Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
gcthomas
New member
Yes, I have. In translation - I tried the German but my high-school German was not up to it. The special relativity paper is actually quite short and readable. And Einstein's paper didn't 'establish' relativity, but proposed it. Experiments established it, as is usual in Physics.
Your scientism is showing.
Experiments don't establish theories, the best they can do is fail to falsify them.
Relativity is a mathematical model. If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.
Might pay to read the paper again to refresh your memory while you reconsider your approach to science.
Here's an English version: http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Yes, we are supposed to take uneducated cranks seriously. YECs love to play make-believe.
Nope.
Try comprehension.
You are not required to pay any heed to anyone.
In fact, it would be preferable if you would completely ignore me.
However, to refute an idea, you have to engage rationally.
Dismissing an idea because of who wrote it is irrational nonsense.
Stupid, stupid Darwinists. They've been shown this numerous times, but without fail, they run to the genetic fallacy.
I think they are fooled by the name.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Here's a Web site: https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
gcthomas
New member
So you've found a site that repeats the widely accepted idea that GR will be replaced by a quantum theory of gravity that must reproduce the same predictions as relativity already does, given its experimental verification. :yawn:
gcthomas
New member
You are really quite wrong. What you could have correctly said was that experiments don't PROVE a theory true. It is certainly also true that successful experiments can change an hypothesis into an accepted, established, useful theory.
Did you skip high school science lessons?
Oh, right. High-school science.
The issue you are avoiding is that relativity is a mathematical model. If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
gcthomas
New member
Oh, right. High-school science.
The issue you are avoiding is that relativity is a mathematical model. If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
You seem to be avoiding the argument by trying to redefine a common English word again. You made clearly wrong statements and want a distraction. It's your MO.
It won't work Stripe. We can all see you are scientifically illiterate, and you are just digging yourself a deeper hole here. :carryon:
If you don't know how relativity is established, feel free to say so.
gcthomas
New member
Couldn't you read my post where I told you how it was established by experiment?
Creationists can't (won't) read.
Don't for have anything constructing to add, or are you going to carry on with your uneducated non sequiturs?
Sorry. Theories aren't established by experiment. Your scientism is showing. The best an experiment can do is fail to falsify an idea.
Now, even if we have a slight semantic or philosophical disagreement over a distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, that does nothing to address the issue.
Relativity is a mathematical model. If it was not established mathematically, it does not exist.
If you don't know, feel free to say so.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
gcthomas
New member
No, experiments can support or refute theories. It is an either/or. Certainly they do not prove correctness, but every well constructed experiment that produces results that accurately match the predictions does establish the theory more convincingly.
There are plenty of mathematical descriptions that bear no relation to reality, so describing the mathematics of an idea does not mean it becomes established as a useful and reliable scientific theory. Established science is not defined by the mathematical derivations, but by whether the outputs of the maths matches reality. That is, until the theory passes the tests of criticism by other experts and by the trial by fire that is experimental verification, then it is not established.
This is the reason that string theory is not established science: it has real trouble making any sort of predictions that can be tested. It is the reason that newtonian physics, mathematically very secure, is not established as the state of the art, while it is established as a useful low speed/weak gravity approximation to relativity.
So, no. A mathematical critique is unlikely to be able to dis-establish Einstein's Relativity Theories, because the maths is not the critical reason for them being established in the first place. The assumptions, along with the mathematical logic WAS the reason that they were given serious consideration, but for GR it was only Eddington's confirmation of a key prediction that gave it wide acceptance.
That's nice.
:blabla:
Wake us up when you're ready to answer the question.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
gcthomas
New member
Once you have learned how to ask one that hasn't already been answered several times, PM me.
Some pertinent quotes from the paper:
We shall raise this conjecture (whose content will be called "the principle of relativity" hereafter) to the status of a postulate and shall introduce ... the postulate ... that in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.
Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.
If you don't know, feel free to say so.
Or you could keep wailing about what it means to "establish" something and insist on talking about something else.
Up to you. :up:
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
[MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION]: you asked how relativity was established and I answered. It is not my problem if you don't like the plain and clear answer I gave. :carryon:
Now then, I asked you one question, that you have avoided: since you mentioned a book I don't have and can't read online, I asked you to pick the best argument from the book and tell me what it is. You have avoided answering, so I think that you haven't read it. So let's just carry on as if you never mentioned it at all, shall we.
So, what would you like to talk about now now your relativity disproving book reference turns out to be nothing but hot air?
Now then, I asked you one question, that you have avoided: since you mentioned a book I don't have and can't read online, I asked you to pick the best argument from the book and tell me what it is. You have avoided answering, so I think that you haven't read it. So let's just carry on as if you never mentioned it at all, shall we.
So, what would you like to talk about now now your relativity disproving book reference turns out to be nothing but hot air?
Your answer ignores the conversation.
Try rational discourse. :up:
What mathematical working did Einstein present to establish relativity?
We know.
You're not interested in a discussion. You're only interested in protecting your beliefs.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app