Two Errors In Relativity

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
We don't just "not know" what Dark Matter is, there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever. It's nothing but fantasy, made up to save a model that has unbelievably huge gaps in it and was flawed from the get go.

The most direct evidence for the existence of dark matter, which also invalidates some competing theories like MOND:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

direct evidence that dark matter is as real as the rings around Saturn

a team of scientists working with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found direct evidence that dark matter is as real as the rings around Saturn.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Einstein is said to later have called the cosmological constant "the biggest blunder" of his life, but off course that too is now validated by the fantasy of Dark Energy.

It was beyond our ability to detect in Einstein's lifetime but yes it's true that "his biggest blunder" may not have been a blunder after all since it now appears there's evidence to support the cosmological constant, and this idea meshes conceptually with other theories that the vacuum should have some energy, though a model to predict the correct amount of energy in space remains elusive so we are stuck with experimental measurements. As I said it all boils down to what's supported by experiments. It should seem like less of a blunder now that there's experimental evidence for it, why should that concept be difficult?

The truth is he was an electrical engineer not a scientists. In fact often when he tried to get into science he was wrong and even came up with out right crazy ideas as to how he thought things worked. Even at the time scientists knew he was wrong his genius was in the fact he could take any electrical system and improve it. But ironically didnt even understand electricity as to what it is being electrons. and how these electrons formed electricity.


Dark matter isnt made up we know its there it shows on are instruments we see its effects on things around it. Trust me they would much rather have it not be there and relativity be wrong. But this mass shows when we look and relativity explains it next time you might not want to help the side your arguing against.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So if there is an aether like structure, what is Einstein's excuse for "not being able to detect the motion of the Earth with any optical experiment", when the Michelson/Morley showed that the Earth is stationary based on the existence of an aether.

And like I asked earlier, what actual proof that the Earth is moving did he base his theory on?

All he basically did is say that "just because you don't hear it moving, or feel it moving, or see it moving, and can't detect any motion with any optical experiment.........it doesn't mean it is not moving.

Just because you see objects moving across the sky, doesn't mean they are moving across the sky, it is all relative......."

So how did you prove that the Earth is moving?

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So if there is an aether like structure, what is Einstein's excuse for "not being able to detect the motion of the Earth with any optical experiment", when the Michelson/Morley showed that the Earth is stationary based on the existence of an aether.

If there is phlogiston in metals, and metals lose phlogiston when they burn, how is it that some metals gain mass when they burn?

The answer is that there is no phlogiston and it's also the answer to your question if you substitute "luminiferous aether" for phlogiston. If the whole question is predicated on the existence of a substance which has been shown to not exist then the rest of the question becomes irrelevant, or if there is any relevance it alludes to evidence that the postulated substance doesn't exist.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
And like I asked earlier, what actual proof that the Earth is moving did he base his theory on?

As I said before, Einstein himself provided little proof of his own theories. Other people typically made the observations and experiments which were consistent with his theories, not Einstein himself.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So aether doesn't exist is now your answer?

a reply to: BakedCrusader

In our everyday life, all waves require a medium to travel in. sound waves, water waves, you name it.

so when it was discovered that light was a wave, and could even travel across a vacuum, there was no medium in the vacuum for the wave to travel in! the ether was proposed to explain this - an invisible fluid-like substance that permeates all the universe, and it is through this fluid that light waves move. essentially the question was: "if light is a wave, what is waving?" the ether was the answer.

ok, so that's all well and good, and nobody knew whether it was true or not for a long time.

However Michelson and Morley did an experiment in 1887 that pretty much showed that there was no ether, and that light therefore could be understood as not requiring a medium. this understanding has been borne out by many other experiments that are consistent with an absence of the ether.

here are some cool pages that explain the essentials of the michelson-morley experiment:

galileoandeinstein.physics.virgin......

scienceworld.wolfram.com...

answers.yahoo.com...

In relation to the above the term "Ether", refers to the Aether.

a reply to: Kashai

Yes?

So how did MM prove no aether? Another conclusion is that Earth must be stationary, but they simply ignore that and come to the conclusion that there must be no ether, and simply state that electromagnetic waves don't need a medium to propagate through.......I like how your source adds that in everyday life a wave needs a medium, but since the experiment's biased conclusion makes that impossible, we should simply ignore that.

So please give me the definition of this non-existent aether.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


Light does not need a medium..

Light contrasts with sound, which travels through the air (or some other material medium). If you're stationary with respect to the air, then the speed of sound is the same in all directions. But if you're moving with respect to the air, the speed of sound will be the same in all directions relative to the air---which means that sound coming up in front of you will seem faster and sound catching up to you from behind will seem slower.

If light were a disturbance in a medium, it would exhibit the same behavior. But light never does---its speed is the same under all circumstances. So it does you no good to postulate an aether. You can still do it, but it makes the theory more complicated than necessary. The only reason to postulate an aether is that you're uncomfortable with the idea of waves not needing a medium. But our modern understanding of quantum mechanics is that all kinds of particles have a wavelike nature, so, if you accept that matter can travel through empty space, you should have no problem accepting the same for light.

www.quora.com...

a reply to: Kashai

So the vacuum of space is completely empty then?

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So if there is an aether like structure, what is Einstein's excuse for "not being able to detect the motion of the Earth with any optical experiment", when the Michelson/Morley showed that the Earth is stationary based on the existence of an aether.

Thats the basis of relativity. To answer your question Einstine said you would be unable to detect motion and to you it would seem your standing still. However another observer would see you in motion as they see there frame of reference as stationary.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So aether doesn't exist is now your answer?

doesnt exist there is no material scattered throughout the universe. There is energy however at every point in the universe.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


As far as light and mass that would be an interpretation.

With regards to dark matter and energy there in potential could be a discernable and even perhaps a holistic effect but we are not able to observe it.


There is an apparent structure to space time, Einstein made that apparent.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Kashai

So the vacuum of space is completely empty then?

Space has properties, but properties consistent with the theory of general relativity, not consistent with the previously postulated luminiferous aether. Einstein said the properties could be referred to as a "new aether" (different from luminiferous aether) but that term didn't stick which is just as well since by now it's not "new" and we instead call it "space-time".

a reply to: dragonridr

His excuse is that there is no aether.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So what is it, is space empty, or is it not?

Please post your definitions of the non-existent aether.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


Space-time is vast and in all consideration exist beyond the 80 to 156 billion light years we consider that mass is apparent in our "Island Universe" [for the sake of discussion. In a way we are caught up with a similar conclusion that we faced when
Copernicus described the Universe as complete just beyond the orbit of Saturn.

A response would be that we are wrong. In the sense and to space-time such distances as what we describe as the Universe today are not significant physically in relation to its size.

We talk about the idea that space-time is finite and one reason is because we as "finite" beings can experience it.

a reply to: Kashai

Is empty space empty or is it not.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So what is it, is space empty, or is it not?

Apparently you don't understand the difference between what Einstein referred to as "new aether" and luminiferous aether, but I can assure you they are not the same thing. It seems like you are asking leading questions trying to mix them up but that's flawed reasoning on your part.