Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[aggle-rithm]

Moreover, while you may know this, in one of your previous posts it sounded as though you might be confusing Doppler shift with time dilation. They are not the same - time dilation is in addition to the Doppler shift you'd have in a non-relativistic world.

Yep, I have partially wrapped my brain around that.

If the ships were moving towards each other, then time on the other ship would appear to speed up because the Doppler shift overwhelms the time compression...is that right? As I understand it, this is the key to solving the Twin's Paradox riddle.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ah, right, now I'm up to speed. You're working off 'If I can't understand it, it can't be true'.

I'm afraid you have to accept, like so many people before you, that you (like me) are just not smart enough to understand it instinctively. That doesn't make it false though. If you really want to understand it, learn the maths that underpins it all and start from there. If you're not prepared to do that then you really are arguing from a position of gross ignorance.

On the contrary. You are not up to speed. Consider the topic. Science has found that particles can travel faster than the speed of light. So Einstein's theory is obviously false. And wouldn't that explain the messy attempts of finding a 'unifying' theory? Or would you rather ignore these new findings and continue to support further study into superstrings and membranes and umpteen dimensions?

 

[edd]

Neutrino's have mass and count for the 'dark matter' or gravity that falsifies the BB-theory.

Erm.... I don't think that's quite right.

 

[excaza]

Science has found that particles can travel faster than the speed of light.

Possibly.

So Einstein's theory is obviously false.

No, that's not what it would mean.

You don't even understand how reference frames work, why on Earth should we listen to what you have to say about relativity?

 

[Anders Lindman]

That is literally nonsense. It's like saying "No pancake can ever be Marxism." A "reference frame" is a coordinate system. How can a photon - a particle - be a coordinate system?

A correct statement is "According to Einstein's special relativity, no photon is ever at rest in any inertial reference frame."

The statement "According to Einstein's special relativity, no photon is ever at rest in any inertial reference frame." is the same as saying that Einstein's special relativity cannot deal with the relative velocity between photons. Not a very complete theory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The statement "According to Einstein's special relativity, no photon is ever at rest in any inertial reference frame." is the same as saying that Einstein's special relativity cannot deal with the relative velocity between photons. Not a very complete theory.

Come up with a better theory, and collect your Nobel prize.

All scientific knowledge is provisional. Nothing is written in stone.

 

[MaartenVergu]

oh, I thought neutrino's had mass.

It's already on BBCNews:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFzM16w9UOM

 

[excaza]

The statement "According to Einstein's special relativity, no photon is ever at rest in any inertial reference frame." is the same as saying that Einstein's special relativity cannot deal with the relative velocity between photons. Not a very complete theory.

No, those two statements are not even remotely analogous. If you can find a photon that is at rest in an inertial reference frame, then you would have a point. Better get hunting.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Possibly.


No, that's not what it would mean.

You don't even understand how reference frames work, why on Earth should we listen to what you have to say about relativity?

A reference frame is easy to understand. If I am the reference frame and I send a photon into space, then I am considered at rest in relation to the photon.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, those two statements are not even remotely analogous. If you can find a photon that is at rest in an inertial reference frame, then you would have a point. Better get hunting.

The photon IS the inertial reference frame in my example. Are you saying that a photon cannon be a reference frame in Einstein's special relativity? Then that theory is incomplete!

 

[edd]

oh, I thought they had mass.

It's already on the News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFzM16w9UOM

Well you're right about that. However, neutrinos make up less than 1% of the critical density (WMAP7 - http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/192/2/18 with a bit of calculation from the details therein) so while technically dark matter they're not a substantial proportion of it (plus they're too light to be cold dark matter). Also dark matter in no way invalidates the Big Bang.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Consider the topic. Science has found that particles can travel faster than the speed of light. So Einstein's theory is obviously false.

Your understanding of Einstein's theory, not the theory itself, is false. This is because your understanding of it is deeply flawed.

And wouldn't that explain the messy attempts of finding a 'unifying' theory? Or would you rather ignore these new findings and continue to support further study into superstrings and membranes and umpteen dimensions?

Subatomic particles do seem to behave differently than objects in the macro-world. However, when you extrapolate their behavior upwards, the resulting behavior always agrees with classical physics.

It begins to get wonky again when we get to extreme sizes and extreme speeds. Our brains aren't adapted to understand such things, so we do not intuitively understand it. That's why we must rely on mathematics to figure out how it works.

Got any mathematics?

 

[excaza]

The photon IS the inertial reference frame in my example.

Then your example does not match reality, and therefore cannot be used to make statements about it.

Are you saying that a photon cannon be a reference frame in Einstein's special relativity? Then that theory is incomplete!

Theories are not required to address situations that cannot happen. In this case, a stationary photon.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The photon IS the inertial reference frame in my example. Are you saying that a photon cannon be a reference frame in Einstein's special relativity? Then that theory is incomplete!

And yet it still explains our observations far better than anything that anyone else, particularly you, has come up with.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Your understanding of Einstein's theory, not the theory itself, is false.

Even if my understanding is false, how do you know that the theory itself is correct? Doesn't the findings at CERN point to the very opposite of what you claim?

 

[Mashuna]

The photon IS the inertial reference frame in my example. Are you saying that a photon cannon be a reference frame in Einstein's special relativity? Then that theory is incomplete!

And my triangle has seven sides. Your geometry can't cope with that? Then your geometry is incomplete!

 

[sol invictus]

The photon IS the inertial reference frame in my example. Are you saying that a photon cannon be a reference frame in Einstein's special relativity? Then that theory is incomplete!

Are you saying a pancake cannot be Marxism in your theory?? Then your theory is incomplete!

Of course a photon cannot be a reference frame - they are two totally different things.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And yet it still explains our observations far better than anything that anyone else, particularly you, has come up with.

I suspect that the 'accurate' observations are hoaxes, created by gatekeeper scientists to make people continue to believe in the fraudulent theories.

 

[excaza]

Even if my understanding is false, how do you know that the theory itself is correct?

Absolutely? We don't. What we do know is that we can use the theory to successfully predict the behavior of things around us.

Doesn't the findings at CERN point to the very opposite of what you claim?

If found to be valid, the findings would just refine the theory, not falsify the entire thing completely. Just like relativity did not falsify Newtonian physics. It just highlighted assumptions required for Newtonian physics to correctly describe the behavior of the things around us and explain when and why the predictions break down.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Are you saying a pancake cannot be Marxism in your theory?? Then your theory is incomplete!

Of course a photon cannot be a reference frame - they are two totally different things.

The POSITION of a photon can be a reference frame. But I guess SR can't deal with that.