New efforts!

[Taceus Jiwede]

Domesticate this, kitty kat!

https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.failfunnies.com%2F27%2Fimages%2Fpsycho-dog-funny.jpg

The red bow is such a nice touch.  This is the second time today I pushed the thread into the next page with an animal picture in a quote.  Good day.

Joshex should collaborate with Terrence Howard, I think.

Terrance McKenna maybe

[Thunder Glove]

Domesticate this, kitty kat!

https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.failfunnies.com%2F27%2Fimages%2Fpsycho-dog-funny.jpg

Huh, related to this guy?
https://images.weserv.nl/?url=vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fmaafanficuniverse%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fa7%2FMakeshift_villain.jpg

[Arcana]

I don't see a lot of tests and money put in to falsifying relativity, no one out there is trying to see if it can be broken, well except me.

People have been trying to falsify relativity for a hundred years.  There's a Nobel prize in it for anyone who can come up with a better description of physics.  The fact that you don't see it means exactly nothing, given your lack of ability to see anything else of any consequence, like the wikipedia article for Cherenkov radiation.

The problem is that while there were many early attempts to prove relativity to be false, over time the sheer number of quantitative and qualitative predictions that relativity makes that have been repeatedly confirmed by experiment significantly constrain any other competing theory, so current competing theories tend to differ from relativity in esoteric and currently unverifiable ways.  Non-flat spacetime geometry has been verified experimentally.  Lorentz contraction has been verified experimentally.  Frame dragging, time dilation, gravitational lensing - any competing theory has to not just predict that these things happen because these things happen but must make the same quantitative predictions as relativity to the same decimal point as relativity.

In principle, it is really easy to prove either special relativity or general relativity wrong.  Just read the theories, determine what predictions the theories make, and find one that differs from what reality actually does that can be verified by experiment.  All it takes is one.  The only small problem is that tens of thousands of people have collectively spent hundreds of thousands of man-years testing every prediction of relativity and haven't found one that is contradicted by reality.

Reality is the final arbiter of whether a scientific theory is valid.  Relativity isn't taken on faith or dogma.  Every prediction it makes we can experimentally verify to be true.  That's your real problem.  Nobody cares about whatever it is that goes on in your head, and no one ever will.  The only thing that matters is whether you can create a theory that makes better predictions than existing scientific theories.  Predictions that can be verified through experiments.  Einstein's theories have withstood the test of time, and they are still continuing to be tested.  LIGO is testing relativity's predictions of gravitational waves, not just that they exist but at what magnitudes and in what waveforms the theory predicts.

Casting everyone else who just can't recognize your brilliance as simple dogmatic worship of a false scientific god is insulting.  It is the cry of a child who can't get mommy and daddy's attention.  You are held to the same standard as everyone else, including Einstein.  Einstein published his theories in full.  Einstein openly discussed all challenges to his theories out in the open.  Einstein used his theories to make predictions which were open to the entire scientific community to either verify or refute.  Einstein placed the fate of relativity in the hands of the scientific method, and both special relativity and general relativity faced extremely strong and extremely persistent challenges.  In all cases, experimental results were the determining factor in who won those challenges.  Einstein's relativity won all those challenges, which is why he is respected.  You hide your ideas behind smoke screens and excuses, you fail to come up with any ideas that aren't trivially easy to refute, you consistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basic concepts, you don't acknowledge any refutation of any of your ideas except to change the subject and most importantly you have failed miserably to assert a single thing that contradicts existing physics and can be experimentally confirmed.  And that is why you are justifiably condescended.  That has nothing to do with your stature relative to Einstein's.  That is purely the result of your own merit, specifically the lack thereof.

One last thing.  Einstein was unwilling to accept quantum mechanics and spent the latter half of his career trying to refute it.  If what scientific dogma is was based solely on reputation or worship we'd all have thrown out quantum mechanics.  The problem is that quantum mechanics also makes predictions, and in fact (because of the nature of those predictions, not because of any intrinsic property of the theory) quantum mechanics makes predictions that have been verified to even higher precision than relativity (relativistic predictions tend to be harder to measure with the same degree of precision).  Not just Einstein, but a lot of contemporary physicists believed that quantum mechanics was simply too counter-intuitive to possibly be right.  But predictions are the final arbiter of whether a scientific theory is accepted.  Quantum mechanics makes predictions, and all of them so far have been verified, including highly non-intuitive predictions that appear to make no sense - but actually happen.  Quantum mechanics is the gold standard of how the scientific method works.  No matter how many scientists disagree with a theory, no matter what the reputations of the scientists working for or against it, no matter what the current existing dogma is, eventually if the theory keeps making predictions no other theory can make and keeps getting them right, that's the theory that will win out.  That's the only thing that matters.

Even today, there are a lot of physicists that hate quantum mechanics and believe that it cannot possibly be right, that there must be a better theory that does a better job of explaining reality but without the intuitive problems quantum mechanics has.  They would love to construct such a theory.  The problem they face is that there's a giant mountain of data confirming quantum mechanics.  Any theory they might construct to replace it has to first explain all of that data just as well or better than quantum mechanics.  So far, no such theory has come even close, and not for lack of trying by some of the smartest people in the world.

[Arcana]

Seems like 2 different kettles of fish there to me.

No, its actually the same kettle of fish.  The thing about experiments testing relativity is that there's no such thing as an experiment "designed to prove it right" that is distinct from one designed to prove it wrong.  When we test gravitational frame dragging, for example, relativity predicts a rotational precession of exactly X.  If the experiment shows that frame dragging does happen, but the amount is Y instead of X, then relativity is wrong.  When Joshex says people are testing to see if relativity is right but not if relativity is wrong he displays a complete lack of understanding of what an experiment even is, and how the scientific method works.

Every experiment designed to test one of relativity's predictions is explicitly designed to allow experimenters to tell if the results differ from what relativity predicts.  The whole point of those experiments is to show that if reality deviates from relativitistic predictions the experiment would find that.  Every experiment that doesn't find such a variance is a confirmation of the theory.  Confirmation doesn't prove the theory correct, it demonstrates that the theory passes one specific test.  Scientific theories aren't really proven true, they survive so many tests that could falsify them that they become accepted as unlikely to be false.  If the experiments could only demonstrate relativity true but had no ability to demonstrate relativity false they would be meaningless experiments and not considered particularly valid.

Even LIGOS the gravitational wave detector, was capable of demonstrating relativity wrong.  That experiment has a certain level of sensitivity and that level has been increasing over time as they continue to tune and improve the experiment.  LIGOS current sensitivity is such that it should be capable of detecting certain kinds of gravitational wave signatures predicted by relativity.  If LIGOS had seen *nothing* that would actually have been taken as strong evidence that relativity was wrong in at least one area.  A lack of a signal would be evidence that relativity could not be completely right as we currently understand the theory.  In other words, LIGOS was capable of falsifying relativity.

In fact, even the single signal LIGOS announced detection for isn't the end of the story.  Having seen a signal within its detection threshold, the question now is whether it will continue to see more signals at a frequency consistent with the predictions of astronomers who have calculated the approximate rate that such events are likely to occur in the universe.  If it doesn't continue to detect signals at roughly that frequency, that would suggest that either relativity has a flaw or astronomers are wrong in their models of stellar configurations.  Science is, contrary to Joshex's wildly incorrect beliefs, always continuing to test the predictions made by all of its scientific theories.  That's how science progresses.

[LateNights]

"Nah..."

[darkgob]

the speed of light being the max speed that physical objects can attain is one such blockade, a lot of work has been done to attempt to solidify it as fact, yet not a lot of contrary tests were done. It's even forbidden to hypothesize "what would happen if light did move faster than this proposed speed?" Forbidden! how dare we even think it, our glorious emperor deserves better of you!

People have been trying to falsify relativity for a hundred years.

Including Einstein himself; the entire foundation of many of his thought experiments was along the lines of, "what would happen if a train could move at light speed?"  This is admittedly nothing close to actual experimentation, but it did inform his work, and the point is that someone did have those "contrary" thoughts (yes, even before you graced the world with your existence, Joshex).

I'm still curious about how Joshex thinks GPS satellites work.

Reality is the final arbiter of whether a scientific theory is valid.

And reality has a well-known liberal bias, it's sickening really.

[Baaleos]

Do you think it would be appropriate to make a new thread for all the science stuff?
It would make it easier, when Joshex finds the secrets of the universe, to chronicle and then publish his works.

[darkgob]

Maybe just a Joshex quarantine thread.

[Shibboleth]

Einstein, Planck, Schroedinger, Heisenberg: physics has GONE TO THE GERMANS.

Austria is part of Germany?

:p

[ivanhedgehog]

its a suburb

[Felderburg]

I always thought "gone to the Americans" meant the game would be "gone, to the Americans," not "gone *to* the Americans." The result of jerk hackers making the game so messed up or unprofitable that the publisher would take it off the shelves, and to the american point of view, it would be gone.

In a direct agreement with your post, I don't believe people should stop trying. Instead we need to find other methods to definitively find out what is actually inside our 'clock' (what makes our universe actually 'tick') there are some tell-tale signs no one has noticed that can be used to measure and predict such.

I think Arcana responded quite well to your post. But I just have to wonder why you don't actually publish anything, if you can see these tell-tale signs no one else can. It makes you look bad, and is a disservice to the world if you are truly right.

[Biz]

Austria is part of Germany?

:p

its a suburb

https://mystery756.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/som-dinnerscene-captain.jpg

[Ulysses Dare]

Czechoslovakia is no longer, it is known as Czech Republic and Slovakia is a country in it's own right  ;)

Mea culpa, I haven't keep up with the changes in geography as well as I should have.  But as Aggelakis says:

But Joshex isn't subject to spacetime.

.... it's not really an issue. :)

[Vee]

No, its actually the same kettle of fish.

The kettles I was referring to were from Joshex's

the speed of light being the max speed that physical objects can attain is one such blockade, a lot of work has been done to attempt to solidify it as fact, yet not a lot of contrary tests were done. It's even forbidden to hypothesize "what would happen if light did move faster than this proposed speed?" Forbidden! how dare we even think it, our glorious emperor deserves better of you!

Namely, that the question of whether the speed of light in a vacuum is the max speed of physical objects and the question of whether c actually is the speed of light in a vacuum seem to be different questions requiring different secretive tinfoil hat and anti-illuminati cage experiments.

[Arcana]

The kettles I was referring to were from Joshex's Namely, that the question of whether the speed of light in a vacuum is the max speed of physical objects and the question of whether c actually is the speed of light in a vacuum seem to be different questions requiring different secretive tinfoil hat and anti-illuminati cage experiments.

Technically speaking, relativity doesn't directly state that no object can move faster than the speed of light, even though some people (even physicists) make that claim.  But relativity does assert that time is relative: time passes at different rates for different observers and there is no such thing as a universal time that all events can be measured by.  As a consequence of the specific mathematics involved, if you could send messages faster than light (via particles, waves, whatever) that would violate the law of casuality: specifically it would no longer be true that for all observers a casuality chain (where event A causes event B) would be preserved.  It would be possible for some observers to see A cause B and others to see B cause A.  It is possible to construct scenarios where you send a message and you get the reply before you sent it.  This causes all sorts of problems for physics, and a universe in which causality isn't preserved is difficult to reconcile.

When you combine that with the equations of special relativity as they pertain to the forces required to accelerate fast moving objects, you get the strong implication that faster than light travel isn't possible.  It is not possible to conventionally accelerate a massive particle to the speed of light because it takes an infinite amount of energy to do so.  All massless particles are confined to move at exactly the speed of light.  And general relativity says causality breaks down if faster than light transmission of information is possible.  Colloquially, that's close enough to "relativity says nothing can move faster than the speed of light" but it is more complicated than that if you dig deeper.

The question of whether the speed of light is actually the defined constant c is actually a little bit trickier than it might seem, but basically c is actually derivable from Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism (it is SQRT(1/(e*m)) where e here is the electrostatic permeability of the vacuum and m is the magnetic permeability of the vacuum).  As long as you accept the evidence that light is an electromagnetic wave, its velocity in the vacuum will be c.  If you assume, as Einstein did, that the laws of electromagnetism are observed to be the same for all observers, then the fact that c is always measured to be the same is logically consistent.

Experiments confirming the latter have been conducted many times over many years.  For the former, not so much.  A mandatory requirement for testing that assertions appears to be to first invent a warp drive.  That's a fairly high experimental hurdle.

[Arcana]

Austria is part of Germany?

:p

Schrodinger was Viennese, wasn't he?  Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a census taker.

[Vee]

A mandatory requirement for testing that assertions appears to be to first invent a warp drive.  That's a fairly high experimental hurdle.

Only for run-of-the-mill scientists. Once you've constructed a viable anti-illuminati cage a warp drive is trivially easy. The main hurdle isn't the warp drive itself but the construction of an anti-illuminati cage big enough to use it in. If you warp out of the cage any results would of course be contaminated.

[Angel Phoenix77]

the speed of light being the max speed that physical objects can attain is one such blockade, a lot of work has been done to attempt to solidify it as fact, yet not a lot of contrary tests were done. It's even forbidden to hypothesize "what would happen if light did move faster than this proposed speed?" Forbidden! how dare we even think it, our glorious emperor deserves better of you!

Actually that is not true anymore, science has discovered particles that travel faster then the speed of light. And if I remember my science classes particles are solid just cannot be seen by the naked eye.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

[Arcana]

Only for run-of-the-mill scientists. Once you've constructed a viable anti-illuminati cage a warp drive is trivially easy. The main hurdle isn't the warp drive itself but the construction of an anti-illuminati cage big enough to use it in. If you warp out of the cage any results would of course be contaminated.

Actually the warp drive is easier.  Because once you build the warp drive you can use it to send the warp drive to before you started building the warp drive, allowing you to have a warp drive to copy.

[Ulysses Dare]

Actually that is not true anymore, science has discovered particles that travel faster then the speed of light. And if I remember my science classes particles are solid just cannot be seen by the naked eye.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

Those results have since been disproven: Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly