I think Paul Cockshott fixed the saliva sound with adjusting the mike's sensitivity or some automatic sound editing program. Maybe it'll work for you too. But the content is outstanding yes
Einstein wanted to distance himself from a "Ether", so in a sense he made a model of cause and effect..Highly accurate, yet a mathematical model does not represent a phenomenon itself.. "Gravity is really geometry" what a ludicrous statement, he must have picked that one up tripping out at the Burning Man Festival..
The search for beauty and meaning may be obscuring the truth. A theory can only be as real as its experiment which can verify it. If it fails to experiment, then we shall work on a new theory and start again.
Minkowski, Einstein's math professor, re-cast the theory of special relativity in 1907 by discarding independent time and space leaving only their union as space-time. Einstein (aged 28) would have had a hard time resisting his academic superior. He did remark later, only half jokingly, that he no longer understood his own theory.
True, but Minkowski really only geometrized it. And it's a standard problem in physics writing to focus on only ONE Minkowski diagram, i.e., the diagram, say, for Observer 1 who is stationary, all other observers in motion with respect to him. To show the symmetry, you need another Minkowski diagram, now for Observer 2. Ignoring this is standard, e.g., Carroll's discussion of SR in his "The Greatest Ideas..." where he just argues (and "solves" the twin paradox) from the one diagram, the symmetry having apparently fallen into a black hole or something. Both Bergson and A. P. French pointed out this standard misuse of Minkowski's geometrized scheme. You see it everywhere.
11:34 I am not an indentured physicist. My understanding of SR is that there is no causal relationship between twin A and twin B moving in opposite directions due to "Velocity" aka neither clock physically changes due to the velocity. As far as I am aware time dilation due to velocity is only a measurement problem experienced from the inertial frame of the observer, but does not "physically" apply to the observed object. Analogy: Twin A is the inertial frame. Twin B goes past at close to 'c'. Twin A appears to see the others clock slow down "as an observed measurement". But twin Bs "physical" clock is no slower than twin As clock. Aka just a visual (observer illusion). > Am I getting this wrong? I keep getting banned from YT for suggesting that there is no "physical" twins paradox. Am I forced to accept that a single person can be 2 completely different physical ages in any moment.
In addition, peoples arguments often attempt to blur the distinction between Time Dilation due the acceleration GR (gravity), and time dilation due to velocity SR. As far as I can tell these 2 forms of time dilation are separate, where in GR TD is directly related to the object, and with SR it is only related to the measurement of the observers. Photons are not the same thing as an observed physical object at a distance.
I think you're seeing SR as just a measurement problem (as I put it) correctly. What you're missing, I think, is that physicists want to hold that velocity (or most often they'll use accelerations) actually do cause things. This was the burden of the Hafele-Keating experiment where a clock carried around the world on a jet was shown to be slowed relative to a clock left at the airport. This was considered by physics a "proof" of SR. (Invalidly. But the WANT this "proof.") This actually started with physics explanation of the muon, travelling at high velocity, having a longer lifespan than a muon at rest (thus, "time" retardation). This too was considered a "proof" of SR. There are other cases. Already, in 1924, Bergson had an argument with the physicist, Andre Metz (in Revue Philosophique) on this. Metz could not see that SR, given its logical structure, cannot be used to explain this muon phenomenon. To him only SR can and should explain it. The problem had already begun then - velocity causes effects (which is fine, just that physics needs a different theory to explain these, not SR.) Curiously, the problem, imo, is already in Einstein's 1905 paper, where he notes that if one simply moves a clock in the stationary system from A to B, the clock slows by an amount reflective of the velocity. Note: this has NOTHING to do with observers in relative motion, simply moving a clock in the stationary system.
Been reading your work for sometime now...Bergson...Bergson...I have gone back an looked at Kirchoff's laws and Hertz's "discovery" of radio waves...sometime is off... We need to get ti the basics of antennas...metallic and non-metallic antennas..
I don't really understand what you are trying to say, especially what "measurement effects" are, and the definition of "real, ontological, physical effects". The equations of SR are indeed "mathematical" but why does this mean they are not "real"? (Side note: Hossenfelder's rant concerning "doing math and thinking it is real" was, I think, supposed to mean that the theory is not experimentally falsifiable). I would accept your thesis that there is no "actual contraction" happening, but this is only because the question as posed is meaningless --- you need to specify who the observer is. As for the question of the "mechanism of slowing clocks" I never thought carefully about that, except that it is a necessary consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, which Einstein assumed came from the Maxwell equations, which are supposed to be valid in all reference frames (though the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields changes). I always assumed that the slowing of the clocks (according to the stationary observer) was a consequence of the retarded fields, no? (via the Lienard-Weichert potential)? Anyway, to get back to loop quantum gravity, I do not believe that Hossenfelder meant to say that the area was "really" contracting, but that it is "observed" to contract (by the stationary observer) and this means that there should by a velocity-dependent dispersion. Another query is: if there is a minimum area in LQG, should there also be a minimum time interval? Thanks for the reference to Bergson. (I thought you were also concerned with the twin paradox? But this seems fairly well resolved, according to the wikipedia page, several arguments are given which seem to resolve that issue)
"According to the Wikipedia page"...Did Dirac of whoever relied on an online page?...Keep repeating bullshit from the higher ups who publish papers about trivial bullshit...
@@topos100 No, Dirac did not "relied" on Wikipedia, which I believe is exactly *not* written by the "higher ups" ... whoever they are. I still don't understand how the misunderstandings of Rovelli & Hossenfelder are resolved --- I get that the speaker thinks both are mistaken --- but what does this mean for LQG? Why isn't the Lienerd-Weichert solution a "real" explanation for length contraction? And yes, there does seem to be increasing amounts of rubbish being published, it is about time things are explained better. Which comes back to my question?
@@topos100Gosh. I'm not sure how Dirac was supposed to use Wikipedia, neither who you mean by "higher ups", or why they should control Wikipedia (which, incidentally, also mentions the book by French, referred to in the talk). And yes, there is a lot of badly explained stuff being published ... which nicely brings me to my question above: what exactly is the criticism of Rovelli & Hossenfelder being made in the presentation, in regards to the testability of loop quantum gravity? That was not clear to me. Can you enlighten please?
On measurement effects, I can't be much clearer than the illustration of the toaster and the two rulers. (If you want more physics on it, maybe look at the A P French discussion noted, Special Relativity, 1968. An ontological (or real, physical) effect would be exemplified by one twin having a beard, grey hair, wrinkles, a cane, rheumatism, and the other twin looking like Brad Pitt at twenty. This difference cannot be made into a measurement effect no matter how one tries. Nor can the increased lifespan of a muon with velocity, or a slowed clock on a jet relative to one left at the airport. Physics claims these latter two as "proofs" of SR's time-retardations (but then what of the Michelson-Morley apparatus arm?) - but these are NOT measurement effects - they are real, ontological effects. Wikipedia is actually a known defender of the status quo; it is not reliable as to the real issues. The twin paradox is FAR from resolved. Simply insert the younger, less aged twin, in the comment above, fully analogous to the clock on the jet - again trying to explain a real effect (the younger twin) via SR, which can only apply to measurement effects. At this point, one will encounter a host of arguments invoking "accelerations" (or I see you are considering retarded fields). At the very best, by introducing accelerations (or fields), your "proofs" are of some other theory, not SR. The fact is, despite Wiki, there are so many "resolutions" to the twin-paradox, it makes one head spin. It's a warning that there is no resolution - there cannot be, - unless you go back to, and resolutely fix on, the logical structure of SR (physics is allowing this structure to slip and slide all over)...and then you need some other theory to explain these real effects.
have you watched the youtube channel Dialect's videos? I think they have similar complaints. You may find it interesting to talk to them (they have a Discord link in their channel).
I hadn’t watched Dialect - thanks. So, I did just watch two of theirs on relativity (“What time dilation actually is…” and, “Einstein’s relativity contains a Huge loophole…”). Unfortunately, they’re really not in the same ballpark, a basic difference being they’re trying to create a new theory, versus I’m just trying to make clear (along with Bergson) what SR’s logical structure actually is (a system that describes only measurement effects), why it can’t explain things like slowing clocks, and why its stance on simultaneity is artificial. This is actually quite a difference. For example, in the “What time dilation actually is…”, note that Dialect never looks at the role of length contraction in Michelson-Morley (as a pure measurement effect), this measurement construal being the keystone to physics explanation of M&M, and if undermined, the supposed destruction of the ether is also undermined. Dialect is missing the whole measurement effect-only structure of SR, and they’re trying to show how SR indeed can explain real effects like clock slowing (but in its logically consistent structure, it can’t). In the “loophole” vid, they’re very much accepting the relativity of simultaneity (which I reject as an artificiality); I did not discuss this simultaneity topic in this vid re Sabine - it’s a really big difference between my position and Dialect. (Haven't watched the "Einstein is wrong about time," but from what I've seen so far, I'm not too hopeful re their take on time.)
4:50 you have completely left out the key issue. Being in motion or stationary is the same, both are relative to an observer. However, being in an inertia system, i.e. MOVING WHILE EXPERIENCING ACCELERATION changes everything. A twin that was moving without acceleration will age faster that the one who was accelerating and slowing down. Not symmetrical at all.
But you left out the fact that SR is explicitly for systems in uniform velocity only. Once you introduce accelerations, then supposedly, one can distinguish whether one is moving or at rest, the whole SR structure is undercut, you don't have SR. When introducing accelerations, you are no longer getting "experimental confirmations" of SR, but of some other theory - and not necessarily of the General Theory for that matter, and you're back in the same boat - physics no longer has an explanation for Michelson-Morley - because you no longer have SR. Then there is the problem that acceleration cannot actually be so privileged over velocity - velocity the 1st derivative - rate of change of position, acceleration the 2nd - rate of change of the rate of change of position. If one cannot derive the (generalized) Lorentz equations then for acceleration, calculus is useless. And one can derive these - and so you're back to the same problem - the rocket-twin leaves and comes back, the generalized Lorentz equations are applied, or the earth twin on earth leaves and comes back under the generalized Lorentz equations. Both systems experience the same thing. Neither twin is aging more or less than the other. Correlated with this is the illusion that Einstein correctly equated Force and acceleration, seeing Force as an absolute. F=ma. Force is tied to acceleration, and again, acceleration is equally as relative as velocity - simply the rate of change of the rate of change of position - i.e., relative. Force, tied to acceleration by definition, is equally relative. So, just ignoring that you are not proving anything about SR when you bring in accelerations, the acceleration argument is really very problematic.
@@stephene.robbins6273 velocity is meaningless because there's no energy acting upon you. Acceleration is privileged because you're bending fabric of spacetime by applying or expending energy.
I don't know if I'm getting lost in your argument, but you spend a lot of time on the MM experiment and I'm coming away with the impression that you are arguing in favor of the existence of the ether to help explain some of the perceived contradictions. Have I misapprehended this?
The ether's existence or not is kind of irrelevant here. The basic contradiction is using a theory (SR) whose logical structure only explains measurement effects to, instead, explain real effects such as muons living longer, and invoking these as "proofs" of the measurement-only theory. Once one accepts that these "proofs" of SR are invalid, that SR cannot be so employed, then it's obvious there is no current theory that explains the slowed clocks on jets or the muons. So, what might be such a theory? Well, one was already there - Lorentz's contraction theory based in the ether. Is it right? Don't know. But you're naturally driven there as the starting point. Then, when you realize that the "proofs" are not applicable to SR, that in fact they introduce a contradiction to the whole SR story (for Michelson-Morley demands SR only be relating to measurement effects, but the "proofs" relate to real effects), the whole Michelson-Morley explanation story and correlated ether-destroyed story are brought into question. You're led back to the beginning. What was really going on with Michelson-Morley? (And you're led to ALL kinds of other problems, e.g., the Sagnac experiment, Airy's failure, and on)
It's a ridiculous assertion that physics is sick. Think about the world as it is now compared to 100 years ago, unrecognisable. Even making your assertion on a computer, on the internet is daft. You are literally using an application of modern physics, including a healthy dose of special relativity.
@@stephene.robbins6273 Well you are using a logical fallacy there. Sabine isn't the absolute authority in physics. As for special relativity, of course it's logically consistent. Unless you have found something that 100 years of study, experiment, observation and development has missed. Good luck with that.
@@kevconn441 It seems obvious you never watched the video. There are two forms of SR: The logically consistent version, pre-Langevin, and the distorted version, post Langevin, the latter being the version all of current physics adheres to and promotes, to include applying the 100 years of supposed "experimental confirmations" to this distorted version of SR when the logical, consistent structure precludes the applicability of any such "proofs." Bergson pointed this out in 1922, in effect also, A P French in 1968, among several others. Physics has just refused to acknowledge the problem. And the problem is partially at the core of Sabine's frustrated rant.
Yeah, I know. When I originally started doing this, I figured there will be folks for whom English is a 2nd language, and the text would help. Then I found it just made the discussion go quicker, no hesitation. Then it seemed, even with things written out, lots of folks have difficulty understanding - and the topics are complex and not understood in the first place. Then, finally, I don't give a damn...
Really excellent and what I have been thinking for some time. Glad I discovered Bergson earlier this year and your channel today!
Toaster is Toast Theory
I think Paul Cockshott fixed the saliva sound with adjusting the mike's sensitivity or some automatic sound editing program. Maybe it'll work for you too. But the content is outstanding yes
Einstein wanted to distance himself from a "Ether", so in a sense he made a model of cause and effect..Highly accurate, yet a mathematical model does not represent a phenomenon itself.. "Gravity is really geometry" what a ludicrous statement, he must have picked that one up tripping out at the Burning Man Festival..
The search for beauty and meaning may be obscuring the truth. A theory can only be as real as its experiment which can verify it. If it fails to experiment, then we shall work on a new theory and start again.
Always consistent and lucid excecution
Thankyou Steve
Minkowski, Einstein's math professor, re-cast the theory of special relativity in 1907 by discarding independent time and space leaving only their union as space-time. Einstein (aged 28) would have had a hard time resisting his academic superior. He did remark later, only half jokingly, that he no longer understood his own theory.
True, but Minkowski really only geometrized it. And it's a standard problem in physics writing to focus on only ONE Minkowski diagram, i.e., the diagram, say, for Observer 1 who is stationary, all other observers in motion with respect to him. To show the symmetry, you need another Minkowski diagram, now for Observer 2. Ignoring this is standard, e.g., Carroll's discussion of SR in his "The Greatest Ideas..." where he just argues (and "solves" the twin paradox) from the one diagram, the symmetry having apparently fallen into a black hole or something. Both Bergson and A. P. French pointed out this standard misuse of Minkowski's geometrized scheme. You see it everywhere.
A measurement on a Singularity leads to one?
Antiverse is Infiniton distance from 0.1... Land of the Position no other explanation for Supersymetry
Dr.Claudia deRham came up with equation
11:34 I am not an indentured physicist. My understanding of SR is that there is no causal relationship between twin A and twin B moving in opposite directions due to "Velocity" aka neither clock physically changes due to the velocity.
As far as I am aware time dilation due to velocity is only a measurement problem experienced from the inertial frame of the observer, but does not "physically" apply to the observed object.
Analogy:
Twin A is the inertial frame. Twin B goes past at close to 'c'. Twin A appears to see the others clock slow down "as an observed measurement". But twin Bs "physical" clock is no slower than twin As clock. Aka just a visual (observer illusion).
>
Am I getting this wrong?
I keep getting banned from YT for suggesting that there is no "physical" twins paradox.
Am I forced to accept that a single person can be 2 completely different physical ages in any moment.
In addition, peoples arguments often attempt to blur the distinction between Time Dilation due the acceleration GR (gravity), and time dilation due to velocity SR. As far as I can tell these 2 forms of time dilation are separate, where in GR TD is directly related to the object, and with SR it is only related to the measurement of the observers.
Photons are not the same thing as an observed physical object at a distance.
I think you're seeing SR as just a measurement problem (as I put it) correctly. What you're missing, I think, is that physicists want to hold that velocity (or most often they'll use accelerations) actually do cause things. This was the burden of the Hafele-Keating experiment where a clock carried around the world on a jet was shown to be slowed relative to a clock left at the airport. This was considered by physics a "proof" of SR. (Invalidly. But the WANT this "proof.") This actually started with physics explanation of the muon, travelling at high velocity, having a longer lifespan than a muon at rest (thus, "time" retardation). This too was considered a "proof" of SR. There are other cases. Already, in 1924, Bergson had an argument with the physicist, Andre Metz (in Revue Philosophique) on this. Metz could not see that SR, given its logical structure, cannot be used to explain this muon phenomenon. To him only SR can and should explain it. The problem had already begun then - velocity causes effects (which is fine, just that physics needs a different theory to explain these, not SR.)
Curiously, the problem, imo, is already in Einstein's 1905 paper, where he notes that if one simply moves a clock in the stationary system from A to B, the clock slows by an amount reflective of the velocity. Note: this has NOTHING to do with observers in relative motion, simply moving a clock in the stationary system.
mi Reyna Sabine has a point, when Photon / Mass convertor? 40yrs pppffff
Been reading your work for sometime now...Bergson...Bergson...I have gone back an looked at Kirchoff's laws and Hertz's "discovery" of radio waves...sometime is off... We need to get ti the basics of antennas...metallic and non-metallic antennas..
I don't really understand what you are trying to say, especially what "measurement effects" are, and the definition of "real, ontological, physical effects". The equations of SR are indeed "mathematical" but why does this mean they are not "real"? (Side note: Hossenfelder's rant concerning "doing math and thinking it is real" was, I think, supposed to mean that the theory is not experimentally falsifiable). I would accept your thesis that there is no "actual contraction" happening, but this is only because the question as posed is meaningless --- you need to specify who the observer is. As for the question of the "mechanism of slowing clocks" I never thought carefully about that, except that it is a necessary consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, which Einstein assumed came from the Maxwell equations, which are supposed to be valid in all reference frames (though the magnitude of the electric and magnetic fields changes). I always assumed that the slowing of the clocks (according to the stationary observer) was a consequence of the retarded fields, no? (via the Lienard-Weichert potential)? Anyway, to get back to loop quantum gravity, I do not believe that Hossenfelder meant to say that the area was "really" contracting, but that it is "observed" to contract (by the stationary observer) and this means that there should by a velocity-dependent dispersion. Another query is: if there is a minimum area in LQG, should there also be a minimum time interval? Thanks for the reference to Bergson. (I thought you were also concerned with the twin paradox? But this seems fairly well resolved, according to the wikipedia page, several arguments are given which seem to resolve that issue)
"According to the Wikipedia page"...Did Dirac of whoever relied on an online page?...Keep repeating bullshit from the higher ups who publish papers about trivial bullshit...
@@topos100 No, Dirac did not "relied" on Wikipedia, which I believe is exactly *not* written by the "higher ups" ... whoever they are. I still don't understand how the misunderstandings of Rovelli & Hossenfelder are resolved --- I get that the speaker thinks both are mistaken --- but what does this mean for LQG? Why isn't the Lienerd-Weichert solution a "real" explanation for length contraction? And yes, there does seem to be increasing amounts of rubbish being published, it is about time things are explained better. Which comes back to my question?
@@topos100Gosh. I'm not sure how Dirac was supposed to use Wikipedia, neither who you mean by "higher ups", or why they should control Wikipedia (which, incidentally, also mentions the book by French, referred to in the talk). And yes, there is a lot of badly explained stuff being published ... which nicely brings me to my question above: what exactly is the criticism of Rovelli & Hossenfelder being made in the presentation, in regards to the testability of loop quantum gravity? That was not clear to me. Can you enlighten please?
On measurement effects, I can't be much clearer than the illustration of the toaster and the two rulers. (If you want more physics on it, maybe look at the A P French discussion noted, Special Relativity, 1968. An ontological (or real, physical) effect would be exemplified by one twin having a beard, grey hair, wrinkles, a cane, rheumatism, and the other twin looking like Brad Pitt at twenty. This difference cannot be made into a measurement effect no matter how one tries. Nor can the increased lifespan of a muon with velocity, or a slowed clock on a jet relative to one left at the airport. Physics claims these latter two as "proofs" of SR's time-retardations (but then what of the Michelson-Morley apparatus arm?) - but these are NOT measurement effects - they are real, ontological effects.
Wikipedia is actually a known defender of the status quo; it is not reliable as to the real issues. The twin paradox is FAR from resolved. Simply insert the younger, less aged twin, in the comment above, fully analogous to the clock on the jet - again trying to explain a real effect (the younger twin) via SR, which can only apply to measurement effects. At this point, one will encounter a host of arguments invoking "accelerations" (or I see you are considering retarded fields). At the very best, by introducing accelerations (or fields), your "proofs" are of some other theory, not SR. The fact is, despite Wiki, there are so many "resolutions" to the twin-paradox, it makes one head spin. It's a warning that there is no resolution - there cannot be, - unless you go back to, and resolutely fix on, the logical structure of SR (physics is allowing this structure to slip and slide all over)...and then you need some other theory to explain these real effects.
have you watched the youtube channel Dialect's videos? I think they have similar complaints. You may find it interesting to talk to them (they have a Discord link in their channel).
I hadn’t watched Dialect - thanks. So, I did just watch two of theirs on relativity (“What time dilation actually is…” and, “Einstein’s relativity contains a Huge loophole…”). Unfortunately, they’re really not in the same ballpark, a basic difference being they’re trying to create a new theory, versus I’m just trying to make clear (along with Bergson) what SR’s logical structure actually is (a system that describes only measurement effects), why it can’t explain things like slowing clocks, and why its stance on simultaneity is artificial. This is actually quite a difference. For example, in the “What time dilation actually is…”, note that Dialect never looks at the role of length contraction in Michelson-Morley (as a pure measurement effect), this measurement construal being the keystone to physics explanation of M&M, and if undermined, the supposed destruction of the ether is also undermined. Dialect is missing the whole measurement effect-only structure of SR, and they’re trying to show how SR indeed can explain real effects like clock slowing (but in its logically consistent structure, it can’t). In the “loophole” vid, they’re very much accepting the relativity of simultaneity (which I reject as an artificiality); I did not discuss this simultaneity topic in this vid re Sabine - it’s a really big difference between my position and Dialect. (Haven't watched the "Einstein is wrong about time," but from what I've seen so far, I'm not too hopeful re their take on time.)
4:50 you have completely left out the key issue. Being in motion or stationary is the same, both are relative to an observer. However, being in an inertia system, i.e. MOVING WHILE EXPERIENCING ACCELERATION changes everything. A twin that was moving without acceleration will age faster that the one who was accelerating and slowing down. Not symmetrical at all.
But you left out the fact that SR is explicitly for systems in uniform velocity only. Once you introduce accelerations, then supposedly, one can distinguish whether one is moving or at rest, the whole SR structure is undercut, you don't have SR. When introducing accelerations, you are no longer getting "experimental confirmations" of SR, but of some other theory - and not necessarily of the General Theory for that matter, and you're back in the same boat - physics no longer has an explanation for Michelson-Morley - because you no longer have SR.
Then there is the problem that acceleration cannot actually be so privileged over velocity - velocity the 1st derivative - rate of change of position, acceleration the 2nd - rate of change of the rate of change of position. If one cannot derive the (generalized) Lorentz equations then for acceleration, calculus is useless. And one can derive these - and so you're back to the same problem - the rocket-twin leaves and comes back, the generalized Lorentz equations are applied, or the earth twin on earth leaves and comes back under the generalized Lorentz equations. Both systems experience the same thing. Neither twin is aging more or less than the other. Correlated with this is the illusion that Einstein correctly equated Force and acceleration, seeing Force as an absolute. F=ma. Force is tied to acceleration, and again, acceleration is equally as relative as velocity - simply the rate of change of the rate of change of position - i.e., relative. Force, tied to acceleration by definition, is equally relative. So, just ignoring that you are not proving anything about SR when you bring in accelerations, the acceleration argument is really very problematic.
@@stephene.robbins6273 velocity is meaningless because there's no energy acting upon you. Acceleration is privileged because you're bending fabric of spacetime by applying or expending energy.
This goes deeper than deep
I don't know if I'm getting lost in your argument, but you spend a lot of time on the MM experiment and I'm coming away with the impression that you are arguing in favor of the existence of the ether to help explain some of the perceived contradictions. Have I misapprehended this?
The ether's existence or not is kind of irrelevant here. The basic contradiction is using a theory (SR) whose logical structure only explains measurement effects to, instead, explain real effects such as muons living longer, and invoking these as "proofs" of the measurement-only theory. Once one accepts that these "proofs" of SR are invalid, that SR cannot be so employed, then it's obvious there is no current theory that explains the slowed clocks on jets or the muons. So, what might be such a theory? Well, one was already there - Lorentz's contraction theory based in the ether. Is it right? Don't know. But you're naturally driven there as the starting point. Then, when you realize that the "proofs" are not applicable to SR, that in fact they introduce a contradiction to the whole SR story (for Michelson-Morley demands SR only be relating to measurement effects, but the "proofs" relate to real effects), the whole Michelson-Morley explanation story and correlated ether-destroyed story are brought into question. You're led back to the beginning. What was really going on with Michelson-Morley? (And you're led to ALL kinds of other problems, e.g., the Sagnac experiment, Airy's failure, and on)
It's not physics that is sick.
OUTSTANDING!!!!
It's a ridiculous assertion that physics is sick. Think about the world as it is now compared to 100 years ago, unrecognisable. Even making your assertion on a computer, on the internet is daft. You are literally using an application of modern physics, including a healthy dose of special relativity.
I think perhaps you are conflating technological progress with progress in the foundations of physics?😅
@@pmhwoodcraft9934 No, I'm not. One thing follows the other.
Maybe you should tell this to Sabine. And no, there is no dose of the logically consistent special relativity in anything,
@@stephene.robbins6273 Well you are using a logical fallacy there. Sabine isn't the absolute authority in physics.
As for special relativity, of course it's logically consistent. Unless you have found something that 100 years of study, experiment, observation and development has missed. Good luck with that.
@@kevconn441 It seems obvious you never watched the video. There are two forms of SR: The logically consistent version, pre-Langevin, and the distorted version, post Langevin, the latter being the version all of current physics adheres to and promotes, to include applying the 100 years of supposed "experimental confirmations" to this distorted version of SR when the logical, consistent structure precludes the applicability of any such "proofs." Bergson pointed this out in 1922, in effect also, A P French in 1968, among several others. Physics has just refused to acknowledge the problem. And the problem is partially at the core of Sabine's frustrated rant.
In short: 19:21.
If you're going to read the content of the slides they're bad slides.
Not necessarily, its a rule of thumb not to read text of slides but his presenting fully paragraphs of transcript.
Yeah, I know. When I originally started doing this, I figured there will be folks for whom English is a 2nd language, and the text would help. Then I found it just made the discussion go quicker, no hesitation. Then it seemed, even with things written out, lots of folks have difficulty understanding - and the topics are complex and not understood in the first place. Then, finally, I don't give a damn...