![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Odal » October 22nd, 2017, 6:19 pm wrote:How can Relativity be both true and false at the same time?
(Special) Relativity is very much counter-intuitive, and it is hard for people who just got acquainted with it to accept its seeming illogic logic.
I am one of those people. I still find Relativity a monstrosity as far as intuitive logic is concerned.
But we can ask ourselves, how can such a monstrosity be so successful? How can it convince so many intelligent people of its validity, and at the same time oppose our deepest intuitions?
Is the universe then so irrational that we have to abandon our intuitive logic to understand it?
Odal » October 22nd, 2017, 6:19 pm wrote:That was Bohr's position, and even though Einstein refused to follow him in this special brand of mysticism, it was Einstein who flooded the gates open.
The purpose of this thread is to propose a way out of this conundrum: to accept Einstein's (Special) Relativity, and at the same time reaffirm the preponderance of our everyday logic.
I would like to start with a very familiar argument, the constant speed of light and its paradoxes.
In its simplest form it concerns the case of two ships flying in opposite direction at a speed (or velocity) close to c. Our logic tells us that they would be separating at a speed equal to the sum of both their speeds.
SR tells us that each will measure the speed of light as being no more than c.
Quite a conundrum, isn't it?
There is a very simple answer to this problem though, even if it flies at the face of scientific orthodoxy as defined by 20th century Physics.
If we consider light as a local phenomenon, as I have argued in another thread, then logic can be rescued from the irrational explanations quantic and relativist theorists are so fond of.
As an effect of em waves, light, in any setting can never go faster than c.
It does not matter whether we take one long train or two ships moving in opposite direction, any em wave in any frame of reference will create light effects that can only go as fast or slower than c.
Of course, once we have done that, we must abandon all the cosmological pretensions that follow from the idea of a mysterious universal constant.
What we are saying in fact is simply that em waves cannot make matter light up any faster than c, wherever that matter is.
Quite a let down, wouldn't you say?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Odal » 23 Oct 2017, 01:19 wrote:But we can ask ourselves, how can such a monstrosity be so successful? How can it convince so many intelligent people of its validity, and at the same time oppose our deepest intuitions?
Is the universe then so irrational that we have to abandon our intuitive logic to understand it?
The purpose of this thread is to propose a way out of this conundrum: to accept Einstein's (Special) Relativity, and at the same time reaffirm the preponderance of our everyday logic.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » October 23rd, 2017, 2:47 pm wrote:I still can't see what your theory is, given that it's unclear what you mean by "light is a local effect."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I may be wrong of course, but I have the strong impression that you do not understand it because you find it highly implausible.
The expression "local effect" is, to me at least, quite self-explanatory.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Odal » 23 Oct 2017, 16:08 wrote:Light becomes visible when em waves reach an object or a particle. It is in this sense a local effect. There is no light unless em waves meet matter. The expression that light itself is an em wave is I think confusing and the origin of many misunderstandings and far-fetched theories.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 23rd, 2017, 6:58 pm wrote:Very simple, Odal. I wanted to give you fair chance before you might face a ban from this forum.
In case you are still wondering, scientists normally do not waste time and money on senseless experiments.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BurtJordaan » October 23rd, 2017, 10:07 am wrote:Odal » 23 Oct 2017, 16:08 wrote:Light becomes visible when em waves reach an object or a particle. It is in this sense a local effect. There is no light unless em waves meet matter. The expression that light itself is an em wave is I think confusing and the origin of many misunderstandings and far-fetched theories.
It seems that you have your own 'personal definition' of what light is. Science has an exact definition of what we mean by 'light' and its various phenomena. The simplest definition that I could find is here.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Odal » 24 Oct 2017, 14:57 wrote:Since it concerns a practical experiment I will understand "senseless" to mean one of the following:
1 it has already been done. In which case references or links would be very much appreciated.
2 it cannot be done because of practical considerations.
3 it shouldn't be done because we already know the results.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Odal » 24 Oct 2017, 18:39 wrote:It is not proven that light is an em wave. It has always been implicitly assumed.
If you can show that that is not the case, that there is indeed a proof of this "belief", then my experiment would be superfluous.
The Basics of Lunar Ranging wrote:How do we measure the distance to the moon to such phenomenal precision? We "ping" the moon with ultra-short pulses of light. To do this, we have a laser that generates intense bursts of light only 100 picoseconds long—that's one tenth of a billionth of a second! Light, which travels 7 earth circumferences every second, only travels about an inch in this time. So these pulses are like little "bullets" of light.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests