Time dilation has apparently been ‘proved’ experimentally by running two flights with equal velocity in opposite directions, one east wards and another west wards (Hafele-Keating experiment).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Scientists apparently noted that, compared to the readings of the atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory, the atomic clock in the east bound flight recorded less time (59 nanoseconds less) and that in the west bound flight recorded more time (273 nanoseconds more). This was apparently because, from the reference frame of an imaginary observer at the Earth’s centre, the clock in the east bound flight was moving at the highest velocity (=earth’s rotational velocity+ flight velocity), the clock in the west bound flight was moving at the lowest velocity (earths rotational velocity minus flight velocity) while the clock at the observatory was moving at the same velocity as the earth’s rotational velocity. We know that according to special relativity, the faster a clock moves, the slower the clock ticks. So the time readings from the three sets of clocks appeared to support the predictions of special relativity.
(We have mentioned at the beginning that both flights ran at equal velocity but in the opposite directions. So one may be wondering why the velocity of the east bound flight is considered more than the west bound flight while predicting the time dilation. The reason is that the flight velocities are taken from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. Because Earth rotates in the east ward direction, this rotational velocity gets added to the east bound flight making its relative velocity more than the west bound flight which runs opposite to the direction of the earth’s spin. Little tricky to understand but not stupid unlike the relativity theory itself!)
Why Twin Flight Experiment doesn’t prove Relativity
“Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip—” (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html)
Even if we believe in the above clock readings ‘observed’ by the physicists, that would still not prove special relativity. Imagine that the stationary clock at the observatory ticked 100sec while the clock in the east bound flight ticked 90sec and the clock in the west bound flight ticked 110sec (just to keep the numbers simple). While these readings appear to be consistent with the predictions of special relativity from the perspective of the centre of earth observer, the same is not the case from the perspective other observers. For example, from the perspective of the observer on the earth, both flights were moving at equal velocity and hence both must have experienced time dilation by the same factor and so should have shown the same time. But this was not the case.
And, from the perspective of an observer in the east bound flight, it was actually the west bound flight which was travelling at a very high velocity. So according to him, the west bound flight should have experienced the maximum time dilation and ticked the slowest if SR were to be true. Similarly the clock readings would go against the predictions of SR when viewed from the perspective of the west bound flight. What it implies? The readings of the atomic clocks (believing that the data was not ‘massaged’ by the ‘phychicists’) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the centre of earth observer. And it implies that, unlike what the SR preaches,
#all reference frames are not equally valid
#motion is not relative
# and there seems to be an absolute reference frame (i.e. centre of earth)
Thus the clock readings and mathematics of SR actually contradict the teachings of SR.
The twin flight experiment just proves that atomic clocks get slowed down as they move relative to earth and also depending upon the strength of gravity. It is not proof of time dilation. If it was Time that dilates, then all processes should get slowed down by the same factor in a given scenario. And that should include the physical process underlying the pendulum clock also. Unfortunately for the relativists, this is not the case.
But why the atomic clocks got affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR? Well, they actually didn’t: See twin flights and the dumb stats.
Go to Next Page
Go to Previous Page
Go to Main Index
Comments
Well, it is not even possible to measure the difference, according to a specialist in atomic clocks: Louis Essen:
“One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured. The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with Eddington’s eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them. In spite of the fact that I had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It was later
published in the Creation Research Quarterly, vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff”
Click to access rickeressen.pdf
warm greetings:
Galacar
LikeLike
I’m trying to find the original publication of Essen’s criticism in the Creation Research Quarterly, but I’m having no luck finding that it actually exists. Do you have a link?
LikeLike
Thanks for your valuable input. I have exposed the stupidity surrounding the twin flight experiment in the page titled ‘the stupid photon clock of relativists’.
And following is from one of my replies posted elsewhere
https://debunkingrelativity.com/special-relativity/#comment-1546
“Apparently it was noted that the atomic clock in the east bound flight experienced time dilation as exactly predicted by the stupid SR. But from the reference frame of a passenger in that flight, it was the west bound flight which was moving very fast, so time dilation must actually occur to the clock in west bound flght. But this was not what the clock readings suggest. What it implies? The readings of the clocks (believing that the data was not cooked up by the ‘phychicists’ having been mesmerised by the stupid religion!) appear to obey the formula of SR only when looked from the reference frame of the earthbound observer”.
LikeLike
it really is all lies:
Abstract. The original test results were not published by Hafele & Keating, in their famous 1972 paper; they published figures that were radically different from the actual test results which are here published for the first time. An analysis of the real data shows that no credence can be given to the conclusions of Hafele & Keating.”
http://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm
LikeLike
“But why the atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR? I will try to answer this soon in a separate post.”
I wonder if an answer has been posted yet.
LikeLike
My apologies for the delayed response.
I must confess that I haven’t so far explained why the atomic clocks behaved as per the weird formula of relativity. The links given by Galacar does give some reasons why the readings ‘exactly’ matched the predictions.
Even if we believe that there wasn’t any selection bias or any kind of subconscious manipulation of the data by the experimenters, as I have explained above, the clock readings didn’t actually obey the stupid formulae of the relativity religion, neither from the perspective of the earth bound observer nor from the perspective of the on-flight observers.
So, in their desperate attempt to ‘fit’ in their calculations, relativists have introduced ‘proper time’ and the ‘centre of earth observer’. Actually there isn’t anything like ‘proper time’ in the original version or the ‘old testament’ of relativity religion!
But even from the perspective of ‘centre of Earth’, I don’t think that the atomic clocks that were carried on the flights ticked exactly as per the stupid formulas of relativity. If they really did, there wouldn’t have been any need to rely upon the ‘magical’ statistics to support their religious predictions. Let me explain that.
Apparently, in the twin flight experiment, the experimenters carried four atomic clocks on each flight. As all the clocks were synchronised before the take off, and because the clocks in each flight were subjected to same velocity and gravity and acceleration, we would expect that all the four clocks on each flight would show exactly the same reading (as dictated by the relativity demon) even after going around the earth several times.
But that didn’t happen. For example, if we look at the data from the twin flight experiment, we can see that the east bound clocks differed from the ground clock by 59ns plus minus 10ns (where 10 is the standard deviation). In other words if one east bound clock differed by 69ns, another east bound clock differed by 49ns with the ground clock. So there was a difference of at least 20ns between the clocks on the east bound flight (In fact that would be much more than 20ns if we look at the actual readings of the clocks. See the relationship between range and standard deviation http://statistics.about.com/od/Descriptive-Statistics/a/Range-Rule-For-Standard-Deviation.htm).
That is each of the four clocks had ticked differently despite being synchronised at the beginning and travelling at the same velocity/ acceleration/ gravity. How to explain this difference? Shall we blame it was the Time which ran differently for each clock on the east bound flight and hence the incongruence? But that would be stupid even as per the standards of the stupid religion of relativity.
The fact that all the clocks in the east bound flight didn’t show the same reading just proves that even atomic clocks are prone to errors like any other clocks. Errors obviously occur from some unknown internal or external influences. It would be stupid to accept standard errors (however small it may be) in the analysis here. Accepting standard errors mean accepting the influence of some hidden/unknown variables on the functioning of the atomic clocks. When unknown influences could affect the functioning of atomic clocks, then why not motion and gravity affect them in a similar way? So how can we swear upon those ‘errors’ in the atomic clocks’ readings caused by differences in motion and gravity as proof of time dilation?
So we can only make one of the two following conclusions out of the twin flight experiment:
1) Either we have to accept that even atomic clocks get affected by various factors (known and unknown) like other clocks and hence the observed differences in the clock readings (that makes time dilation a myth)
2) Or if we have to interpret the different readings of the atomic clocks as proof of Time dilation, then we must accept that relativity theory utterly failed to predict/ explain the Time dilation experienced by each atomic clock (despite all the fudging and ‘inventing’ mythical concepts like ‘proper time’).
Coming to our original question that “why the atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR?”, the clocks didn’t actually get affected as exactly predicted by relativity.
Rather the observed variations in the behaviour/ticking of the atomic clocks can be better explained by the spinning Ether model that I have proposed to explain gravity. Actually, atomic clocks don’t get slowed with faster motion and stronger gravity unlike what the deluded physicists imagine. And they don’t behave differently from the pendulum clocks.
The tension in a string varies depending upon whether the string is at rest or whether it is moving with respect to the surrounding medium. And so is its frequency of oscillation. Same must be the case with atomic clocks and pendulum clocks. That is, the clocks actually oscillate/tick faster when they move with respect to the medium. And the faster the clock moves, the faster it ticks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radwan Kassir wrote:
“But why the atomic clocks get affected as ‘exactly’ predicted by the mathematics of GR and SR? I will try to answer this soon in a separate post.”
I wonder if an answer has been posted yet”
Please look at site. It is!
And I really have to laugh when I read here: ‘exactly’ because it is far from that!!
LikeLike
Hi, Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla and others. for years I’ve been sure that relativity is so much wrong on so many levels, and these poststhat post holes i their reasoning proves that I was right all the time.
Also, drgsrinivas, you forgot to post about space, while I have to admit that time thing is harder to explain, and I have to say that time is a manmade concept since we have no idea if it exists at all, an those stupid experiments with clocks only prove that gravity affect the speed of clock pointers, and not time, clock is not the the evidence of the existence of time, since it’s people who created clocks in the first place, plus there is no way to determine the existence of time at all.
However, I’m wondering why didn’t you post about space being affected by gravity-this is by far the stupidest thing I have ever come across, even when I was I kid, I couldn’t buy that crap, however, 20 years ago, I said to myself these are smart people it’s not that they didn’t take into account what I thought they should take, but than I finally realized that after “the discovery of Higgs boson” it came to me, I just don’t buy it that they have proven everything what mathematics and statistics say-later I realized, this is all just crap to justify funding and there are no evidences on anything at all.
OK, let’s see space-first of all space is not made of anything-space is simply 100% empty void, and does not interact with anything else, however energy, matter and energy fields/ether do exist in that space, basically they exit in the void matter, energy and energy-the facts are that whenever all those stupid scientists say that gravity affects space-it doesn’t what it affects are all those things that are made of matter and energy, including it affects energy fields-the fact is none of this is ever been affected in any experiment and it will never be affected by any experiment where there is no either, energy or energy fields.
So, what does gravitatational field affect are the following:
it affects the distance between 2 objects-it can stretch, expands, contract/decrease the distance between 2 objects, but it doesn’t affect space-space is not affected at all, their distances are and their energy fields are-there has never been effect with anything where there was no matter, no energy and no energy fields.
Here is how stupid and naive these people are:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-big-bang-theory-is-the-biggest-lie-in-the-western-world.158483/
I tried to explain them everything,, but they don’t listen anything; it’s like talking to the wall.
My username on that forum is Gravage.
I have to admit I always wanted to know how to beat their arguments that gravity affects time, too bad you can’t really just write several sentences in order to explain how time is not affected by gravity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jefferson
I read your postings at sciforums. You did great but yes, you are talking to walls for sure! They are all brainwashed and can’t think straight anymore and they have a religious faith in ‘modern science”. It is a sad thing actually.
I have been banned there because of some rules I violated.
I sure did! You are not allowd to think overthere!
However , the thing I disagree upon is ‘gravitty’. I am rather convinced there is not something like that at all. Look at some at my postings here, some are about the gravity nonsense.
Namaste!
Galacar
LikeLike
@Galacar, big thank you for your post, I actually thought this blog and comments were abandoned, to bad I was not here in 2014.
I will read your posted about gravity, but on which part of the blog should I look for, I mean this blog is really huge, I even have headaches, and there are some questions that I actually have, but I’m not sure if the author of this Blog and you, Galacar will find time to answer/post, and there are some questions I wanted to ask about Bernolli principle.
I just hope you guys did not leave this blog, it’s a true refreshment to find alternatives who don’t think and “prove” like pseudo-scientific Borgs.
Also, I’m still fighting against the wall on that forum, I cannot believe I’m so much strong-headed and I’m not giving up for an inch, well that’s possible because I have time, after 30 more days I will be extremely busy, so I won’t be able to post anything at all, unfortunately on any forum for most of the time.
The last thing on that forum I can tell you is that when I criticized which part of their models are unprovable and provable, predictable and unpredictable (because they always say their models are predictive, which is not actually true) and which are actually predictive-predictive are only the one that are and can be directly observed ina experiments that show prove or indicate to exist what their models assume and “prove”.
The part where models are supposedly predictive and yet the experiments cannot show, test or prove or even indicate to exist what models assume that exists-should be abandoned-so, basically, it is experiments and what you test, prove and indicate to exist that are predictive in creating new technologies, not models.
Even those experiments that can be made, are misinterpreted in order to adjust results of experiments and conclusions with models-basically they say models prove beyond of what an be tested in experiment, even if it can be, they again misinterpreted-like space for example.
The distances and trajectories of cosmic objects, light change their directions, because it affects all objsetcs created out of matter and energy, not because space changes-space in true reality has never been changed in any experiment ever, neither did in those observational evidences from telescopes in great distances with graitational lensing-and yet they don’t even know if those were gravitational lensings at all, since it is so faaaaar away from Earth to actually observe anything at all, maybe it’s just something electromagnetic, what it showeed that it affects only objects made of matter and from energy.
When it comes to quantum mechanics, you cannot prove, test or even indicate to exist anything on atomic, subatomic and on quantumlevels-it’s like blind scientist is trying to find out and prove the existence of whatever his/her mathematical models say about environment/nature that he lives in.
This is why there is an indian story about this:
It rreally happened, basically it’s about 3 blind people and elephant-I have to mention none of these blind people did not know about the existence of an elephant, befire that time.
So when they, for the first time touched elephant’s ear-they though it was a leaf-so what is the point of this true story-the less you perception/senses are the more wrong you are about something your limited senses can directly observe.
That’s why blind people could not actually see the whole picture the whole elephant.
So, when you are doing the experiment, even though you can observe directly, it means that all of our interpretations of what we observe are wrong, because we cannot see the whole picture/the whole reality-because we can only observe only its tiniest part, and that’s why, with our-hyper-limited senses we cannot know what is the right interpretation of anything we see, since we see only its slightest pat of it.
This is why quantum mechanics is wrong, because of the mere fact scientists are truly blind and have truly no idea what they are talking about, what they are experiment with in the first place, this is why all those stories about atoms, subatomic particles and quantum levels, are just fairy tales-because, they are so faaar below our abilities and technologies to actually directly observe them and interpret them the way they are, not misinterrpet them.
I also posted, how misinterpreted relativity is especially regarding the space thing-since there is no such thing as space being affected by gravity only what is made of matter and frome energy/energy fields-and this happens only when it happens inside the gravitational fields, basically matter and energy are affected only when theys interaact or they are inside energy fields..
Any way, n the end they told me that science DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING after so much pressure I put on them!!!!!
So, I asked them if your science cannot prove a damn thing, than it’s not science, it’s religion, because you believe in untestable and unprovable models!!!!!
And they still try to prove they are right with their models, idiots at best, and they call themselves people with extremely high IQ, and yet they cannot see their own errors in their opinions and in their models.
Big thank you in advance, Galacar and drgsrinivas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jefferson
You are welcome.
ok, long posting, and that is ok, but I will try to answer your ‘theme’.
But first, to find what I wrote about ‘gravity’ put this in ‘google’
(did you know ‘google is a part of darpa? darpa is a defense arm of the
military complex!)
Anyway:put in “gravity Galacar site:https://debunkingrelativity.com”
That will give you some results.
I also have stated before on this site, not that that matters, that
the people who have invented the religions to control people, later invented
‘science’ when religion was not enough anymore to control the people.
So, yes, ‘science’ IS a religion. All by design.It is a control tool and I must
admit is is done very ingenious and clever.
Hence the walls you encounter on that ‘science’ site,
Just think of what will happen if you tell a Muslim that Allah doesn’t exist.
You know EXACTLY what will happen, right?
Furthermore the world we are living in is an ILLUSION.
it is or is like a hologram.
Well, that means that ‘science’ is studying an ‘ILLUSION’, and think
they are looking at ‘reality’, whatever that is.
And what can come of studying an ILLUSION?
Right.
Namaste!
Galacar
LikeLike
Srinivas,
I have been reading for a while your good critique on modern phyc, together with the responses offered by those who agree with you. The point that you try to make is pretty straight foward and true. However, it is hard to understand why someone from Harvad cannot understand! So allow me to summarise it:
1.) all aleged ‘proofs’ offered in modern science are actually INFERANCES done. Essentialy, scientist observe one thing and infere another thing using his reasoning.
2) how scientists REASON is part of the things we are trying to question, and not just the theories they are pedling.
Lets consider the claim that a particle can occupy two places all at once. When you question such, on the basis of LOGIC not EMPIRIC often you hear people push down your troath that such absurdities have been confirmed countless times by experiments. However, when you close exermine the alleged confirmation, it is same BS reasoning: does it make sense to use one particle two location to INEERE? thats the question!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now, lets consider the usual silly claim they often parrot:
The reason why Einstein’s and quantum theories are absurd is because we don’t observe such things in day to day world.
Again, this only show that modern ‘physicist’ cannot distinguish A PRIORI from A POSTERIORI and this is the whole reason we have absurdities! When you ask what it is they confirm, they answer muon decay, twin flight clock etc.
But to refute the earlier claim, like Srivinas have once said, all you need is to open your fridge and see that some tomatoes have rotten differentially! Nothing that they OBSERVE cannot be compared to day to day experiences. Only what they INFERE is the absurdities!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Galacar, it seems to me the only reason why I have not been banned from there is because my thread was replaced from Cosmology fourms to Pseudoscience subforums-I think this is the only reason I have not been banned my focus was simply based on what exactly experiments were based and what exactly was proven-if you look at it there is not a single evidence for anything like the existence of atoms. electrons and similar concepts, and this is exactly where models are created-they are created based on something that you cannot test to actually see if they exist or not.
I mean that’s like blind scientist goes to study frog and the anatomy of the frog alhough he can never know it is a frog, since he cannot see a frog, only when other tell that it is a frog, he/she will know that it is a frog.
This is the same problem with QM, misinterpretations with GR and SR and similar.
What kinds of conclusions you can make based on something you cannot see the frog?
All of your concousions would be wrong.
Because of your limited perception, and without eyevision you would create models that are totally ridicoulus and wrong, since you cannot see the whole reality only its tiniest piece.
The same thing happened when Rutherford and Curie “proved” the existence of atoms in elements by bombarding them with radiation-so if once in a while it deflects, it “proves” that atom has nucleus-which is totally stupid and 100% wrong because you cannot possibly know what you have actually hit, and creating models based on something that you have no idea what they hit with their radiation, they claim they have proved the existence of atoms??????
This is typical behaviour of anyone who is blind and this is exactly what I’m talking about-they are blind and they have no idea what they proven to exist, their misintepretations of something that is beyond all of their senses.
This 100% proves that all the models are not based on facts and evidences/real evidences, not based on some mathematical, abstract pseudo-evidences, but they are based on untestable and unprovable models.
Anyone has the right in creating hypotheses, but none has the right that he/she has proven that his/her hypotheses/models are correct, because the only models that are predictive are the ones which are actually proven in experiments with direct observations-those stupid scientists talk non-stop about their predictive models, but what they do not take into account, is that the only thing that is truly predictive in those is what experiments and direct observations truly proven, and not some atoms, electrons and similar that are untestable and unobservable.
I’m just wondering why you have been banned at all from sciforums?
If you tell a muslim that there is not a shred of evidence that allah exists, he will probably cut your head off and eat your brain.
Regarding hologram, this could be key, but there is also that hypothesis that is also known, the the entire universe is computer simulation (my friend is a top level programmer, so this is how I found about it), basically theere is no way you can beat this hypothesis either, because you can simulate ust about everything with enough computing power, yes, this proves how much we do not know about anything in the universe, and when you say that to scientific religious movements, they say you are wrong, the same as when say to them that everything how did science progressed was because of trial and error-but they do not recongize that their stuoid models are based on exactly that-trials and errors-they get mad on me, idiots.
Also, I’m not sure what did you mean by this: gravity Galacar site:https://debunkingrelativity.com”
To put this in google, but I’m not really getting any results, maybe I missed something….
And no I didn’t know that Google is now part of DARPA, typical, I don’t know what to say about this, but it sure this is bad, not good for the rest of population.
Big thanks in advance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jefferson,
You make some good points. Now the fact that an equation makes accurate prediction does not mean that it accurately describes the world!
This point seems pretty straight foward to you guys. However, to bombard this to the hard brain of Harvad asylum graduate isn’t easy! So let me use example to meet them in their ground: QUASIPARTICLE.
Now Schrödinger equation is quite useless as it is impossible to solve in most cases. A particle of dust, for instance, has zilions of particles. Quasiparticles can make predictions. But if this mean quasiparticles are real, this contradict quantum mech!
LikeLike
Hi, King, big thanks for your posts, yes you said facts, but still the biggest problem with physicists is the fact they consider models as proven and predictive, something that is not proven to exoist cannot be predictive in the ifrst place, only what is shown and directly observed in experiments.
Again, it’s all trials and errors, nothing more, but none truly knows what is true and correct explanation on how things work, since we cannot truly directly observe the entire reality how exactly is functioning, only pieces of that reality.
And the explanations we have are useless, since they are all wrong, since we can barely scratcht eh surface.
The reason why people do not accept those QM weirdness is because of the fact that it is not even proven to exist, and it can be directly observed and therefore it cannot be experienced in the first place-this is QM and SR and GR are all in the realm of fairy tales-although SR and GR you can actually directly observe, they misinterpret experiments which “all prove” SR and GR, and yet they only adapted the results experiments to SR and GR models and left facts that do not match models-like the space thing for example, which I already posted above, this is simply a matter of misinterpretations of GR and SR and nothing more and nothing less, while QM is simply untestable and unprovable in just about every single way-it’s like blind man is studying the nature and creates models of it, and we all know how wrong this would end-QM mechanics is the same thing, only on lower levels, scientists are truly blind since they truly have no idea what is truly going on, and what exactly exists and what does not exist in the first place, so all the laws of QM are untested and unproven, since there is now ay you can directly observe those experiments.
QM is just another fairy tale-that can never be truly tested and proved in any way.
Yes, they have images of “atoms” with Scanning Tunneling Microscope, but the fact is there is no way you can know what exactly did you image in the first place, so this is not any evidence of atom’s existence in the first place.
The main problem is math, these scientists use unprovable and untestable math, another problem (to prove their hypotheses), and yet they did not truly prove anything.
So, it’s not just the hypotheses, it’s the evidences of such hypotheses, there is no way you can truly test and prove that quantum entanlgement truly exists at all, there i not even an indication of it, nothing.
Also, new technologies did not come from those models they came from small firms that have created such technologies with trial and error techniques.
Than they say space is bending-if space is bending than we are not talking about space, I cannot believe how scientists are putting words like space and nothing and misiniterpret their meanings.
If we talk about space, than space cannot be and does not bend under gravity or under anything else, only something that is made of matter and energy can, plus all the evidences and facts actually prove that all these bendings are happening inside space, so whatever is bending is not space itself.
It is not vacuum fluctuations that create those fluctuations, because vacuum is vacuum-those fluctuations exist inside space/vacuum, they are not created by it, if they are, than this is not space/vacuum at all-facts.
All fluctuations simpl exist inside space.
Everybody is talking about as analogy in which they describe: that when you throw a rock in a water, you will see waves-but the problem with that analogy is that it does not inlcude all facts-that water is not space as scientists deliberately show as an correct analogy,
The problem with analogy in what exactly water exists??????
Obviously in space.
Also, there would not be possible for any dimensions to exist in the first place, if space does not exist where dimensions can exist in the first place.
So the biggest flaws that 100% disprove Big Bang religion are the following:
How can the existence/the universe exist and expand in/inside non-existence (since scientists there is nothing outside the universe)?
Something that exists cannot exist and expand inside non-existence-that is 100% imposssible.
And there is second: so the universe has 3 dimensions, ok, let me ask you this, if there is truly nothing outside the universe, not even matter, not even energy, not even time (well time does not exist), not even space, I’m asking this question:
How can something that exists and has dimensions exist in nothing that has no dimensions at all?
How can something with dimensions exist in nothing that is 100% dimensionless?
These 2 questions prove that something like this is all 100% impossible, and these 2 impossibilities 100% disprove the big bang hypothesis.
Big thanks in advance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Galacar and @King, I give you some very important additions:
One more thing about scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes “proving” the existence of atoms:
Here is the supposed “picture” of IBM atoms:
Atoms look like blobs, and that’s all there is to see. Beyond that, the wavelengths of visible light are longer than the structures you’re interested in, so you can’t really “see” them, and the word “look” doesn’t really apply.
Even if you could, there’s still not much to see. The vast majority of it (in terms of space) is dominated by electrons, which you can’t take a picture of because they’re just a probability cloud, not an actual object. The clouds themselves actually have interesting shapes, and there has been some work at taking a picture of them:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/09/first-detailed-photos-of-atoms.html
But this isn’t really a “picture” in the sense that it’s what you’d see with a really powerful lens. It’s not made with light, and you can’t “see” it in the usual sense. This is really more a visualization of the data, one that happens to conform very nicely to the mathematical model, but it’s misleading to think that it really “looks” like that and that it is actually proven to exist.
This is why you would never be able to prove the existence of small electrons or any other particle for that matter.
The nucleus is even smaller than that, and even less meaningful to take a picture of.
An ultrasound picture of a baby accurately reflects the actual form of the baby. A Scanning Tunneling Electron Microscope does not accurately reflect the form of an atom because it simply uses an artificial dot to represent the presence or absence of an atom. In short, the “map” that STM’s give us is abstracted from reality and does not accurately portray an atom (in large part because STM’s still simply due not measure at the scale of an atom).
There’s a philosophy idea that in order to say we can “see” something, we have to be able to collect consistent information by several different methods. For example if all we have is a STM, then we don’t know which parts of the image are artifacts and which are real so we haven’t seen anything. But if we have an STM and crystallography, we can have more faith in the features that are common to both images – such as interatomic distances and the geometry of crystal structure. But we still couldn’t say that we’ve seen the shape of an atom since that would look different in each instrument’s image.
A great example is people who “discovered” lost cities under the sea. They saw regular patterns of lines on the seafloor in Google Earth and interpreted them as ancient roads or walls. But they were only seeing artifacts from ships that had sailed back and forth in straight lines collecting data. If they had looked both at those sonar scans and some other data for the same location, they would have only seen the lines on one image and been able to conclude that they were either an artifact of the sonar or below the level of sensitivity of the other instrument.
So, no scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes did not prove the existence of atoms.
Just like you said about quasiparticles, King….
Of course, none of these things ‘prove’ that atoms are anything other than a ‘useful mathematical model’. But then you have to start delving deep into epistemology and the nature of the relationship between our knowledge of the world and the reality of it. For all practical purposes, our mathematical models in which atoms play an important role have such a powerful predictive value that it’s kind of ridiculous philosophical hair-splitting to debate whether or not they exist.
However it’s not predicitve on what models say about atoms and electrons, but only on what it can be tested and directly observed in experiments-and atoms and electrons and similar cannot be tested and directly observed to exist in the first place-so the model prediction-where model is describing and predicting the atom, atomic nuclei, electrons and all other subatomic particles and their behaviours on quantum levels, simply fail because models that describe and rpedict atoms and all other particles and their behaviours on quantum levels are 100% untestable and unprovable, what is predictive is only what you can directly observe and test in/inside experiments-facts.
Also, how do we know that atoms aren’t just features of a simulation. And if so, do they still ‘exist’? Again, philosophy question. It’s just that I think a lot of people have a hard time making the leap from ‘this mathematical model says these things exist’ to ‘these exist’. Heck, the neutrino and the quark are modern day examples of actual working physicists having this issue. Of course, as the model required to describe them became more and more integral physicists decided they ‘existed’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jefferson
Very interesting about the ‘seeing’ of the atoms.
I do believe more in the atoms seen by claivoyants.
I really think they are closer to the truth.
( I reject all mainstream physics bull shit. and, mind you, I have studied
‘physics’ at uni level. However I stopped after a few years, because
it was all too ‘mechanical’ and even boring to me.)
“The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms”
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-amazing-story-of-the-clairvoyants-who-observed-atoms
Enjoy!
Galacar
LikeLike
Someone asked: “why does the clock slow at a rate exactly like predicted by SR’?
Simple! The total kinetic energy of a system can be 1/2(mu^2)+1/2(mv^2)=1/2(mc^2). The equation u/c={1-(v/c)^2}^(1/2) Is valid fory ANY system of particle interaction that, in some way, involves conservation of kinetic energy! It does not, in any way, UNIQUELY validate Einstein’s theory. Anyone can claim it!!
LikeLike
Curved space and expanding space is another climax of idiocy. Of course the knee jerking reply is the usual, insipid:
“…it has been confirmed by experiments over and over countless of times…”
But no one can possibly experiment with an empty space! Those who parrot that mantra only prove that they don’t think on their own!
This ‘space’ is too convinient for science! For sole purposes of determining paths, it is ‘something’. It must be offering an action unto things. Then suddenly, it must be ‘nothing’ so it doesnt take a reaction from things, nor its faster than light ‘expansion’ pouses any threat!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, King, with empty space you cannot experiment at all, since there is no interaction with empty space and this is why I said above that the only thing that you experiment is with something that is not space at all, since space by definition is 100% empty, you can only experiment with and interact with matter and energy and energy fields-facts.
The real evidence for existence of empty space is exactly this, no experiments can be conducted since there is no interaction between space and matter and energy.
So when they say vacuum fluctuations, there are no fluctuations from vacuum, since vacuum does not interact with anything, the fluctuations exist in vacuum but have no interaction with vacuum-that’s a key difference here.
LikeLike
@Jefferson.
A short one for now.
I ment to put exactly this in Google:
Galacar Gravit site:https://debunkingrelativity.com
So you omitted the “Galacar” and “Gravity”
This way you will find articles here that i wrote about the gravity non-sense.
btw Google is not ‘now a part of Darpa” . Darpa started the whole damn thing!
and Darpa also created the internet.
Of course they are not creating an eloctronic survellance system! 😉
Namaste!
Galacar
LikeLike
The following post the copy of my own post/answer to DaveyC who is one of those religious fanatics about science its models on sciforums.com:
Here is the link:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-big-bang-theory-is-the-biggest-lie-in-the-western-world.158483/page-32#post-3440625
It’s basically copy/paste of my own anser/post, but I gave you the link, because it’s much easier to read answer there on the forum thread where I originally posted the answer.
About predictive models:
What do you think predictive means?
It is entirely de facto.
My model predicts that, if I power up a magnet to X volts, I will get a bright spot on a fluorescent screen of Y deflection.
My Answers: Yes, but you cannot predict before you conduct experiments, and you conduct experiments before you create models, only after you conduct experiments you create models of what you directly observed in experiments-predictive models are already known because of experience with previous experiments and previous direct observations and previous experiences with every day life and with previous experience wit experiments and what exactly was directly observed and proved in these experiments.
Plus the greatest mistake in QM is exactly this mentioned above; yout create models on what you experience in this macro-level world, not on quantum level, that’s why QM is all wrong.
It doesn’t matter whether or not those are “really” negatively-charged electrons; the simple fact is that I can declare with supreme confidence over an arbitrarily large number of voltages, through an arbitrarily large number of tests, where the spot on the screen will occur. And lo! it does.
Notice there is NOTHING in there about proving anything.
My Answers: First of all, what you described is actually expoeriment, the problem is that its results always adapt to models that are assumed to be correct and predictive, so the explanations and interpretations of experiments like these simply adapt to what models “predict”, not to what experiments actually, exactly show and prove in the first place.
But the problem and your greatest error (and not just your error, it’s the greatest error of all manistream, religious scientists) here is you cannot possibly know what that spot on that screen is all about and what exactly it shows and what exactly it proves-it’s like blind man to find out what is the object he touches that he has never experienced before-without direct observations you cannot do anything at all, just create fiction without any basis to start with.
And this, what you just described above, 100% proves all of my points here on this thread; don’t model something you can never test-because there is no conclusion you can base on anything when you see those spots on the screens, this what computer shows, but you can never know what it is or how does it look like, you only see what comper shows and how computer shows it; the fact is you cannot know what it is in any way, you can only know it’s voltage and those spots on screens are simply prints like lightning leaves on the ground, after lightning hits something-the tree for example-the same as for spots on the screen-the only real thing that has actually been proven is what happens when voltages hit the solid/hard surface, they do not prove the existence of electrons in any way, not even the slightest; they are simply directly observable effects of voltages when they hit hard/solid surface-facts-this is exactly the only things that you can actually conclude based on actual evidences, not based on models-again another misinterpretation-facts.
With my model, I make a prediction. That prediction comes true. Every time. That’s science.
EVERYTHING else you say after that first sentence is misguided.
My Answers: Just as I explained above, you did not predict the existence of electrons or the existence of anything else-again this is not science, pure science is not to create the model of electrons that do not exist and they are impossible to test with, but to offer the real and correct explanation on what truly experiments show and prove-and you cannot model electrons since the experiments do not prove their existence, since their existences can never be tested, and it cannot be even assumed and concluded logically to exist in the first place-facts.
You have just shown how you scientists misguide the entire civilization by saying our models predicted that and/or our experiments proved that and similar.
The biggest scam in entire history-based on lies, misconceptions and misinterpretation that all scientists so strongly believe without a shred of any real/true evidence at all-this is called religion-since they do not accept anything else that beats their hypotheses, models and their misninterpretations on what they experiment with.
This is why there is no surprise that science is stuck with their models in eternal loop, since there is literally almost nothing they have proved to exist in those models, plus everything what models offer to explain and “prove” to exist is also 100% untestable and 100% unprovable.
LikeLike
@Galacar, this is why I’ve been writing about our limitations on that forum, how can you actually know if they are atoms at all the exist?
Our preception is limited and our understanding is limited, and if there is anything what that true indian story about 3 blind people who have never seen or heard about the existence of elephants and elephants themsekves teaches us is the fact that what we can observe IS NOT WHAT IT IS-IN OTHER WORDS, SOMETHING THAT WE can directly observe to exist, we INTERPRET WITH OUR LIMITED PERCEPTIONS AND WITH OUT LIMITED EYEVISIONS IS WRONG interpretation, BECAUSE WE CAN NEVER PROVE WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS and what we actually directly observe, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN OBSERVE IT, SINCE WE CAN NEVER OBSERVE ENTIRE REALITY AROUND THE OBJECT THAT WE DIRECTLY OBSERVE-facts.
And if we cannot observe the entire reality around that object saying that what we see is proven to exist is true, but out interpretation of that object what exactly is 100% wrong.
I’m talkiing about atoms “seen” with scanning tunneling microscopes and with atomic force microscopes.
But the fact is we don’t know what these telsecopes can actually directly observe in the first place, sure scientists call them atoms, but what they are really?
There is not a shred of evidence for existence of any particle at all or anything at all on quantum levels in quantum mehcanics, and all those experiments that supposedly prove the existence of any particle at all pure BS, because it leads to different conclusions based on what exactly can you directly observe in experiments.
Example:
Read here my explanation and the facts and evidences what they truly show and prove in the first place:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-big-bang-theory-is-the-biggest-lie-in-the-western-world.158483/page-32#post-3440625
As you can see on this link, I simply follow evidences and interpretations that evidences show and prove, not what stupid models “show” and “prove”.
LikeLike
“We know that according to special relativity, the faster a clock moves, the slower the clock ticks.”
That is incorrect. It should read “the slower the clock appears to tick”. Remember that special relativity is a theory of measurement. It is the measurement of the travelling clock’s ticks that will be skewed, not the clock itself.
You, Twin A, with you clock, stationary on Earth, watch your brother Twin B with an identical and synchronized clock leave the Earth. As he travels away from you, accelerating, the light from his clock will take longer and longer to reach you, which will distort your perception of his reality. To your eye his clock will appear to tick slower.
However, on his return journey the opposite will occur. Between each actual tick of his clock he’ll have gotten closer to you, distorting the perception you have but in the opposite direction, i.e. his clock will appear to speed up, from where you stand.
When you are reunited you’ll find that your clocks are as synchronized as they ever were, and no one has mysteriously aged nor gotten younger. It was only the measurements that were relative, not reality itself.
LikeLike
This topic always interests me but my own simple reasoning is similar to Frank’s. According to current theory, the only place not moving at all is the center of the universe (everything else is moving away from it and around each other). As light has a speed limit, it then is reasonable to suggest that the ‘speed’ of the atomic clock will have an effect on the time it takes the clock to tick as the cobimbined speed cannot be greater than the speed of light. Therefore, although the clock ticks slower or faster, time never changes. You will not age differently, it is just that speed affects our methods of measuring time.
If anyone is unconvinced, assume an atomic clock is moving at light speed. It cannot tick because the atoms cannot ‘move’ relative to the clock. So although the clock stops, time remains unchanged as it still measures the speed of the clock.
Scientists also state that if someone moves away from you quickly, that they age slower, but in relative terms who is moving away from the who and therefore who ages slowly?
LikeLike
@Graham
I have a lot of trouble with the following:
“The centre of the universe”
duh? where is that ? It’s not the biggie bangie because there never was one.
“As light has a speed limit”
Does it? I don’t think so.
You talk about ‘time’ as if it is an absolute ‘something”
I see ‘time’ as non-existent in reality and being only a mental concept.
nothing more.
But I might be wrong of course. 😉
My two cents
Galacar
LikeLike
Galacar
Love the reply.
I do try to use terms that most people understand but do agree that time is not a thing and is just a measurement we use to quantify other things.
The two plane experiment does show something but those stating ‘time’ slows down are simply incorrect and it is the methods we use to quantity what time is that are flawed.
Great to chat with other open minded people.
LikeLike
Hello,
I am afraid that situation even worse.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7548
Nikolai
LikeLike