Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

User Name

New member
"The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No." -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/
 

gcthomas

New member
And that, as the saying goes, is that.

EU claims to be a replacement theory for modern physics, yet it makes no quantitative predictions, and the qualitative ones fail.

EU took a fatal head shoot from modern physics long ago, but its proponents believe that it still stagger on, headless. It's be sad if it wasn't so funny.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"The acid test of a scientific claim, I explained, is prediction and falsification. My friends at the nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for example, tell me they use both Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity theory in computing highly accurate spacecraft trajectories to the planets. If Newton and Einstein are wrong, I inquired of EU proponent Wallace Thornhill, can you generate spacecraft flight paths that are more accurate than those based on gravitational theory? No, he replied. GPS satellites in orbit around Earth are also dependent on relativity theory, so I asked the conference host David Talbott if EU theory offers anything like the practical applications that theoretical physics has given us. No." -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/

This, I suspect, is a fabrication. I'm NOT a proponent of the Electric Universe Theory but have seen and listened to enough of Thornhill to know that he would not have answered such a question with a yes or no answer. The question displays an ignorance of what the EU proposes that would not permit such a one sylable answer. He, for example, does not dispute Newtonian physics nor does he deny Relativity's usefulness is calculating such things as spacecraft tragectories and GPS coordinates, etc. Whether the guy is right or wrong, he isn't stupid. There are actually a great many predictions that the EU has made that have turned out to be consistent with observed and otherwise unexpected phenomina but you will not read about that on websites that on mainstream science websites such as Scientific American.

It isn't the EU's theory I like as much as it is their challenges to the Standard Model in general and to the Big Bang, Dark Energy and Dark Matter Theories in particular. The Standard Model simply keeps adding on ad hoc complication to their model when what they thought should happen doesn't (and vise versa).

In any case, if you want to debate the EU, start a new thread.

Clete
 

gcthomas

New member
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] is being blinded by his personal need for Physics to be wrong. His faith doesn't seem strong enough to let believe in a Young Earth without looking for the validation that a respected scientific theory could bring.

Although he is entitled to his own ideas and beliefs, he is not entitled to his own facts, and the rejection of almost the entirety of modern Physics is just that. He has his fingers in his ears, singing 'la la la, I can't hear you' whenever actual science and the scientific method is brought up.

He says that he likes the EU approach because it rejects modern physics, but 'liking the approach' is not a valid justification for accepting a proposal that doesn't even make quantitative predictions that can be tested. Whatever it is, it isn't remotely science.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"If you're going to use electricity to explain gravity, you need to explain why the rate at which something falls is independent of that object's charge (minus electric self-force), and also independent of that object's mass. Why do all objects near the Earth fall with the same acceleration?" -- https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18950/how-to-debunk-the-electric-universe

An object's charge would only affect the rate at which it falls due to gravity if there were an electric field acting on the object due to its charge.

If, for example, you were to drop two objects of equal mass through tubes made of a non-ferrous metal, like aluminum or copper, they would both fall through the tube at exactly the same rate unless one of them happens to be a magnet. A magnet would induce an electric current and thus a magnetic field as it moved through the metal tube resulting in a much slower rate of drop.

Also, nature tends to deal with forces in the most efficient way possible. So if a charged particle is dropping through the Earth's magnetic field, it may only effect the object's orientation in the field rather than its rate of drop depending on the strength of the charge and the field strength (and orientation).

Regardless, the fact that you can neglect electrical considerations when calculating orbits is a significant hurdle for the EUT (Electric Universe Theory) to overcome and the theory's proponents are fully aware of this and have made attempts to address it. I'm not familiar enough with the theory to articulate their explanations but their stuff is easy to find. Just go to their website and do a search there.

Clete
 

gcthomas

New member
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], I did look at their website.

They can't explain orbits.
They can't explain the continuous spectrum of the sun.
They can't produce a quantitative theory or numerical predictions.
They are producing lots of hot air.

Cranks, the lot of them.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Hi Nihilo.

Rather than spend scarce time watching Clete's crank alternative physics videos, you might enjoy this old Usenet Physics FAQ. It is really illuminating.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

Please ask me any follow up questions, and I'll do my best to help out.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/gold_color.html

This one was interesting. At the end of the article, it mentions that the reason mercury is liquid at standard conditions is also due to relativity. Does this have to do with electrons traveling at velocities that are nontrivial wrt relativity? (Their velocity is not the speed of light, but it is in the range 0.5c I think (I didn't verify).)
 

gcthomas

New member
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/gold_color.html

This one was interesting. At the end of the article, it mentions that the reason mercury is liquid at standard conditions is also due to relativity. Does this have to do with electrons traveling at velocities that are nontrivial wrt relativity? (Their velocity is not the speed of light, but it is in the range 0.5c I think (I didn't verify).)

Yes, the high speed changes their mass and orbital distances, which changes the position and energy of the outer electrons that are responsible for interactions with light and other atoms. For mercury, the outer electrons become more attached to their atom and less involved in attractions to neighbours. The effect is to reduce the melting point from 82°C without relativity to somewhere around -30°C, making it a liquid at room temperature.

This is a good recent summary:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind-mercurys-liquidity/6297.article
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Yes, the high speed changes their mass and orbital distances, which changes the position and energy of the outer electrons that are responsible for interactions with light and other atoms. For mercury, the outer electrons become more attached to their atom and less involved in attractions to neighbours. The effect is to reduce the melting point from 82°C without relativity to somewhere around -30°C, making it a liquid at room temperature.

This is a good recent summary:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind-mercurys-liquidity/6297.article
Wow.
An international team led by Peter Schwerdtfeger of Massey University Auckland in New Zealand used quantum mechanics to make calculations of the heat capacity of the metal either including or excluding relativistic effects. They showed that if they ignored relativity when making their calculations, the predicted melting point of mercury was 82°C. But if they included relativistic effects their answer closely matched the experimental value of -39°C.
This is like Bell's theorem type stuff right here, right? Where Bell's theorem distinguishes between Newtonian and quantum physics, mercury's melting point distinguishes between relativistic quantum and non-relativistic quantum, right?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes, the high speed changes their mass and orbital distances, which changes the position and energy of the outer electrons that are responsible for interactions with light and other atoms. For mercury, the outer electrons become more attached to their atom and less involved in attractions to neighbours. The effect is to reduce the melting point from 82°C without relativity to somewhere around -30°C, making it a liquid at room temperature.

This is a good recent summary:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/relativity-behind-mercurys-liquidity/6297.article
These "proofs" rely on the assumption of the truth of relativity.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
We know you don't understand what you post, so is it worth pointing out to you that a "test" of relativity does not establish it as reality?

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
 

User Name

New member
An object's charge would only affect the rate at which it falls due to gravity if there were an electric field acting on the object due to its charge.

If, for example, you were to drop two objects of equal mass through tubes made of a non-ferrous metal, like aluminum or copper, they would both fall through the tube at exactly the same rate unless one of them happens to be a magnet. A magnet would induce an electric current and thus a magnetic field as it moved through the metal tube resulting in a much slower rate of drop.

.
 

User Name

New member
I am not going to watch your youtube videos just because you post them. Give me the gist or don't waste your time posting it.

It's just a 4 minute video so worth the time to watch it. This is the summary:

"Magnetism seems like a pretty magical phenomenon. Rocks that attract or repel each other at a distance - that's really cool - and electric current in a wire interacts in the same way. What's even more amazing is how it works. We normally think of special relativity as having little bearing on our lives because everything happens at such low speeds that relativistic effects are negligible. But when you consider the large number of charges in a wire and the strength of the electric interaction, you can see that electromagnets function thanks to the special relativistic effect of length contraction. In a frame of reference moving with the charges, there is an electric field that creates a force on the charges. But in the lab frame, there is no electric field so it must be a magnetic field creating the force. Hence we see that a magnetic field is what an electric field becomes when an electrically charged object starts moving."
 
Top