Magellan exposes the 'Einstein hoax'.

[pancreasman]

In my other thread where I'm trying oh so hard to be civil to Magellan and ask him to clarify some of his core beliefs, Magellan has recently taken (apparently randomly) to criticising Einstein's theory of special relativity.

He has said:

A couple of jottings on the Einstein hoax that may interest you -

1. It seems common in various web-sites to talk about 'The Speed of Energy' in relation to relativity. Of course energy, being a capacity for work, has no 'speed'.

eg. http://www.norlabs.org/tor.html

2. Classic howlers about speed of light -
'It is constant and unaffected by the speed of the source of the light and is observed to have the same value regardless of the speed of the observer.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

For light, it would be natural to expect that one could similarly add and subtract velocities. Suppose that I measure a particular light signal's speed, and find the usual value of 299,792.458 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second. If I see a fast spaceship chase right after that signal, moving at half the speed of light (c/2), I would expect that an observer on that spaceship would measure the speed of my light signal at merely c - c/2 = c/2, half the value that I measured.
http://www.einstein-online.info/elem...speed_of_light

and:

Speed is a scalar quantity. It is defined as being independent of sources and observers etc.
The speed of any object is independent of the observer. Light is no exception.

Just thought you might be interested. Some "Scientists' are feeding us bull every day.

from http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=140124&page=5


This seems such a glaring misunderstanding of basic classical physics, never mind special relativity, that I'm interested in what possible arguments he could muster to possibly support his case. I'd appreciate if Magellan could explain why he thinks special relativity is a 'hoax' and what evidence he has to back up such a claim.

[PsychGuy]

In my other thread where I'm trying oh so hard to be civil to Magellan and ask him to clarify some of his core beliefs, Magellan has recently taken (apparently randomly) to criticising Einstein's theory of special relativity.

He has said:



and:



from http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=140124&page=5


This seems such a glaring misunderstanding of basic classical physics, never mind special relativity, that I'm interested in what possible arguments he could muster to possibly support his case. I'd appreciate if Magellan could explain why he thinks special relativity is a 'hoax' and what evidence he has to back up such a claim.

I'm still trying to get over the whole speed-of-light-squared-is-irrelevant conversation. I don't know if I can take another zany thread like that, and I didn't even participate.

[ericmurphy]

From the other thread:

Magellan, you believe that d/t results in the same answer as 10d/12t. You're in no position to discuss any "myths" about the speed of light.

It does result in the same answer.
You are the one saying that -
1. 10 kilometres per 12 seconds is the same as
2. 10 miles per 12 hours.

No it doesn't. You're doing it wrong.

Let's look at my earlier example: traveling 60 miles in two hours, how fast do you go?

d/t = 30 MPH: 60/2.

10d/12t = 25 MPH: 600/24.

Does 30 = 25?

Of course, in order to figure that out, you'd have to know how to interpret mathematical statements such as "10d/12t" in the first place. "10d/12t" does NOT mean ten miles in 12 hours. It means "ten times the distance d over 12 times the time t." If the distance is 60 miles and the time is 2 hours, it works out to 600/24.

And worse, 10 kilometers in 12 seconds is .83 km/sec. Ten miles in 12 hours is .38 mph.

Does that sound like the same speed to you? .83 km/sec would get you across the North American continent in about an hour and fifteen minutes. Doing it at .38 mph would take almost six months.

I don't know. I would have to Google how to calculate the velocity of light.

Why would you need to do that, Magellan? I already gave you the velocity of light: 300,000,000 m/sec. I even told you how long it would take light to get from the laser pointer to the target, assuming the train were motionless. So why do you need to calculate the velocity of light? Even if I hadn't given it to you, you could just look up the value.

Maybe you think "calculate" means "look up on the Internet."

But you might know, so I'll save my keyboard. Or will we both Google it?

Given you can't tell the difference between half a mile a second and less than a mile an hour, I don't think there's any point in even trying to explain the answer to what is a much more complicated problem. When you can show you can figure out how to determine speed when given distance and time, then we'll progress to more difficult problems.

WHile you are at it - here's another one.
A person standing on land telephones his friend in an aeroplane and asks 'WHat is the speed of sound?' What might the friend reply?

He would probably reply by asking, "in what medium, at what temperature?" You'd kind of need to know those two things before you could give a remotely accurate answer.

And just for fun, Magellan: what's the speed of sound in a vacuum?



Feel free to move this to the other thread. It will be interesting to watch you try to discuss special relativity when you can't even accurately calculate simple speeds as distance over time.

In case anyone thought Magellan is even remotely qualified to discuss special relativity.

[magellan004]

I'm still trying to get over the whole speed-of-light-squared-is-irrelevant conversation. I don't know if I can take another zany thread like that, and I didn't even participate.

You will be delighted to know that I discovered the answer to the e=m versus e=mc^2 thing myself - Sort Of.

Here is the essence of it -

In science, a physical constant is a physical quantity whose numerical value is fixed. It can be constrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed number that does not directly involve a physical measurement.

http://www.fact-index.com/p/ph/physical_constants.html

I guess I am going to have to live with our resident astro-physicists saying 'That is what I was telling you.'

So e=mc^2 is a different issue to speed = 10 *distance /time.

(Later edit) Hold the press - I am not sure I am happy with that distinction between physical and numerical constants. I need to think more about this matter. For now, please ignore this post.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Yes, Magellan, we all know the speed of light is a constant.

What you can't explain is how you can ignore it in equations. c² has a value of 9 X 10¹⁶ meters/sec². Explain how a quantity of that magnitude is "irrelevant," and can be ignored.

Explain how 1kg = 9 X 10¹⁶ kg-m/sec²

[ericmurphy]

(Later edit) Hold the press - I am not sure I am happy with that distinction between physical and numerical constants. I need to think more about this matter. For now, please ignore this post.

Magellan

Yes, Magellan. That might be a good distinction to get clear in your head.

[PsychGuy]

You will be delighted to know that I discovered the answer to the e=m versus e=mc^2 thing myself - Sort Of.

Here is the essence of it -

http://www.fact-index.com/p/ph/physical_constants.html

I guess I am going to have to live with our resident astro-physicists saying 'That is what I was telling you.'

So e=mc^2 is a different issue to speed = 10 *distance /time.

(Later edit) Hold the press - I am not sure I am happy with that distinction between physical and numerical constants. I need to think more about this matter. For now, please ignore this post.

Magellan

Whenever you think you've made a bigger discovery than Einstein, ask yourself, "Do I REALLY think I'm making a bigger discovery than Einstein? Really?" I will leave you to ponder your constant dilemma...no pun intended.

[magellan004]

Whenever you think you've made a bigger discovery than Einstein, ask yourself, "Do I REALLY think I'm making a bigger discovery than Einstein? Really?" I will leave you to ponder your constant dilemma...no pun intended.

Firstly, I readily admit I may be wrong about everything to do with realtivity, Einstein and speed of light. I told Pancreasman that I need to do some investigations into the mathematics befopre I launch into exposing Einsteinian hoaxes.

But the thread has taken off anyway.

The context of the 'Einstein Hoax' thing is that in another thread - it seemed to me we were told that the way Einstein derived e=mc^2 was that he plugged e=mc^2 into an equation and found that e = mc^2.

It's fine for teachers and power-nuts to take that approach - 'This is the way it's done!'
but it doesn't help anyone's understanding. The quote I gave about physical versus mathematical constants is an excellent example. At first reading it seemed to make sense - 'OK, so that's how it's done' but then I realised that just by saying 'A physical constant is different to a mathematical constant' doesn't help anyone understand why they are different (in the context of equations ).

A lot of people say 'e=mc^2'. I want to know why e=mc^2.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Magellan: there are a million different books on special relativity you could read, and posting this kind of stupidity here is not going to teach you anything about it.

But before you study special relativity, you should probably study Maxwell's equations describing electromagnetism. A lot of Maxwell's thinking informed Einstein's thinking. And of course Newton's laws of motion would be useful to know, too (and supposedly Newton's laws of gravity would be perfectly accurate if the speed of light were infinite).

But before you do any of that, you might want to take some remedial arithmetic classes or something, so understand that 10d/12t is not the same thing as 10/12.

[PsychGuy]

The context of the 'Einstein Hoax' thing is that in another thread - it seemed to me we were told that the way Einstein derived e=mc^2 was that he plugged e=mc^2 into an equation and found that e = mc^2.

It's fine for teachers and power-nuts to take that approach - 'This is the way it's done!'
but it doesn't help anyone's understanding.

In elementary school, I remember learning the "guess and check" method for solving certain math problems. Basically, you guess at the unknown quantities that you're trying to figure out and see if they work when you plug them in. It's basically what anyone who doesn't know algebra has to do to figure out an unknown variable in an equation.
I have no idea how Einstein arrived at his famous equation, honestly. I'm a psychology student; I find people much more interesting than particles (not to disparage the amazing work that physicists do that I am just far too bad at math to even hope to be able to do). That being said, I'm sure there are tons of books, videos, etc that you could look into to learn this. Or, I'm sure you could take a physics class and ask your instructor.
But it wouldn't surprise me much at all to learn that Einstein may have toyed with lots of variations on his famous equation until he came up with the one that finally worked with all the data available to him. It's not very heroic or poetic, but sometimes our scientific knowledge is dependent on discoveries that are completely serendipitous. I don't see how it's a block to our understanding, though, to acknowledge this. We know the equation works, and I'm willing to bet we've come a long way since Einstein in understanding WHY it works. How the principle was discovered is really not what's important.

The quote I gave about physical versus mathematical constants is an excellent example. At first reading it seemed to make sense - 'OK, so that's how it's done' but then I realised that just by saying 'A physical constant is different to a mathematical constant' doesn't help anyone understand why they are different (in the context of equations ).

What further clarification are you needing?

[pancreasman]

Firstly, I readily admit I may be wrong about everything to do with realtivity, Einstein and speed of light. I told Pancreasman that I need to do some investigations into the mathematics befopre I launch into exposing Einsteinian hoaxes.

But the thread has taken off anyway.

The context of the 'Einstein Hoax' thing is that in another thread - it seemed to me we were told that the way Einstein derived e=mc^2 was that he plugged e=mc^2 into an equation and found that e = mc^2.

It's fine for teachers and power-nuts to take that approach - 'This is the way it's done!'
but it doesn't help anyone's understanding. The quote I gave about physical versus mathematical constants is an excellent example. At first reading it seemed to make sense - 'OK, so that's how it's done' but then I realised that just by saying 'A physical constant is different to a mathematical constant' doesn't help anyone understand why they are different (in the context of equations ).

A lot of people say 'e=mc^2'. I want to know why e=mc^2.

Magellan

But my question was, and still remains : If you admit your knowledge in this area is limited, why are you so ready to call it a 'hoax'? Wouldn't it display more intellectual integrity to say: 'I don't know much about relativity, but on first glance it seems counter-intuitive to me.?

You used it as your example of:

Some "Scientists' are feeding us bull every day.

How can you rush to judgement on your limited knowledge? Why do you hate scientists so?

[lilpixieofterror]

But before you do any of that, you might want to take some remedial arithmetic classes or something, so understand that 10d/12t is not the same thing as 10/12.

Unless D and T is equal to 1, but still... I am wondering what Magellan has been smoking.

[lilpixieofterror]

Firstly, I readily admit I may be wrong about everything to do with realtivity, Einstein and speed of light. I told Pancreasman that I need to do some investigations into the mathematics befopre I launch into exposing Einsteinian hoaxes.

Good luck with that one, since even the best modern scientist and most powerful modern computer models contine to show that Einstein's physics works.

The context of the 'Einstein Hoax' thing is that in another thread - it seemed to me we were told that the way Einstein derived e=mc^2 was that he plugged e=mc^2 into an equation and found that e = mc^2.

Energy being released by a small amount of matter isn't simply science fiction, it is science fact or do you believe that the Atom Bomb is a hoax?

It's fine for teachers and power-nuts to take that approach - 'This is the way it's done!'
but it doesn't help anyone's understanding. The quote I gave about physical versus mathematical constants is an excellent example. At first reading it seemed to make sense - 'OK, so that's how it's done' but then I realised that just by saying 'A physical constant is different to a mathematical constant' doesn't help anyone understand why they are different (in the context of equations ).

People have been using math to understand the world around them since before the ancient greeks. Of course, the more modern ideas that math can be used to explain physics is a more modern invention, but it still goes back to at least a century before Galileo (some were even thinking this as early as the 9th centuy). So it's really nothing that new or out of this world. I would agree that, sometimes the math may not be accurate to the real world (such as when you get answers to 19.5 people per square mile), but most people tend to know where those limits are at.

A lot of people say 'e=mc^2'. I want to know why e=mc^2.

You'd have to ask God that question, but it's rather well demonstrated in the construction of nucleaer bombs or even in everyday bombs. It takes a very small amount of matter, to create a huge release of energy.

[magellan004]

'A lot of people say 'e=mc^2'. I want to know why e=mc^2. '

You'd have to ask God that question, but it's rather well demonstrated in the construction of nucleaer bombs or even in everyday bombs. It takes a very small amount of matter, to create a huge release of energy.

I'm guessing that I may have to ask God too. I'll lay a wager that no-one on TWEB touting Einsteinisms can lay out the derivation by
1. Setting out the symbols and their meanings and formula needed , then
2. Setting out the derivation without pulling rabbits out of a hat.

I'll also bet that you have no idea what the connection between e=mc^2 and an atom bomb is .

You sound like the sort of person who is happy with 'They say so' and that's fine but it's not a moral imperative that others be like you.

Magellan

[ericmurphy]

Magellan, anyone who understands advanced physics could explain this to you. Whether or not anyone here on TWeb can explain it to you is utterly irrelevant.

You claimed that Einstein's equation is a "hoax." The implies you understand the equation and its derivation. Since you self-admittedly neither understand the equation nor its derivation, it's a mystery as to how you can claim it is a "hoax."

Which was Pancreasman's point in starting this thread.

Since LPoT already explained the connection between Einstein's equation and the atom bomb, your "bet" is a loser.

Now: if you think special relativity is a "hoax" despite not having the first idea what it is, get busy explaining how and why it's a "hoax."