Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!

[Mousetrap]

You go on the premise that supporters of Special and General relativity should judge someone who produced evidence that it is wrong.
What evidence? You haven't presented any "evidence." You've produced a claim that some dude is making money off a device that supposedly "adds" calculations to remove GR and SR when the whole system is already compensated such that ground-based devices don't need either to produce their answers. Don't pretend you know this stuff better than me.

But I dont.
I also do not have to produce any evidence anymore that SR is wrong when we have a much better scientist who already done it.

[Mousetrap]

It is as if you ask Pelosi and Waters to decide if Trump is correct in his economical reforms.
Pal, I suggest you get out of your brainwashed comfort zone, and question what others are telling you.

You first. You're the one who seems to take the words of the bible, the words of men, over the very universe your god supposedly created. You need to start listen to what the universe is telling you, not what the bible is telling you.

My dear HR,
If you think for one moment that Nature is in contrast with the Creator, or that only one of them can be true, it is you that are making the biggest apologetic error for atheism's existence.
All I did was to discover that not only did the Bible lay the foundation of all scientific discoveries in the last 500 years, but that it was available for over 3000 years.

I also learned that what atheists regard as the evidence against a Creator, was actually evidence they plagiarized from the Bible in the first instance from Newton and Kant!

It will for ever be a fallacy that atheists are somehow busy discovering the origins of the Universe.
they are attempting to find something that can disprove the need for a Creator of everything, but every time they do come up with some sop story, They create this hydra with 7 heads that can not be destroyed due to per pressure.

Anyhow, you can believe in Length contraction and Time dilation.
No problem.
Science will just overtake you and man will become more informed, and I know it will not be long before Einstein is proven incorrect, and SR abd GR gets posted to the past with Time dilation.

[Jason78]

It will for ever be a fallacy that atheists are somehow busy discovering the origins of the Universe.
they are attempting to find something that can disprove the need for a Creator of everything, but every time they do come up with some sop story, They create this hydra with 7 heads that can not be destroyed due to per pressure.

Then where exactly did your creator(s) do their work?  We've got a very good idea of what the early universe must have been like to produce the phenomena we see today and none of it requires the extra step of a creator.

Anyhow, you can believe in Length contraction and Time dilation.

You don't need to believe in it.  It's born out by every experiment.   

[Baruch]

But...but grants are such a convenient propagandists' stump.  It lets cranks cast doubt on the scientific consensus by claiming that their conclusions are driven by money.

NASA scientists are paid to say that the Earth is a sphere.
Climate scientists are paid to say that global warming is real.
Physicists are paid to say that special relativity is real.

You can cast doubt on anything by saying the magic word:  grants!

Who is buried in grants tomb?  The guy on the gassy knoll.

[Mousetrap]

Then where exactly did your creator(s) do their work?  We've got a very good idea of what the early universe must have been like to produce the phenomena we see today and none of it requires the extra step of a creator.

You don't need to believe in it.  It's born out by every experiment.

Hey Jason 78.
I was waiting for you my whole life mate.
So, how did the universe look like to produce a phenomena we see today.

Wait, Wait Wait!!!
I know how it looked!

Like nothing!

It was nothing!

So, how did we get from nothing to something?

When did science find out that everything came from nothing?
Who was first with this scientific claim?

Guess?
Dont know?

Mmmmmm...
I know.

[trdsf]

Soo...the researachers at CERN and Fermilab are concealing the truth that special relativity is bogus because otherwise they'd have to do automotive repair?  That's the narrative you're going with?

Do you even reality, bro?

Reality is one of the Seven Dirty Words in Mouseworld.  Reality, Logic, Reason, Sense, Repeatability, Mathematics and Tits... er, Data.

[Unbeliever]

"I found a solution, but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum." ;-)

[Hakurei Reimu]

But I dont.
I also do not have to produce any evidence anymore that SR is wrong when we have a much better scientist who already done it.

What makes you think that your scientist is "better?" Seriously, the only thing I've seen you claim for your boy is a feat that is a mere one order of magnitude improvement of a technique in common use for fine positioning when selective availability was in force.

Furthermore, your boy has an accuracy of only one part in 1.333 million, while the GPS satellites, with an orbit of ~20,000 km and can locate you within a 4.8 m sphere, have an accuracy of one part in ~4 million. That's why I called it "child's play."

Not only that, your "scientist" didn't tell NASA anything, much less that GR and SR need to be removed from GPS, because if he did, NASA would have told him that they didn't have anything to do with managing the GPS constellation and tell him to address the Pentagon. That's right. GPS is a military asset, which your scientist would have been clued in on if he had actually done what you claim he'd done. But he didn't because your story, that your scientist "told NASA" anything about GPS, is a lie.

In other words, your own story paints your "scientist" as a con man. You don't need a working device to run a con.

I also note that you have no comment that all the corrections to GPS are applied satellite-side. The relativity corrections are applied to keep the GPS clocks in synch to a similar atomic clock on the ground. There's no need to bother the GPS receiver with that, and as such, a GPS receiver can (and does) treat the signals it receives as if it were in the classical world, without taking into account SR and GR, because those corrections have already been applied.

No, no. Your boy "removing" the SR and GR calculations don't prove jack shit. They're not there to remove.

My dear HR,
If you think for one moment that Nature is in contrast with the Creator, or that only one of them can be true, it is you that are making the biggest apologetic error for atheism's existence.

What I'm saying, you moron, is that if you really believed that the Creator created the universe, then it is simply insane to believe that the Bible should be believed over the observations of said universe.

After all, the universe is a lot harder for man to rewrite than the Bible.

The only reason you are trying to fit the universe to the bible is because the universe is at odds with what the bible says, and you are trying to hold onto your favorite book of fairy tales. If you really were serious about figuring out what God had in mind in creating the universe, scientific conclusions being at odds with the Bible wouldn't bother you in the slightest, because it is the scientific conclusions that are exhaustively tested against the very universe you think is the purest expression of God's will.

All I did was to discover that not only did the Bible lay the foundation of all scientific discoveries in the last 500 years, but that it was available for over 3000 years.

Any book that claims to be the end-all and be-all of knowledge is not the "foundation" of science. Science is primarily a method of finding things out, by testing your ideas against reality, not some book. Christianity has been holding the primacy of the Bible since day one of the Renaissance.

I also learned that what atheists regard as the evidence against a Creator, was actually evidence they plagiarized from the Bible in the first instance from Newton and Kant!

You still sticking with the story that Newton and Kant got their inspiration from the Bible? The great inspiration for Kant that he was oddly silent about? The great inspiration for Newton that he also doesn't credit? Sure, guy, pull the other one. We know that Newton and Kant were Christians, but that doesn't say anything about what they can contribute to science.

Like I said before, you can scrape any source at all for any inspiriation you want, so long as you test those ideas against reality. That's what makes something science and not mere assertion. If an idea doesn't hold up to experiment, it's wrong, even if it comes from the Bible.

It will for ever be a fallacy that atheists are somehow busy discovering the origins of the Universe.
they are attempting to find something that can disprove the need for a Creator of everything, but every time they do come up with some sop story, They create this hydra with 7 heads that can not be destroyed due to per pressure.

I like it how you think you have this great insight into the minds of atheists. No, Christian scientists are trying to find out the origin of the universe, too, even if they believe in God, because 'Goddidit' doesn't satisfy even the Christian scientist's thirst for knowledge.

This notion that you can only seek a godless origin of the universe if your a godless atheist needs to die, because it's simply not true. It's just a story you tell yourself to give you the excuse not to search further and learn deeper.

Anyhow, you can believe in Length contraction and Time dilation.
No problem.
Science will just overtake you and man will become more informed, and I know it will not be long before Einstein is proven incorrect, and SR abd GR gets posted to the past with Time dilation.

If there comes a day when Einstein is struck down, I will be happy because that means we can have Warp drives and all the coolness that comes with it. Further, if it happens, I will know long before you do when the day comes and what finally does Einstein in. This is because I understand the theory and know where to look for the cracks in its foundation. I'll be way ahead of you.

It is a statement of supreme arrogance to think that YOU know that your boys have the right mavrick idea, out of all the fringe thinkers that are in every scientific field. The only reason you would be right is if you are lucky, not because you "know" anything more than I do. You've never been able to articulate WHY classical mechanics has to be right other than assertion, assertion, assertion. An assertion is worth next to nothing. A specific experiment that cracks the foundation is needed, but you've never been able to give me a reference to any paper that does this. You don't have a Michelson-Morley experiment of your own. All you have is an alleged improvement in accuracy by some chump who thinks that NASA runs the GPS constellation.

So yeah, you may be right, and winged monkeys may come flying out my butt, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mousetrap]

I also learned that what atheists regard as the evidence against a Creator, was actually evidence they plagiarized from the Bible in the first instance from Newton and Kant!

You still sticking with the story that Newton and Kant got their inspiration from the Bible? The great inspiration for Kant that he was oddly silent about? The great inspiration for Newton that he also doesn't credit? Sure, guy, pull the other one. We know that Newton and Kant were Christians, but that doesn't say anything about what they can contribute to science.

Like I said before, you can scrape any source at all for any inspiriation you want, so long as you test those ideas against reality. That's what makes something science and not mere assertion. If an idea doesn't hold up to experiment, it's wrong, even if it comes from the Bible.

Was Kant silent about his Nebular theory?
Well, I tried to count the times he referred to the Biblical God, the Biblical narratives, the Flood, etc.
If I were to remove these references from his Natural History of the Universe based on Newtonian principles, It will be unintelligible.

On Newton, a man who claims that he could not find any errors in the Bible in his lifetime, even when compared with theoretical and experimental science, says something about you and Newton and Kant.

It says, Mouse trap, who should you believe?

Newton and Kant...or this scientists that  claims the Bible is a mere fairy tale?

Now, my advice to you is this.
Go back and question your foolish scientists that propose the Bible is wrong, AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
GET OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE AND PROVE NEWTON WRONG BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE THE BIBLE.

And if you claim Newton was wrong on the authentication he underwrote to the Bible, you can just as well delete all his scientific work also.

Oh, I forgot, you and Einstein did just that.

[Mousetrap]

Reality is one of the Seven Dirty Words in Mouseworld.  Reality, Logic, Reason, Sense, Repeatability, Mathematics and Tits... er, Data.

You obviously got it all wrong sir.
Reality is something you call Relativity.
Logic is something you call creation ex nihil.
Reason is something you call, Communism.
Sense is something you call, evolutionary Instinct.
Repeat-ability is something you call Atheist Propaganda.
Mathematics is something you call 0=+1-1 (Matter and anti matter)
Tits is something you call whore, forgetting you have them too.

[Shiranu]

God, you are dull.

[Baruch]

You obviously got it all wrong sir.
Reality is something you call Relativity.
Logic is something you call creation ex nihil.
Reason is something you call, Communism.
Sense is something you call, evolutionary Instinct.
Repeat-ability is something you call Atheist Propaganda.
Mathematics is something you call 0=+1-1 (Matter and anti matter)
Tits is something you call whore, forgetting you have them too.

See, mixing politics with the search for objective knowledge.  Isn't that Lysenkoism?  Isn't that Reich culture?  Mixing emotion with reason is ... crankiness.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Was Kant silent about his Nebular theory?

Kent was pretty silent about his Nebular theory coming from the bible. I read his work on the topic. He never credits the bible for his Nebular hypothesis. (Because a hypothesis is just a hypothesis until you support it with evidence.) Instead, he credits Thomas White.

Well, I tried to count the times he referred to the Biblical God, the Biblical narratives, the Flood, etc.
If I were to remove these references from his Natural History of the Universe based on Newtonian principles, It will be unintelligible.

Like I said before, I think of the two of us, I'm the only one who actually read Kant's paper. I even noted that he makes lots of references to the Creator. I also never read that he makes any assertion one way or another about the Flood. The Flood, after all, occurred long after the Earth was formed. So, yeah, I think you can drop all the references to the Creator, the biblical narratives (which are hardly mentioned at all, so no prob), the Flood and all that and it will still be quite intelligible.

On Newton, a man who claims that he could not find any errors in the Bible in his lifetime, even when compared with theoretical and experimental science, says something about you and Newton and Kant.

Newton was not a perfect man and neither was Kant. They both built upon the work of others, and others built upon their work. Some of their work is going to be proved wrong, and anyone who is uncomfortable with that fact shouldn't be in science.

Newton was an asshole. When his peers argued against him, instead of taking it with calm and poise, he threw a hissy-fit and started keeping his research to himself, including his work on alchemy and biblical chronology. (Yeah, he believed in alchemy, too. Both of those particular works are largely forgotten.) He eventually got a job working as Warden and then Master for the Royal Mint, which he considered his most important work.

It says, Mouse trap, who should you believe?

Newton and Kant...or this scientists that  claims the Bible is a mere fairy tale?

Even Isaac Newton, asshole he was, and Immanuel Kant acknowledged that they built upon the work of others, and that others will build upon them. I think they always had the sense that their work may be superceeded. (Though, again, Newton was an asshole.)

Now, my advice to you is this.
Go back and question your foolish scientists that propose the Bible is wrong, AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
GET OUT OF YOUR COMFORT ZONE AND PROVE NEWTON WRONG BEFORE YOU CRITICIZE THE BIBLE.

I've read enough of Ronald Hatch's stuff to figure out that all he has done is built an elaborate mathematical reformulation of GR and SR and insisting that they're not GR and SR and that everything observed is merely "apparent." He does not contest that the effects of SR and GR are observed, he merely insists that they are only a seeming. But his physics is no more Newtonian than Einstein's relativity.

Furthermore, such mathematical wizardry not interesting from a scientific perspective, which explains why his citations on such articles are very low, in the single or double digits for each article. After all, if you're attacking one of the main pillars of physics with any kind of veracity, you're going to be talked about, even if you are only talked about to be rubbished. Also, his own works account for a sizable chunk of those citations.

I think physicists can see through the little mathematical games he's playing and are thinking, "How cute!"

I've already addressed your "He told NASA!" canard: it's a fabrication, on either your part or his. Because otherwise, your canard would be "He told the Pentagon!"

Now, this doesn't mean that Hatch can't produce good science despite his crankery. His being able to plow a row with 15 mm accuracy over 20 km is impressive. However, it is over a range where both SR and GR effects would vanish into the noise â€" a field doesn't ascend the gravity well very far and farm equipment makes snails look speedy. It's also not that good compared to what could have been done a few decades ago.

As to proving Newton wrong, here is a list of things that are impossible in Newton's mechanics:

• Mass-energy equivalence. Demonstrated in particle accelerators all the time. Demonstrated in nuclear physics all the time. Newtonian mechanics has no account for how any object can lose mass without shedding material, or how mass can seemingly be created out of nothing. Einstein's relativity can and does.
• The Mitchelson-Morley experiment. I hate to keep bringing it up, but it's still something that is impossible in Newtonian mechanics. M-M ought to have seen the fringing in their apparatus at some point along the Earth's orbit, and they thoroughly investigated the lack of fringing to see if they were simply extremely unlucky. Nope. Null result all around.
• The relativistic Doppler effect. The observed relativistic Doppler effect cannot be explained in the framework of Newtonian physics. As I showed a couple of replies ago, the relativistic Doppler effect implies time dilation.
• Relativistic particles do not decay as rapidly as their still counterparts. Muons created in the upper atmosphere have an anomalously long half-life compared to muons produced in the laboratory, and as such, their numbers reaching sea-level are anomalously high if Newtonian mechanics is true.
• The sheer number of successful theories that use SR as a core assumption. For instance, you cannot explain the observed mass limits of either white dwarfs or neutron stars without relativity, otherwise degeneracy pressure can increase without limit and does not contribute to self-gravity, meaning that white dwarf and neutron star is stable regardless of mass. But we observe no white dwarf above the Chandrasekar limit, and no neutron star larger than its own equivalent limit. Relativity has unreasonable success for one that is supposedly way wrong. (It may be a little wrong, but not "It's just apparent and its really Newton" wrong.)
• The fact that no particle has ever been propelled to above light speed. The proton weighing in at 1.6726219e-27 kg, it should take a mere 469 MeV (469e6 eV) to boost it to lightspeed, which was well within the energy limits of Brookhaven National Laboratory's Cosmotron (3.3 GeV/3.3e9 eV) in operation during the mid-fifties. But the LHC (most powerful accelerator in the world) boosts protons to 6.5 TeV (6.5e12 eV), and they still go a bee's dick below c. This is not consistent with Newton. Also, all reports of neutrinoes exceeding lightspeed have so far been discovered to be experimental error.
• The fact that you can do physics in Lorentz transformed reference frames and their results apply across families. The description of apparent Lorentz transformations that Hatch aludes to implies that you can't do physics in the transformed frame and expect their results to transfer to others. The real Lorentz transformation not only allows you to transform into another frame, but if you apply the same physics to all those disparate frames, the results will be the respective Lorentz transforms of each other as well.
• GR makes a stronger assertion: that all coordinate systems are equivalent. Through the tensor calculus, GR and SR can be formulated in a coordinate-free way, without the need to transform anything until you're trying to find answers in a particular coordinate system. In a way, Hatch isn't far off from the truth, that the effects of SR and GR are "apparent," but only in the sense that all coordinate systems are a matter of convenience. Physicists have known this since Einstein's GR, which was formulated in tensor calculus.

So, yeah, Newton was wrong, and if you want to tie Newton's mechanics to the Bible so badly, I guess that makes the Bible wrong, too. That's what you get for idolotry.

About that Bible, though. I have one more thing to say here. The Bible makes the observation that (in a world where the fastest things were horses, light not yet being identified as something with speed) the world does seem to not care what man does to change times and lengths. A particular road to Cairo from Jerusalem would measure the same regardless who is traveling it (discounting measurement inaccuracies), and time would march regardless of what man did. Thus, even if Newton were strictly true at all speeds, it would be an obvious observation that makes it uninteresting. Thus, even if Einstein was struck down, the Bible would be true, but not interesting, and keeping with my mantra. As it happens, the current state of science has the Bible as neither true nor interesting here.

And if you claim Newton was wrong on the authentication he underwrote to the Bible, you can just as well delete all his scientific work also.

Oh, I forgot, you and Einstein did just that.

Einstein, I, and the entire scientific community did not claim that the Newton was wrong because he was underwriting the bible. We claim that Newton was wrong because he didn't have the full picture. It wasn't even until 1862 when the speed of light was definitively measured to be definitely somewhat less than 300 thousand kilometers per second. Newton had no access to speeds that would make the effects of relativity measurable to his instruments, so that he didn't foresee the effects of relativity is understandable.

It's also no detriment on Newton that he was ultimately proved wrong. (His personal behavior, however, is another story.) He did the best job he could and came up with a paradigm that lasted three hundred years, and only fell when we had access to speeds and phenomena that were unavailable to Newton.

Even today, Newton's physics is still a good approximation of physics for ordinary speeds (even up to orbital speeds), which is why you're taught Newton's mechanics in high school physics. Newton worked in a world where absolute time and space was obvious, and his work reflected that. Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean its true.

You would do well to keep this in mind.

[Hydra009]

Go back and question your foolish scientists that propose the Bible is wrong

This statement right here says a lot about how you think (and not think) and none of it is good.

"Your scientists."

As if they are owned by a certain ideological group.  It also hasn't escaped my attention how you talk about "Christian scientists" as if those terms have much significance to each other.  It's all reminiscent of Nazi-era grouping of science into "Jewish science" and "Aryan science", with Aryan scientists celebrated while Jewish scientists are vilified.

And lastly, your conclusion is that these scientists - the ones who belong to us heathens exclusively - are foolish.  Why?  Because they propose that the Bible is wrong (heaven forbid).  Here we see an ideology where everything is built around the assumption that Bible is inerrant and everything else judged accordingly.  Naturally, atheists are the great villains of this ideology.

[Baruch]

If one sees everything as politics, then even American football events are just conspiracies against the R party.  Not everything is politics, thought it seems so to one kind of psychopath.