Happier Abroad Forum Community

The relativity bullshit is probably the best example of the “Emperor’s New Clothes” gambit, in that if you don’t accept it, you can just be said to not have the brainpower to understand it. Most debunkings of it require advanced knowledge of physics to understand. This one is good for those of us who have cursory knowledge of relativity and physics. You can ignore the Christian part at the end, although it almost certainly is true that relativity is yet another ploy by hand-rubbing Jews to destroy Western civilisation.

Einstein's theories are just fantasies. The proof they use to back it up, also lies or fantasy.

Judaism may have its problems, but relativity isn't one of them. The twin paradox is well known and is explained by acceleration. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

I remember raising this issue with my father when I was about 9 years old.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 10:16 pm

Judaism may have its problems, but relativity isn't one of them. The twin paradox is well known and is explained by acceleration. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

I remember raising this issue with my father when I was about 9 years old.

If there is no fixed point of reference, wouldn't it be equally valid to say the twin on Earth accelerated away and came back again while the twin in the rocket stayed in place? Don't concepts like acceleration and inertia imply a point of reference?

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 10:48 pm

If there is no fixed point of reference, wouldn't it be equally valid to say the twin on Earth accelerated away and came back again while the twin in the rocket stayed in place? Don't concepts like acceleration and inertia imply a point of reference?

No. Acceleration requires force. This is something that you can actually feel. No point of reference is needed.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:48 pm

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 10:48 pm

If there is no fixed point of reference, wouldn't it be equally valid to say the twin on Earth accelerated away and came back again while the twin in the rocket stayed in place? Don't concepts like acceleration and inertia imply a point of reference?

No. Acceleration requires force. This is something that you can actually feel. No point of reference is needed.

I would think that under relativity, it would be equally valid to say that the rest of the universe was having force applied to change its position relative to you rather than the other way round. Of course this is not the case, but that would seem to debunk relativity.

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:53 pm

I would think that under relativity, it would be equally valid to say that the rest of the universe was having force applied to change its position relative to you rather than the other way round.

No, relativity says that velocity is relative, not force and acceleration.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:58 pm

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:53 pm

I would think that under relativity, it would be equally valid to say that the rest of the universe was having force applied to change its position relative to you rather than the other way round.

No, relativity says that velocity is relative, not force and acceleration.

So explain force, inertia and acceleration, without respect to a frame of reference.

I'll take a look at it, though I doubt I have the physics chops to contribute intelligently to the conversation. But relativity, as I understand it, is premised on theories that have never been proven and probably aren't true -- gravity and the earth as a spinning ball orbiting the sun. Relativity functioned as another attempt to save these theories from the latest contradictions, in particular the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which failed to demonstrate that the earth is moving.

This reverse engineering to save the theory of a spinning, flying ball goes back at least to when Tyco Brahe pointed out that the stars should be in very different positions when the earth was on the other side of the sun after six months, yet they aren't. So presto, this ball that we see so clearly above and appears to be no more than a few thousand miles away, was deemed to be 93 million miles away -- a distance so great that the relative position of the stars wouldn't matter. And those stars, which we can also see, many billions of miles away -- so that the theory can work geometrically

The efforts over the centuries to make the theory work have been almost absurdly procrustean, and I suspect relativity is the same.

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 4:38 am

I'll take a look at it, though I doubt I have the physics chops to contribute intelligently to the conversation. But relativity, as I understand it, is premised on theories that have never been proven and probably aren't true -- gravity and the earth as a spinning ball orbiting the sun. Relativity functioned as another attempt to save these theories from the latest contradictions, in particular the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which failed to demonstrate that the earth is moving.

This reverse engineering to save the theory of a spinning, flying ball go back at least to when Tyco Brahe pointed out that the stars should be in very different positions when the earth was on the other side of the sun after six months, yet they aren't. So presto, this ball that we see so clearly above and appears to be no more than a few thousand miles away, was deemed to be 93 million miles away -- a distance so great that the relative position of the stars wouldn't matter. And those stars, which we can also see, many billions of miles away -- so that the theory can work geometrically

The efforts over the centuries to make the theory work have been almost absurdly procrustean, and I suspect relativity is the same.

That's what happens when people see and recognize the truth but refuse to acknowledge it and run away from it. Self deceivers are the worst in this regard. That's why you can't believe everything you hear, despite the fact that everyone else believes it. Many people have problems coming to the knowledge of the truth if it interferes with their egos.

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 1:33 am

So explain force, inertia and acceleration, without respect to a frame of reference.

If you have 2 guys, each with his own spaceship, then it is easy. The one who uses his rockets to accelerate will feel it. The one who doesn't accelerate won't feel anything. No frame of reference needed.

Unfortunately my nice simple answer falls apart if you introduce gravity. Gravity can produce the exact opposite result of what I said. Gravity can produce acceleration that one does't feel, and cause a feeling of acceleration when there isn't any. I guess that's why Einstein developed General Relativity after he did Special Relativity. And I don't understand General Relativity well enough to defend it, but I don't think the guy in the video or anyone else here understands it well enough to criticize it either.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 11:02 pm

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 1:33 am

So explain force, inertia and acceleration, without respect to a frame of reference.

If you have 2 guys, each with his own spaceship, then it is easy. The one who uses his rockets to accelerate will feel it. The one who doesn't accelerate won't feel anything. No frame of reference needed.

Unfortunately my nice simple answer falls apart if you introduce gravity. Gravity can produce the exact opposite result of what I said. Gravity can produce acceleration that one does't feel, and cause a feeling of acceleration when there isn't any. I guess that's why Einstein developed General Relativity after he did Special Relativity. And I don't understand General Relativity well enough to defend it, but I don't think the guy in the video or anyone else here understands it well enough to criticize it either.

Yes that’s the kicker. You postulate a theory abstruse enough, and then you say anyone who refutes it just doesn’t understand it, which is true because it was all bullshit from the start. The question is, why should this have even been taken seriously in the first place?

Let's delve into fantasy land, and visualize: Imagine SPACE, space travel, gravity in space, etc. Pure nonsense. Not one bit reproducible. It is fantasy.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:58 pm

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 28th, 2017, 11:53 pm

I would think that under relativity, it would be equally valid to say that the rest of the universe was having force applied to change its position relative to you rather than the other way round.

No, relativity says that velocity is relative, not force and acceleration.

Incorrect. If an object is traveling at a high enough percentage of the speed of light, it will undergo Lorenz transformations such that the density of the object would be sufficient to form a singularity or black hole. But to that object there would be no changes in mass or density due to Lorenz transformations. Therefore a black hole or singularity would simultaneously exist and not exist. There is no explanation of relative gravitational force or any accounting for this in Relativity Theory, save for an undeniable fact that the paradox must exist in that theory. I have presented simple calculations for this, clearly cited from original and secondary sources, and it stumps every physics PHD I have asked.

On a side note, I have a signed telegram sent by Einstein himself to my [step] grandfather in response to a similar but unrelated physics question. It's actually a source of perpetual amusement because for us (framed and hanging on my uncle's wall), because Einstein simply gave a dismissive hand wave and refused to answer the question! He had him stumped, LOL!

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 11:02 pm

Cornfed wrote: ↑

December 29th, 2017, 1:33 am

So explain force, inertia and acceleration, without respect to a frame of reference.

If you have 2 guys, each with his own spaceship, then it is easy. The one who uses his rockets to accelerate will feel it. The one who doesn't accelerate won't feel anything. No frame of reference needed.

The implied frame of reference is the point at which the two space ships started.