Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
But my basic claim is not a conspiracy theory, that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions is two times the speed of light instead of one time the speed of light as Einstein's special relativity says. Calculating the relative velocity with the frame of reference at one of the photons gives a result of 1c. That shows how Einstein's special relativity is false.
Click to expand...

No.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But my basic claim is not a conspiracy theory, that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions is two times the speed of light instead of one time the speed of light as Einstein's special relativity says. Calculating the relative velocity with the frame of reference at one of the photons gives a result of 1c. That shows how Einstein's special relativity is false.
Click to expand...

How does that show Einstein's special relativity to be false? Can you provide evidence that this is wrong?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because I said that Einstein's theories were wrong before CERN made this announcement. So it confirms my earlier statements. The conspiracy is to protect the hoax theory of relativity, not to disprove it as CERN is doing now.
Click to expand...

So as long as you agree with their findings, they're right. But as soon as they put out something you don't like, they become part of the Big Lie.
 
AvalonXQ said:
How does that show Einstein's special relativity to be false? Can you provide evidence that this is wrong?
Click to expand...

It's impossible with today's technology to make a measurement from a photon. If we think of space as an absolute frame of reference then it's possible to test it in a laboratory. It's totally against Einstein's relativity theories to consider space to be an absolute frame of reference, but I don't think Einstein was aware of the vacuum energy in so-called 'empty' space, and since we today know about its existence (proved by for example Casimir effect experiments), it's perhaps valid to at least consider space to be loosely a kind of absolute frame of reference.

Then we can send two photons at the same time and measure the time for each photon to travel 10 meters. The total distance between the photons is 20 meters. And the relative velocity will be measured to two times the speed of light (slightly less if the photons travel through air). According to Einstein's special relativity, the relative velocity between the photons should be one time the speed of light, which shows that the theory is false.

Another less scientific example is to send two photons from Earth into space in opposite directions. Is the relative velocity between one of the photons and the other photon really 1c, and at the same time the relative velocity between the photon and Earth also 1c? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
It's impossible with today's technology to make a measurement from a photon. If we think of space as an absolute frame of reference then it's possible to test it in a laboratory. It's totally against Einstein's relativity theories to consider space to be an absolute frame of reference, but I don't think Einstein was aware of the vacuum energy in so-called 'empty' space, and since we today know about its existence (proved by for example Casimir effect experiments), it's perhaps valid to at least consider space to be loosely a kind of absolute frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Oh, come the **** on, now you're just throwing stuff out and hoping it goes together.

How the hell do you make 'space' a reference frame? That's completely nonsensical.
 
Anders Lindman said:
If we think of space as an absolute frame of reference then it's possible to test it in a laboratory.
Click to expand...

Yes, we did that a century ago.

It was called the Michelson–Morley experimentWP. It's one of the many ways we know that space is NOT an absolute frame of reference, and that light invariance is in fact quite correct.

Please educate yourself, and consider evaluating evidence based on some other standard than whether or not it agrees with what you already believe.
 
Last edited:
Debunking the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Einstein, my Science teachers, I bloody well will have to do better than the preceding.

We have been led to believe that thunder is the after math or results of lightning when in fact the opposite is true!

Thunder (the collapse of air cells) creates the energy of what we call lightning.
Thunder happens first!

Sound travels much faster than light !

The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it’s nucleus!

Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon “I would hear your whistle before you would!”
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162045
 
SumDood said:
So as long as you agree with their findings, they're right. But as soon as they put out something you don't like, they become part of the Big Lie.
Click to expand...

The extraordinary in this case is that before CERN published their result, Einstein's relativity theories were by most scientists considered absolutely true. If CERN's result stands true, then it could have a devastating effect on today's science leading to a massive paradigm shift.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The extraordinary in this case is that before CERN published their result, Einstein's relativity theories were by most scientists considered absolutely true. If CERN's result stands true, then it could have a devastating effect on today's science leading to a massive paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

That's true. However, it still won't make any of the many false things you've claimed on this thread, any less false.

Any paradigm shift will still incorporate Lorentz transformations for length and time because those things are quite well corroborated by a huge variety of experiments. And while SR and GR might end up refined, such as by explaining how energy works for FTL neutrinos, they certainly won't be dismissed in the way you're trying to. Not without a better theory to account for the data -- which you, at least, certainly don't have.

And, as others have already pointed out, the most likely result is actually that there is a small error somewhere in their process. Not difficult when you're talking about a nanosecond discrepancy over kilometers of distance.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Yes, we did that a century ago.

It was called the Michelson–Morley experimentWP. It's one of the many ways we know that space is NOT an absolute frame of reference, and that light invariance is in fact quite correct.

Please educate yourself, and consider evaluating evidence based on some other standard than whether or not it agrees with what you already believe.
Click to expand...

That's why I said that space can loosely be considered an absolute reference frame, not as a definite ether or something like that. The vacuum energy has been proven by scientific experiments. So space is not empty as Einstein probably thought of it. The vacuum energy can be loosely be considered an absolute frame of reference.
 
AvalonXQ said:
That's true. However, it still won't make any of the many false things you've claimed on this thread, any less false.

Any paradigm shift will still incorporate Lorentz transformations for length and time because those things are quite well corroborated by a huge variety of experiments. And while SR and GR might end up refined, such as by explaining how energy works for FTL neutrinos, they certainly won't be dismissed in the way you're trying to. Not without a better theory to account for the data -- which you, at least, certainly don't have.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Lorentz transformations are valid for measurements of length and velocity. And time is definitely NOT a dimension. That's another problem with Einstein's theories. He believed time was like a fourth dimension. That's a naive and incorrect view. Time is simply the change moment to moment.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That's why I said that space can loosely be considered an absolute reference frame, not as a definite ether or something like that.
Click to expand...
No, it really can't. Again, they've done the experiments that would have shown an absolute reference frame if there were one. There isn't.

The vacuum energy has been proven by scientific experiments. So space is not empty as Einstein probably thought of it. The vacuum energy can be loosely be considered an absolute frame of reference.
Click to expand...

Which experiments have shown that the vacuum energy provides an absolute frame of reference?

Or are these the same experiments that show a beam of light measured at 2c (that is, none at all)?
 
Bruce Voigt said:
Debunking the likes of Sir Issac Newton, Einstein, my Science teachers, I bloody well will have to do better than the preceding.

We have been led to believe that thunder is the after math or results of lightning when in fact the opposite is true!

Thunder (the collapse of air cells) creates the energy of what we call lightning.
Thunder happens first!

Sound travels much faster than light !

The sound that we play around with is leftover energy of reactions that have magnetically regrouped into larger chips (molecules). This leftover energy is just one in many that an air cell has as it’s nucleus!

Considering new technology, and I was listening from the Moon “I would hear your whistle before you would!”
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162045
Click to expand...

What?
 
Anders Lindman said:
The extraordinary in this case is that before CERN published their result, Einstein's relativity theories were by most scientists considered absolutely true. If CERN's result stands true, then it could have a devastating effect on today's science leading to a massive paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

And when they say it was human error or it becomes a footnote under relativity, you're going to say CERN is part of the Big Lie.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No, it really can't. Again, they've done the experiments that would have shown an absolute reference frame if there were one. There isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can! You are talking about measuring some ether wind or some archaic concept like that. That's not what I'm talking about. The vacuum energy is real, so it can be used as a frame of reference.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes, it can! You are talking about measuring some ether wind or some archaic concept like that. That's not what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

No. I'm talking about measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, both in the direction of and perpendicular to our the path of travel with the Earth.

Unless you believe Earth itself is the reference frame, the speed of light should measure differently in these two directions. It doesn't; hence, your premise is incorrect.

It doesn't matter than you have replaced "ether" with "vacuum energy" (which, by the way, is Lorenz invariant and therefore doesn't demonstrate any absolute reference frame at all). The fact is that the consequence of your experiment should be that light has a different speed depending on the direction in which it's measured. It doesn't; hence, either the "absolute reference frame" happens to be moving exactly with us as we take the measurement, or there isn't one.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No. I'm talking about measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, both in the direction of and perpendicular to our the path of travel with the Earth.

Unless you believe Earth itself is the reference frame, the speed of light should measure differently in these two directions. It doesn't; hence, your premise is incorrect.

It doesn't matter than you have replaced "ether" with "vacuum energy" (which, by the way, is Lorenz invariant and therefore doesn't demonstrate any absolute reference frame at all). The fact is that the consequence of your experiment should be that light has a different speed depending on the direction in which it's measured. It doesn't; hence, either the "absolute reference frame" happens to be moving exactly with us as we take the measurement, or there isn't one.
Click to expand...

The vacuum energy can be used as a frame of reference since it exists everywhere in space. The effect of the vacuum energy on photons is probably very, very weak. So it's not like some ether. For example, I suspect that the redshift of photons observed in astronomy is caused by the friction between the vacuum energy and photons.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The extraordinary in this case is that before CERN published their result, Einstein's relativity theories were by most scientists considered absolutely true.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. Nothing in science is absolute. Einstein's work is highly regarded because it is able to accurately predict the results of the relevant experimentation.

If CERN's result stands true, then it could have a devastating effect on today's science leading to a massive paradigm shift.
Click to expand...
Devastating is hardly the right word. Personally, I'd use exciting. Even if CERN's results stand up, it doesn't mean Einstein was wrong, just that his theories only work under specific conditions. As already explained to you, this is the same thing that happened to Newtonian mechanics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom