General > General Technical Chat
"Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ?
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.
--- End quote ---
... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.
Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.
--- Quote ---I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.
--- End quote ---
The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...
The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.
You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.
And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.
https://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/h0_en/h6_en
And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames.
--- Quote ---I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
--- End quote ---
Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades. :-DD
--- Quote ---If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
--- End quote ---
Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need to explain these effects, and all your efforts on this are wasted...
Nah, this is going to be your next post...
penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]
--- End quote ---
Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---But this latest one...
--- Quote ---So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
--- End quote ---
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
--- End quote ---
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal.
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
--- End quote ---
Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
aetherist:
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 11:11:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---But then Einstein introduces a hidden postulate, he assumes that the leaning wavefront automatically means that the traject of the parent ray of light bends. No. It might bend, or it might not. Einstein treats the wavefront as if it is refracted when meeting an inclined pane of say glass. But Einstein fails to explain this assumption, ie this postulate. And he fails to provide a reason why the traject might bend.
--- End quote ---
... the postulate is the principle of equivalence - that an accelerating reference frame is equivalent to a gravitational frame.
Of course you're confused - you have the postulates of the thought-experiment completely backwards.
--- End quote ---
Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 11:11:44 pm ---
--- Quote ---I wonder how Einstein would have explained the bending (curving) of a single solitary photon passing the Sun. He would have no ray to play with. No wavefront to play with.
--- End quote ---
The wave-front helps us visualize the net effect mathematically (as Epstein showed in the link I posted), but, and here is where your brain is going to explode...
The photon is not bending... it is the SPACETIME that it travels through that is bending.
You apparently have this picture of GR that space is flat and objects are getting knocked around. That's not the picture at all - the actual space is warping. That's what makes it so profound, kinda crazy too, I admit, but it works and the equations predict over and over experimentally accurate results.
And it really ought not to be so surprising or crazy though. For example, a triangle drawn on the surface of the Earth does not have angles that add up to 180 degrees. Our universe is not Euclidean. Space curves.
And you will be doomed to never understanding this because you don't accept/understand Minkowski (nor mass-energy equivalence based on a few pages ago). Which is sad because it's really the ultimate evolution of anything like an 'aether.' You just have to surrender absolute reference frames.
--- End quote ---
Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.
I might have a better understanding of Einstein's mass-energy stuff if & when Einsteinist's can agree about it. In the meantime i will stand back & watch their silly little civil wars.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 11:11:44 pm ---
--- Quote ---I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.
--- End quote ---
Not the same thing. I wish I could've tried that excuse on my math teachers - I might've gotten better grades. :-DD
--- End quote ---
I thort that that might get a laugh.
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 11:11:44 pm ---
--- Quote ---If my aetheric bending (0.87 arcsec) is true, & if Einstein's bending (1.75 arcsec) is true, then the total bending should be 2.62 arcsec, which is 0.87 arcsec too great. If the aetheric bending is correct then the Einsteinian bending should be only 0.87 arcsec. I assume that slowing gives 0.87 arcsec, plus my aetheric 0.87 arcsec gives 1.75 arcsec. If i am correct then this leads me to say that Einstein was lucky, he got the correct answer using wrong reasoning.
--- End quote ---
Or maybe... just maybe... your aetheric bending is "krapp," general relativity is all we need, and all your efforts on this are wasted...
Nah, this is going to be your next post...
--- End quote ---
I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.
But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.
Shapiro said that the speed of light near the Sun did not produce fringes. We know that Huyghen refraction gives fringes. If Einstein refraction duznt give fringes then that to me indicates that Einstein refraction duznt give bending. In which case the Einsteinian bending is indeed 0.00 arcsec.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on March 07, 2022, 11:35:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---[...] I understand the postulates of integral calculus, but i don’t understand the math & equations.[...]
Einstein used the escape velocity in his equation for the slowing of light near mass. He inserted that V into his equation for his gamma in his equation for length contraction,[...]
--- End quote ---
Reading between the lines there, I assume that all this analysis you quote on Einstein's theory being incorrect is not your own? Any chance you could point me in the direction of something written mathematically that explains the breakdown in this specific case? Unfortunately, Crothers' "critiques" are just too fundamentally flawed.
--- End quote ---
I can't remember what any sources said. And i don’t know of any Crothers papers re Einstein's bendings.
But that V stuff describes exactly what i did in my Excel for bending, & i got the correct Einsteinian bendings.
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 07, 2022, 10:27:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: HuronKing on March 07, 2022, 08:35:39 pm ---But this latest one...
--- Quote ---So, the beam of light crossing the elevator consists of horizontal arrows. For an inside observer the beam appears to bend down (the elevator is accelerating up), but the arrows nonetheless remain horizontal (for the inside observer)(& for the outside observer).
--- End quote ---
There isn't even a coherent description of the elevator thought-experiment here to debunk... the light bends and is straight for the same observer? LoL. So this one doesn't even merit any additional time wasting.
--- End quote ---
To the inside observer the beam appears to bend down, but the individual photons (arrows) remain horizontal.
To the outside observer all photons (arrows) have a horizontal traject all the time, & all photons (arrows) remain horizontal all the time.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: penfold on March 07, 2022, 11:35:22 pm ---Why are the photons now arrows and what properties of the photons are the arrows showing? By what mechanism does either the inside or outside observer, observe those arrows?
--- End quote ---
I use arrows for photons to show the angles of the photons, ie the photons (arrows) remain horizontal at all times, but the apparent trajectory (for the inside observer) of the photons (ie of say their center points) has a downwardly curve.
The mechanism for observing the arrows, ie their trajectory, & their angle, has to be invented. We as usual assume that a suitable mechanism is possible. Which is a fair enuff assumption, unless it can be shown that that kind of mechanism is an impossibility.
There is a difficulty for the stationary outside observer. She is left well behind, or under really, as time passes, hence it is difficult to invent a mechanism whereby she can see up & into the speeding elevator & can see small angles & small distances involving small photons at huge distances.
In fact the inside observer will have trouble too, koz photons are invisible, unless they hit your eye.
But lets say that there is only one observer, the inside observer. However, before the gedanken, she inspects the photons from the faraway star in question. She travels up in the elevator, slowly, stopping at intervals to check the starlight, & then satisfied that the starlight photons are all always horizontal, & all always propagate horizontally, she takes the elevator back down & does the test.
HuronKing:
--- Quote from: aetherist on March 08, 2022, 12:29:10 am ---Einsteinist's added (tried to add) equivalence to Einstein's elevator gedanken in later years, to try to resurrect Einstein's canonical gedanken, but they failed, which i wont go into today. I am talking about the original gedanken, not the pathetic failed modern faux-elevator gedanken version.
--- End quote ---
So am I. And Einstein himself told us about the original thought-experiment and his realization of the equivalence between gravitational frames and accelerated frames.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151222085312/http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf
It seems apparent you don't understand any description of the elevator experiment.
--- Quote ---Yes i am aware that according to Einstein light duznt bend near the Sun, it is spacetime that bends.
--- End quote ---
Then why are you asking idiotic questions about what general relativity says about a single photon in a gravitational field like it's some big 'gotcha' question if you're so aware of it? The answer is right there in the theory. |O
--- Quote ---I am still working on my aetheric bending of light. I have a number of aetheric candidates that can give me the extra 0.87 arcsec that i need.
But that would need the Einsteinian bending due to the nearness of mass to be 0.00 arcsec. It might indeed be 0.00 arcsec, if the Huyghen refraction in mass duznt apply to Einstein refraction near mass.
--- End quote ---
I'd wish you luck with proving that but the amount of luck you'd need would probably collapse into a black hole singularity.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version