• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Aliens.

Stratoblaster

Fractal Fanatic
Well the report is due tomorrow...I'm looking forward to reading it. At the very least, there are security and defense implications regarding the issue that, it would seem, cannot be ignored any longer and must be studied by the officialdom.

I've been playing the Star Wars "Cantina Song" and the 5-note theme from "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" on the FM3 to get into the spirit of the whole thing 🌌🚀
 
Well the report is due tomorrow...I'm looking forward to reading it. At the very least, there are security and defense implications regarding the issue that, it would seem, cannot be ignored any longer and must be studied by the officialdom.

I've been playing the Star Wars "Cantina Song" and the 5-note theme from "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" on the FM3 to get into the spirit of the whole thing 🌌🚀
It’ll be filed in the archives right next to the Warren Report.
 

Tonedeaf

Experienced
Not so long ago, it was thought that you couldn't break the sound barrier - you'd disintegrate the plane or something.

It's possible that Einstein didn't figure out everything there is to know.
This is where people get it wrong. Going faster than sound is mathematically possible. Faster than light is not. Apples and oranges.
 

reclavea

Power User
Please explain.
Einstein's 1905 Special Theory of Relativity and his subsequent 1915 General Theory of Relativity both contradict each other!

His 1905 STR limits the speed of light to 186,000mps.

His 1915 GTR says that light and other material objects can travel at any speed above the speed of light.

So which is it?

Majority of the masses have no idea what was Einstein's inspiration and motivation to "invent" his relativity theories.
 

Renderman

Inspired
It's not really surprising the majority of people don't know about Einstein's inspiration, is it? It's a pretty esoteric branch of physics.

There's no contradiction between the two theories that I'm aware of. As I recall, the Special Theory Of Relativity applies in a non-accelerating inertial frame, and one of its consequences is nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It doesn't say anything about what that speed is.

I haven't studied the General Theory Of Relativity. Where does it say any material object can travel above the speed of light?
 

reclavea

Power User
It's not really surprising the majority of people don't know about Einstein's inspiration, is it? It's a pretty esoteric branch of physics.

Not when fraud is the end result.

There's no contradiction between the two theories that I'm aware of. As I recall, the Special Theory Of Relativity applies in a non-accelerating inertial frame, and one of its consequences is nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. It doesn't say anything about what that speed is.

Name any spot or region in the universe where his STR applies?

I haven't studied the General Theory Of Relativity. Where does it say any material object can travel above the speed of light?

STR only applies where there is no inertial forces, centrifugal, Euler or gravity forces, hence It doesn’t apply to the Earth since ...ironically ...the Earth was his main focus for his STR to apply. It’s useless and can’t make any predictions as a result.

This is why he had to invent his GTR and factor in all those forces. But in doing so had to abandon his limited speed of light as result. He had no choice.

Hence ...again both his 1905 STR and his 1915 GTR contradict each other.
 

Renderman

Inspired
Centrifugal and Eulerian forces are not real forces. General Relativity is a generalisation of Special Relativity to account for accelerating frames of reference. Please provide a citation for your claim that GTR forced Einstein to abandon this limit on objects travelling no faster than the speed of light, because it's not something I've ever heard anybody else say.
 

reclavea

Power User
Centrifugal and Eulerian forces are not real forces. General Relativity is a generalisation of Special Relativity to account for accelerating frames of reference. Please provide a citation for your claim that GTR forced Einstein to abandon this limit on objects travelling no faster than the speed of light, because it's not something I've ever heard anybody else say.

In GTR they are real forces...not fictitious. GTR is NOT a generalization of STR. 2 different “animals”.

STR got rid of the aether ....
Before GTR...Einstein insisted if the aether exists his STR is falsified.

10+ years later GTR brings it back! Lol

STR took the static Earth out of the center.
GTR justifies it in the center and static lol.

Lengths contract, time dilates (contracts) ....etc

It’s a serious house of magic physics.
 
Last edited:

Renderman

Inspired
No citations? But if this is your own independently arrived at conclusion, a mathematical proof will be fine. Otherwise it just sounds like you don't like the theory.

And no, curved space-time is not the same as the aether. Nor did STR remove Earth from the centre of the universe: Copernicus did that centuries earlier.
 

Jarick

Experienced
UFO's =/= aliens

Not sure if the general public will ever realize that

Personally I'm open to the idea but don't expect we have any evidence so I have no beliefs.. Just like most other things of faith.
 

reclavea

Power User
....Nor did STR remove Earth from the centre of the universe: Copernicus did that centuries earlier.
Copernicus did no such thing. While working on trying to correct the calendar to unify the date for Easter, he stumbled upon the idea that if he moved the static Earth from the center and had it move as the rest of the planets then the retrogrades seen by Mars and other planets could be accounted for. In Copernicus day Ptolemy's Geocentric Model was the paradigm. To it's detriment, Ptolemy's model added a certain amount of "equants" and "epicycles" and Copernicus felt confident that his model would be more simpler but in the end his model ended up with several more.

Having an affinity for the Pythagoreans, Copernicus believed the circle was the perfect shape, and he insisted that if he put the sun in the center and had the earth and planets revolving around it, they should do so in perfect circles. As such, his model never worked correctly and was much further off target than his rival, the Ptolemaic system, which had put the Earth in the center and used epicycles and an Equant to produce non‐uniform orbits.

To correct his model, Copernicus was forced to put the planetary orbits on epicycles, and when he was done in 1543, the year his book was published, he ended up with 48 epicycles whereas Ptolemy’s model, which Copernicus originally ridiculed for its use of epicycles, used only 40. So, if Copernicus’ model had been used to correct the calendar, it would have made the calendar worse than it already was.

And no, curved space-time is not the same as the aether.

Listen, if space can curve...what is PHYSICALLY CURVING?....because Einstein realized while formulating (inventing) his GTR his "space" needed physical qualities in order to account for his new concept of "gravity". In his previous STR he took away the aether otherwise the Earth is the center.....But......hence again....he had no choice but to bring back the aether! LOL...otherwise again what is physically curving that "acts" upon matter to affect it (curve)? Hence the Earth is back in the center.

This is why his first theory STR is useless. He forgot to account for gravity and other forces, centrifugal, Euler...etc. It cannot make "real world" predictions.

And you totally misunderstand the physics....Newton's Physics dealt with forces as fictitious forces ...ie..centrifugal, coriolis...etc because he has the Earth revolving and spinning as he limited his equations to just the solar system because in his time ...they had no idea of what stars were, their distance, their mass...nor galaxies and super clusters of galaxies. So he limited his equations to just the Solar System and considered space "absolute".

However, Ernst Mach later in the 1800's realized that Newton could not do this. He MUST include ALL THE MATTER in the universe. Mach found out that by doing so....the Earth could retain the center of mass in Newton's equation and account again for Ptolemy and Brahe's geocentric model.

This is "Mach's Principle" ....ever heard of it? ....known in some scientific circles as code for "geocentrism". LOL

Einstein incorporated Mach's findings in his GTR again which is why he ended up "justifying" a static Earth in a revolving universe. This would have objects moving at billions of times, even trillions of time the speed of light!

But if this is your own independently arrived at conclusion, a mathematical proof will be fine. Otherwise it just sounds like you don't like the theory.
It's not lol. This is exactly what Einstein and those physics great acknowledge....after all....If Einstein's Relativity Theories are true....then it's all "relative".

Again ...Einstein "invented" his relativity to keep the Earth in motion in the face of overwhelming evidence it's not.
 
Last edited:

Renderman

Inspired
Just found this on Wikipedia: "However, Einstein himself noted that his own model which replaced these theories could itself be thought of as an aether, as it implied that the empty space between objects had its own physical properties." So I stand corrected.

I'd not heard of Mach's principle. After reading Wikipedia, I think you're overstating Mach's principle. "Most physicists believe Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect. It was never made clear by Mach himself exactly what his principle was.[7]:9–57 Although Einstein was intrigued and inspired by Mach's principle, Einstein's formulation of the principle is not a fundamental assumption of general relativity."

I'm not clear what you mean by your last bit. First you say "which is why he ended up "justifying" a static Earth in a revolving universe" but a little later: "Einstein "invented" his relativity to keep the Earth in motion". Maybe this is a language barrier thing, but these seem like contradictory statements.

As for "a static Earth in a revolving universe. This would have objects moving at billions of times, even trillions of time the speed of light!", I simply don't know enough about GTR to comment. The theory says that rotation is also relative?
 

reclavea

Power User
I'm not clear what you mean by your last bit. First you say "which is why he ended up "justifying" a static Earth in a revolving universe" but a little later: "Einstein "invented" his relativity to keep the Earth in motion". Maybe this is a language barrier thing, but these seem like contradictory statements.
Not to demean you in anyway but it's your ignorance of just exactly what modern physics holds.

Einstein invented his 1905 STR to counter the sudden outpouring of empirical evidence pouring in in the early 1800s of a Static Earth.
The flaws of STR had him inventing GTR and introducing it in 1915....but now brings back the aether and incorporating Mach's Principle that justifies a Static Earth.

In 1916 Einstein wrote:

...in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states...once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity....Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together.

It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non‐existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non‐existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities."

Prior to this shift, Einstein had made the following statements, five years apart, the first from his famous 1905 paper:

The introduction of a ‘light ether’ will prove to be superfluous, because the view here to be developed will introduce neither a ‘space at absolute rest’ provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity vector to a point of empty space in which electro‐magnetic processes take place.

The second, in 1910, stated: “The first step to be made...is to renounce the ether.”

So there we have it.
What Special Relativity taketh away with the left hand, General Relativity giveth back with the right hand. Few are aware of this dramatic shift in Einstein’s thinking, and of those, many are embarrassed to admit that the ether concept had to be reintroduced and coincided with the very leg of the Relativity theory that had vociferously denied it. The reason? Prior to 1916, Einstein wanted to divest physics entirely of the notion of absolute rest. The concept of an immobile Earth or immobile ether was, for some odd reason, repugnant to him. Having already accepted Copernican cosmology, the ether was the last thing standing in his way. As he understood it, if ether existed, it necessitated that there be absolute space. If there is absolute space, then there is absolute rest. Obviously, Relativity cannot exist with anything being at absolute rest, for, by definition, the theory would be nullified.

Just found this on Wikipedia: "However, Einstein himself noted that his own model which replaced these theories could itself be thought of as an aether, as it implied that the empty space between objects had its own physical properties." So I stand corrected.
I applaud you for finding that as this is not readily available ....however wiki is not so much objective information with facts as it is more opinionated.

Again, the majority have no idea about this precisely for the fact that it's intentionally being suppressed.

Einstein gets rid of the aether in his 1905 STR then brings it back in his 1915 GTR LOL! So tell me how can his STR be true without the aether....and still be true with the aether??? LOL...why in the first place did he get rid of it??? ....It's precisely because with the aether's existence ....WE HAVE A STATIC EARTH in the center! ....Einstein's preferred cosmology wouldn't have it and his STR was a way to get rid of it....and thereby keeping the Earth in motion.

Einstein:

“Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the earth is revolving around the sun.

“How I created the theory of relativity” Einstein 1924

How does he "know" that the Earth is revolving around the sun? In essence what he is attempting to do in the face of the data showing a static Earth against the aether....is that there must be something wrong with our acceptance of the existence of the aether ...BECAUSE we "know the Earth is revolving around the sun since Copernicus & Galileo." ....so he pushes the concept of "NO AETHER" in his INVENTED STR Theory. But again his STR can't be used in the presence of forces...gravity, inertial, euler, centrifugal..etc.

This is where he compensates and invents his 1915 GTR which factors in all these forces. But now..... the aether exists again! LOL
But now he incorporates Mach's work and Mach's Principle for the very fact that Mach's Principle is fact!

Einstein:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

-"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

Notice now the 2 contradictions with Einstein above? LOL

Although Einstein was intrigued and inspired by Mach's principle, Einstein's formulation of the principle is not a fundamental assumption of general relativity."

Again... wiki is not so much objective information with facts as it is more opinionated.

Here's Einstein practically patting himself on the back on the embarrassment of all the evidence since Newton confirming a static Earth and his Relativity Theories vindicating.

Of this experiment and previous other data, Einstein wrote,

"If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not brought us into serious embarrassment, no one would have regarded the relativity theory as a (halfway) redemption."[A 2]:219

In 1971 …a biography is written about Einstein. Here's his biographer acknowledging the same thing:

“In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether, at that time considered essential, it had yielded a null result leaving science with the alternative of tossing aside the key which had helped to explain the phenomenon of electricity, magnetism and light, or of deciding that the earth was not in fact moving at all.”

(Einstein: The life and times”, 1971 p. 57)

James Clerk Maxwell's monumental work with his unification of electricity, magnetism and light based off of the aether....was a big stickler for Einstein in getting rid of aether. Why? Because he used the aether!

Einstein’s biographer Ronald Clark says it best and acknowledges the M/M experiment was THE motivating factor for Einstein to INVENT Relativity:

“The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable” (Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, p. 109-110.)

Why should empirical evidence be "unthinkable" Lol???

Here's the evidence with citations you requested on the speed of light under General Relativity:

“If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."

"If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x10^8 m/sec under these conditions."

(An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460) Rosser adds:

And Einstein himself:

Einstein:

“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [e.g.-the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’, whereby K’ is treated as being at rest.” --Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

Einstein is contradicting his STR with GTR above. Contrary to your "fictitious" claim with centrifugal, Eular forces ..etc ...Einstein is showing that a rotating universe creates forces akin to gravity that would account for those forces.

So as unbelievable as it may seem ....Einstein's GTR claims that a Static Earth in the center ....the farthest edges of the universe can make a 24 hour rotation around the Earth at super gargantuan superluminal speeds!

So again....with or without Relativity.....objects can travel at humongous speeds above the speed of light.
 
Last edited:

NeoSound

Fractal Fanatic
We know quantum entanglement is real and some scientists believe this connection between particles to be around seven times faster than light. Some think it's instantaneous regardless of distance. So something definitely travels faster than light!
 
Top Bottom