicate that c is an actual impedance to acceleration, its entirely presumptive, things for some reason happen to never reach that speed

@gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika Please, postmodernists and nihilists , refrain yourselves from this discussion.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

Gav is right

No common person owns these really fast objects to prove it

People just trust by faith the stories about atomic clocks in super fast planes having different times than the ones stationary relative to the earth

All the so called experiments use equipment that the common person can not afford and does not have access to

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika Gav is spouting nihilist and postmodernist blabblering bullshit about "there is no such thing as truth", "there is no such thing as objective reality", or "everything is relative", etc. The kinda of stupid things the Continental Philosophers charlatans ( I am being redundant there ) say all the time.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika no you are

@gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika Relativism would be stating that the laws of physics are different for different observer i.e. that there is a privileged frame of reference in which, for example, the velocity of light in vaccum has a different value.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika frames of refrence dont exist, they do not have privilegedness, real objects do real things to eachother and are identical wherever you are, e.g. they are objective not subjective at no pont does """time""" slow down for anything from any frame of refrence

finna rape yall

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

There are no perfect vacuums only very low density medfiums that are called vacuums

In different reference frames the very low density medium that you want to pretend is a vacuum would be moving in different velocities

Light is not traveling through a vacuum, never traveled through a vacuum and never will travel through a vacuum

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

> But you just hate Continental Philosophy, bruh.

YES. I FUCKING HATE IT. WITH ALL MY GUTS AND SOUL. I HATE THOSE BLABBERING CHARLATANS.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika relativism is literally post modern, nor does anything i saaid have to do with either of those things whatsoever

@gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika I was talking about the rejection of objective truth and objective reality.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika assertion of objective truth and objective reality

@gav @hidden @TheMadPirate @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

If you accept the special theory of relativity you have to reject object truth and objective reality

Does that mean Gav is right that it is post modern?

You do not have to reject objective truth and objective reality to say Newtonian Physics is close enough

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

>If you accept the special theory of relativity you have to reject object truth and objective reality

No. It is exactly the opposite. Einstein's theory of Relativity states that the laws of nature are absolute, they are the SAME for ALL observers EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE. That's the opposite of philosophical relativism.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika """"time"""" goes slower

@gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika Objective truth and objective reality exists independent of the perception of the observer.

@TheMadPirate @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika yes, time doesnt change it is a measure

@gav @hidden @Humpleupagus @Leaflord @shortstories @dicey @Hyolobrika Well, x, y, z and ct are the coordinates, but usually it is used what it is called "natural coordinates" in which you rescale everything so as to make c = 1.

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika
Let me see, omega * dL = .5c , therefore omega = .5c/dL , so yeah, you are right. But dL = Gamma*L , therefor omega = (.5c/Gamma(0.5c)) * 1/L0 , if me make L0 = 1 m in the reference system with c expressed in meters/second , the fps i.e. frequency would have to be omega = 1/sqrt(3) * c *L0 ( with L0 = 1 m ).

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

it should be a unitless number of frames per second

the units should be per second

or seconds to the negative one power

a unitless number is put in front of the phrase per second

or a unitless number is put in front of seconds to the negative one power

cameras operate at frames per second and not feet per second

You're a gay bot?

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika That's why I set the L0 scale to an unit value.

@TheMadPirate @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika

By FPS do you mean frames per second or feet per second?

Just because special relativity is claimed to make some predictions correctly that other models also do then that does not mean it is correct if it is shown to be self contradictory

It can be disproven without any physical experiment If it is self contradictory

I am not obligated to show another theory that predicts correct results in order to say special relativity is wrong

@shortstories @gav @hidden @Leaflord @dicey @Hyolobrika Lets discuss those alleged self contradictions then.