Hey viewers, we know you're super-excited to go and read through the comment section found below, but first -- a few important notes about both the Latin and German translations! 1) Multiple viewers have pointed out that Newton's use of the word "sensible" meant "dealing with senses" i.e., that which can be touched, felt, etc. as opposed to "that which makes logical sense", which was our interpretation of it. Indeed the former meaning is consistent with Newton's usage of "sensible" in his writings elsewhere. While we initially considered that meaning, we ruled it out because it would have meant Newton was directly contradicting himself with his usage of "sensible" in his second sentence. But as it turns out, the translator put "sensible" in brackets in the second sentence where it did not belong. Indeed, it seems even the translators had a hard time keeping up with Newton's various distinctions and terminology! 2) "Those violate the accuracy of language" is more directly translated from Latin to "those violate the scriptures". Here it appears Newton was referring to the "scripture" meaning of words like time & space, i.e., their absolute conception. However, we stand by the interpretation of this sentence, since the point of Newton's writing here was to indicate that distinct terminologies must be held separate from one another, which is ultimately an issue of language. Indeed neither of these translation issues affect the ultimate thrust of Newton's passage, which was that the absolute ideals of space and time, notions which are requisite for understanding our reality in the first place, should not be conflated with the measured quantities which we then in turn use to represent those ideals. 3) As an astute commenter pointed out, Einstein's crucial sentence about light isotropy, in which he writes that "the latter time cannot be defined at all", may also have been a translation error which has gone mostly unnoticed by history! The direct German text reads "Die Letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden" which appears to most directly translate to "The latter time can now be defined." The word "nun" or "now" is one letter off from the word "nur" meaning "only" so perhaps the translators thought it was a misprint. If Einstein did truly choose that language, this would be more in line with indicating that he did believe light behavior & simultaneity to ultimately be a conventional choice, although this would raise many questions about why he did not ever talk about or consider any other possible conventions. Regardless of his intentions, it’s clear that the English translation was the interpretation given to Einstein’s theory by the wider physics community.
The usage of the word "sensible" refers to actions or phenomena that are perceived through our senses, making it synonymous with "physical" or "empirical." Therefore, a "sensible measure" would mean a "physical measure." However, concepts such as time, space, place, and motion are not physically measurable in themselves; rather, they serve as frameworks for measuring events (in time), positions (in space), locations (in place), and changes in position (motion). The warning presented in the video is a clear and accurate representation. The video effectively explains that relativity is a method for measuring quantities, not the quantities themselves. However, Einstein violated this mathematical principle by presenting relativity as if it represented actual quantities, such as relativistic time, which he made "natural"-thereby turning it into "sensible time" or physically "natural time." This move undermined the independence of absolute time. Moreover, "sensible space" would refer to "natural space," which in relativity is considered bendable. This interpretation is a clear violation of the true concept of space, which is the dimension within which everything exists and all events occur. Place is a point in space that represents a measure of distance from an origin, while motion measures how fast objects change their location. Although relativity attempts to relate cosmic time to existential events within the universe, it cleverly redefines clock time as "natural time." This misleadingly suggests that because a clock is a physical object, the time it measures must also be natural. In reality, the concept of "natural time" is a farce. Relativity also disregards the more general understanding of wavelength dilation, which corresponds to the distortion of clock time. Instead, it presents this phenomenon as time dilation, even though time dilation is never measurable on a standard clock, which is designed to measure standardized time-not the flawed time dilation introduced by relativity. Experiments conducted by biased followers of the relativistic view of natural time led to the erroneous conclusion of dilatable time, when in fact, they should have measured wavelength dilation. This occurs due to phase shifts in frequencies, resulting in a small energy loss in an oscillator’s wave, which correlates with the so-called time dilation. Furthermore, the concept of relativistic gravity as a result of spacetime curvature is a fabricated interpretation. The experiments involving gravitational lensing, which claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, are biased. In reality, the photon’s path bends due to a momentum exchange with the gravitating body, causing a curvature in the gravitational field, which is wrongly attributed to spacetime curvature. The theories of relativity are based on fundamentally flawed concepts of time and space as "spacetime," which makes the entire relativistic framework unreliable. Time is, by its nature, cosmic and absolute, meaning there is no such thing as time dilation or the reduction in the age of returning twins, as presented in the twin paradox. In summary, the video correctly exposes the flaws in relativity and highlights how Einstein’s theory contradicts Newton’s warning.
Regarding time dilation - I wonder what we can say about this example: We have 2 steaks. One sitting inside the fridge and one sitting on our table. After 1 week, the one on the table has already being rotten, while the one inside the fridge remains "young". If we didn't want to do physics, we could say that from the table steak's perspective, it itself has experienced real time, while the one in the fridge is well... In the fridge and thus their time has been dilated. And visa versa the one inside the fridge can claim that no - it itself is not inside the fridge, instead the one on the table is inside the oven - and thus - the one inside the fridge experienced real time, while the one inside the oven aged much faster than it. If those 2 steaks have respective clocks made out of meat - then these clocks will further strengthen their beliefs... If these 2 steaks are also unable to see if they are inside a fridge or an oven - then they might come up with a theory of relativity; And that one of them should have experienced less time - the only question would be who that is... But if we place an clock that is not made out of meat next to them - then we can measure that BOTH experience the SAME amount of time... What the pieces of meat don't know is that there is a mechanistic way that their time dilation can be understood - and that mechanism is called a "fridge" and one of them, is in it. - - - - The question now is - are we like the steak on the table or inside the fridge? Or is the geometry of the entire Universe such that it time really does slow down for someone in non uniform motion? Einstein didn't care to explore this - because he isn't a philosopher - thankfully he is a physicist and thus as long as his model works, that is perfectly fine by him (and that's fine). But if we want to philosophically explore what might be really going on here - is that it could be that we can have an absolute space and an absolute time - and still also experience the effects of time dilation and length contraction - as mere illusions, just like when you dip your spoon inside a glass of water and the spoon changes shape; Or it could be that we can never really separate space and time in such a way that we can talk about them as absolutes; My curiocity remains unshaken! :)
@@-_Nuke_- You can have an absolute time which locally gets modified due to some phenomena. And from such modified absolute spacetime regions you can observe the world which will appear differently due to modifications of spacetime you are in.
@@thakursn you are correct, the wavelength is responsible for 'time' dilation. Yet he was correct about the bending of space due to mass. What do you mean by that it is gravitational field that gets bent? If you may, explain the momentum exchange between photon path and the mass body.
I think you have misinterpreted Einstein. I've read Einstein's paper many times. And it seems to me very clear that he, not only understood the difference between time as a physical phenomenon and its measurement, but he also wrote the brilliant intro of this paper exactly to deal with this confusion. In the passage you refer to in 17:55, Einstein clarifies that all we know about time is what clocks show us, and therefore to prevent any confusion, we can substitute the meaning of the word "time", with the words "The position of the small hands of my watch". He did not mean that what clocks show is time itself. Also in 18:24, he Brilliantly points to the problem with the definition of time and suggests establishing by definition that lights move from A to B at the same speed it moves from B to A. Presenting this assertion as definition and not as a fact, shows he knows the limits of his suggested theory, and knows that if his assumption is proven wrong, the theory will also fail. Also as he writes the word "time" in quotation, means that he knows this is not the real/physical time but a measurement. Today physics students indeed think that Lorenz transformations represent properties of space and time, but establishing that this fact is a result of Einstein's confusion in this paper, is your interpretation. (Which I think is wrong.) I like your channel but I didn't like many parts of this video. I think that your goal to correct the errors in the way we interpret relatively is very important. But vilifying Einstein, representing him as a fraud, and minimizing his huge contribution, will not get you there, and instead of making physics students open their minds and listen to you, you will alienate them and cause them to close their minds.
Einstein's recognition of the problems inherent to defining simultaneity were certainly apt, and he was among the first to recognize this issue. But he immediately blundered afterwards by declaring that time should be defined via the path a light beam takes, since this required the view that light behavior be posited as absolute and a brute face of nature. In essence, he merely traded "absolute space and time" for "absolute light behavior". And the reason he put time in quotations was to emphasize, as he wrote earlier in his introduction, that talking about time is useless unless one has a measured quantity they can coordinate it to. So he was purposefully distinguishing his idea of time from Newton's absolute one, and moreover, indicating his belief there was no usefulness in the notion of absolute time. Sooner or later we must all be reconciled to the fact that Einstein was not the genius he has been marketed to be; that in fact every "discovery" in his 1905 relativity paper and subsequent E=mc2 paper had already been made by other individuals, and that he simply put a new philosophical spin upon them. Moreover, in an act that speaks rather lousily to his character, he ultimately never gave proper credit to those individuals. (He also married his first cousin, which tells us that his genius, if real, certainly did not extend far beyond the domain of physics.) If learning the truth causes individuals to "close their minds" -- that is, if they lack the maturity to sort fact from fiction -- then they were undoubtedly never meant for scientific pursuits in the first place, and that is certainly no loss for humanity.
@@dialectphilosophy I will have to strongly disagree here with you guys... (Just for this comment, not the video). You guys (judging from this comment) seem to have an emotional bias against Einstein. Which in term strongly lowers the credibility of your opinions. Marriage with his cousin? What does that have to do with philosophy? Einstein wasn't the genius he is thought to be? I am sorry but that's an insult to the entire Human intellect. Again... Nothing to do with philosophy. I will have to heed you an important warning here. This emotional bias against Einstein should stay away from discussions about physics. It provides nothing other than bitterness.
@dialectphilosophy I love your channel as well, and we definitely need to question a lot of elements of popular science but I agree with Lucidthinking, talking this way about Einstein just distracts viewers from the important parts of the video. I understand how frustrating it is to be right about something and get push back from people who fall for simple cognitive biases but if you want your ideas to spread even further you should consider keeping a positive spin on all your videos and not attacking people that are beloved. There are plenty of ways to point out that someone is wrong without getting people worked up. Please keep making great videos that highlight the flaws in the status quo!
@@-_Nuke_-You obviously have an emotional bias TOWARDS Einstein. And that is clouding YOUR judgement. Dialect merely rattles off a number of facts most physicists are already aware of - which is that Einstein contributed little to Special Relativity other than the philosophical interpretation. Most of the features of the theory don’t even bear his name! Still, Einstein tried to present many of the aspects of the theory as his own in his 1905 paper, which referenced and credited no one, despite borrowing direct language and ideas from Poincaré, Mach, Lorentz, and others. That is not academic integrity. What does marrying his cousin have to do with anything? Because the credibility of relativity as a “true” theory has been tied to the image of Einstein as a “genius”. But he clearly made many life choices that are not in line with being a genius at all. Indeed, Special Relativity was mostly other people’s theories, and Einstein had a LOT of help with GR, which took him over ten years, and even then he couldn’t even solve his own equations for it. Then the rest of his life he contributed absolutely nothing to physics. Those are all facts - why don’t you try arguing with them, instead of arguing with your own emotional bias?
Einstein is not the problem. He is aware of his theory's limitations. But some physicists and popularizers after Einstein have jumped to some poor conclusions for just such reasons as this video points out. And they are getting in the way of scientific progress. Keep on keeping on, Dialect!
Einstein was a problem because he was talking about the material world from the point of an objective Idealist who believed in God (everything is causality law, the God don't play dice) and that this god is energy. For this fault was responsible Mach his teacher. For that reason, Einstein was fighting Bohr who believed only in uncertainty that the result of the experiment has no law, and it has an influence from the observer, which this is subjective Idealism. Only a dialectic materialist have the ability to speak about matter and to do small wrongs. Because uncertainty and relativity and causality are natural laws. Dialectic laws.
This is definitely the key point. At first, I thought Einstein was the one responsible for spreading these misguided ideas. However, it turns out that it was the physicists who came after him, especially the modern ones who popularize science. They become almost a cult and don't even allow any criticism of relativity. It's worth mentioning that Einstein still bears some responsibility for this.
@@emotionalvideos6897 Yes, Einstein was responsible, because when sir Elighton, came out with his photography's proof that the light bend because of the bending of the space time continuum from our Sun, first, Einstein disapproved that, but then he was accepted it. He was persuaded. He refused the possibility, that the law of Snell about the bending of light from refraction, like an optical phenomenon, could be the reason. This, because Einstein was actually a very bad physicist bellow any average. Even as a mathematician, he hasn't it. Probably, working in this patent office in Zurich, he has stolen the work of someone else, as some bad people mention. This was the explanation of the photoelectric phenomenon, and for that he took the Nobel. After this, anyone believed on his moron genius. Now, many serious physicists, especially from the quantum theories, when they hear about the GR thy laugh, but no one is coming at frond to reject him because without the GR there isn't any place except in Bible for the "theory" of the B.B. Furthermore, make their career even Nobel Prize's laureates, on the predictions about black holes and gravitational waves, you know the names. So, if today someone came out against Einstein, he has to be e revolutionist, like me, a retired person who don't need money, ha ha ha, anymore or fame, because he will meet against him all of them plus the Vatican. The Vatican, if you know, is a very strong enemy for the reason that the B.B. theory has taken, the blessing of one Pope, and the Popes, after the decision of the Cardinals in 1891 it seems to be the human nearest to the god. Then he has the infallibility for anything, it has his blessing. Einstein was also persuaded by Lemaitre at the third attempt of him to have his agreement on his B.B. theory. People are persuaded with only two things when they are persuaded on a lie. Money, or fame. Money coming from the bank of Vatican are good and the fame when you know that your GR theory is a joke also is good. So, what do you think? Einstein was a victim of after him physicists that came after him to take a piece of his fame, or he was also guilty as well?
imo this series should have a much lighter touch to it, like "Explaining a (perhaps) simpler and more intuitive perspective on spacetime" and you focus on just doing that. The bashing/praising of physicists feels excessive and may spawn a certain type of audience; personally I'd much rather you just put up your axioms/assumptions and build up a description of spacetime and then contrast it to typical explanations, while clarifying and showing that they both valid and equivalent as mathematical descriptions. edit: lots of replies are arguing about metaphysics. My point is lots of viewers just come for a more intuitive way of understanding/model of Einstein's equations. Saying "Einstein is wrong" is like saying "Linear Algebra is wrong" b/c "every vector space has a basis" isn't true if you personally reject AoC
This is not a matter of a simpler or more intuitive "perspective". This is a matter of right and wrong, truth and untruth. The point of our video is that, although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one, as it is acausal and logically contradictory, and consequently this makes it pseudoscience. And there is no easy or pleasant way to state such a thing -- there is no easy way to point out that physicists have been so readily peddling untruths and superstitions for the past century plus, while castigating, ostracizing, demeaning and ridiculing all those who have honestly sought to question them. Having done a number of videos like this one in our UA-cam career, we find comments like this stem less from how the material is presented and more from hurt feelings of individuals who, at some point or another, have put their faith, trust, love and enthusiasm into scientific authority; and don't want to confront that fact that physics is as liable to err and misdirection as any other field of pursuit out there. And we've been there, trust us. We used to adore the theories of relativity, and worship Einstein. But our faith was misplaced, as is yours. And until more people have the moral courage and spiritual fortitude to stand up to establishment, and find that they are able to say things like "Einstein was wrong", then there will be no further real progress in physics.
@@dialectphilosophy " although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one, as it is acausal and logically contradictory"-- this is the key issue. Most trained scientists today (as well as enthusiastic laymen) never encounter the possibility that *mathematical equivalence* does not equal theoretical or logical identity in the course of their education--they are too busy cramming their heads with math (which they often don't even understand). When they are forced to consider this, the fact it is so obvious leads to embarrassment, defensiveness, and obfuscation. Often times they try to invoke a philosophy of hyper-positivism on the occasion to wriggle out of the conundrum, but they are never consistent in holding that philosophy once they feel the threat has passed.
@@dialectphilosophy 'You should change your presentation of science so you don't offend anyone' >> This will lead us back to the dark ages. Keep up the good work Dialect 👍
@@dialectphilosophy "The point of our video is that, although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one" Most people consider mathematical equivalence as theory equivalence. As far as most are conserned, the process of understanding physics is: 1. Observe that math governs the things around us 2. Figure out and get a hold on the math that does that 3. Repeat until everything that is described by math is described If you think these rules aren't good, then that's fine, but that's metaphysics. I just want tricks for understanding/visualizing the equations that makes stuff do things. "there is no easy way to point out..." I said how
I agree. But given the comment in question is about language, I think people should also note that there is a distinct difference in definition when a word is USED in different contexts. "Sensible" literally comes from "what is able to be sensed" but can also imply the value of what people place upon what is sensed. Many think it 'sensible' to include unspecified interpretations of what is sensed as though the description includes the logical related factors. Interestingly this is also related to what is being interpreted or confused by Newton's comment. I think that Newton was saying that you have to be cautious to recognize that scientific definitions need to utilize a relationship between two or more observational DESCRIPTIONS. We are not able to speak on the literal absolutes (whether they exist or not) but must rely on relative definitions only. Time may or may not be an absolute but is not what we can speak on and so the scientific meaning can only be described as a relationship of two distinct positions statically defined such as between two images that have everything in common except some relative position change of something within them. We would pick two such distinct images (or frames) arbitrarily and then define other phenomena relative to that.
It feels like 90% of your videos are just lead up and anticipation. You spend most of your time introducing the _idea_ that modern physics, youtubers, scientists, etc are wrong, and about 10% of your time actually giving an alternative explanation. It makes me sad too, because I see some genuinely interesting ideas here and video making talent, but it feels like most of your videos just barely teeter on becoming vague conspiracy posting, and I **really** do not want that. While I do think that the only real grounding of truth is what we can observe, simplifying our models and better explanations for them is extremely important to true understanding (as well as giving good clues on what experiments and tests to do in the future). And the reformulation of relativity in terms of wave mechanics and the differing speed of light is a *genuinely* fascinating idea. It's just... you have to actually make videos on that lol. The fact of the matter is that it is still simply an interpretation, and a (currently) less explored one at that. It needs much much more maturity and testable predictions before it can replace the traditional Einsteinian one. And hey! Again, maybe it will! but there needs more meat first. Just please... chill a bit man... we're all trying to understand the universe with you, don't go trying to make enemies when you don't have to.
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
I'm pretty sure if you just kept reading a 18:05 Einstein himself says this definition of time is only satisfactory locally and not universally. Plus he speaks as though he's looking for a meaningful way to define time, and defining time as other than "what working clocks measure" is almost unavoidable. Time can only be meaningfully defined as "what some kind of clock measures", be it an imaginary Universal clock or many local clocks like in Einstein's construction. The question is, which is more useful? Einsteins relativity doesn't live or die by the speed of light specifically but by the speed of causality in general. His theory isn't acausal for this fact alone, it uses the speed of light as a proxy for the speed of information flow, i.e. the speed of causality. The maximum speed which two locations can share information or influence each other. the isotropic speed of light is, not only the simplest way to interpret experimental outcomes of 2 way speed of light measurements, but also perfectly in line with Maxwells derivation of the magnitude which didn't rely on direction either.
Your comment correctly points out two issues: Einstein's local definition of time, and the fact that the speed of light in his theories serves as a proxy for the speed of causality. However, your reasoning may still fall into the same logical trap that the video describes. For instance, I can think of two questions related to your points: - The use of clocks to define time is pragmatic, but the deeper question remains: does time exist outside of this operational framework? - Even if we accept the operational definition of time, does the assumption of the isotropic speed of light truly capture the underlying nature of causality? Additionally, if Newton suggested some form of "objective time" or "absolute time," I believe there was also a basic logical flaw in that assertion, which he himself warned against. Newton essentially cautioned against mistaking a measured quantity for reality, and I would take this further to caution against mistaking symbolic representations for reality. From a pragmatic perspective, I find the concept of "objective time" or "absolute time" largely untenable. These same points apply equally well to what I call "symbolic realism," or the idea that these symbols actually reflect something "real." It seems to assume some sort of objective, bird's-eye view and implies that we can somehow access this view. My issue with this assumption rests on three key points: 1. We must use symbols to describe any such bird's-eye view. 2. We cannot verify or test whether our symbols accurately reflect that bird's-eye view without using even more symbols. This, in turn, requires further verification, leading to an infinite regress. 3. Our symbolic systems have inherent limitations, such as the necessity of interpretation. Therefore, it seems logically untenable to assume that any set of symbols could represent such a bird's-eye view objectively. Any such representation is always conditioned on some entity understanding the rules of the system and interpreting them correctly. This isn't to say that symbols and models, such as those in Einstein's theory of relativity, don't have practical value. In fact, Einstein's models work remarkably well within the limits of observation and measurement. His theory helps us predict and navigate the world effectively by offering a framework for understanding relative time. However, these models are pragmatic tools rather than definitive statements about an objective reality. They operate within the constraints of our observations, not as windows into an absolute or universal truth. Finally, my critique doesn’t dismiss the utility of symbols altogether. Instead, it highlights their limits when used to describe concepts like "absolute time" or even "relative time." While symbols help us make sense of the world, they are always interpretations mediated by the rules of the symbolic system we choose, not direct reflections of an objective reality. The danger lies in mistaking their usefulness for a representation of ultimate truth.
You missed the most important and key point of the video! If you define time as "what clocks measure" you must in turn define "measurement". But one cannot define measurement without invoking space and time, since one first needs those concepts in order to make a measurement at all, so that definition is circular. Indeed, as we warned at the beginning of the video, those who take for granted that they think they know what "measurement" is ought to be a little more careful and discerning. And so no, time cannot be meaningfully defined as "what clocks measure", and Einstein's attempt to do so for spatially separated clocks are what led him to his erroneous statement about the one-way speed of light, a topic we'll examine more in depth in an upcoming video. Secondly, we can't imagine that you watched the video very closely, because our arguments about causality were not in regards to the fact that light is responsible for the transmission of causal information, this latter fact being one we outright stated in the video. Our statements about causality were in regards to the fact that Einstein was forced to make the motion of light in an inertial frame acausal, a brute-fact-of-nature postulate, in order to make it invariant, leading to the all the respective phenomena of relativity, i.e. time dilation, length contraction, relativistic mass, etc. likewise also being regarded as acausal, brute-facts-of-nature. Lastly, it is a misconception that Einstein's theory is the "simplest" interpretation of the two-way invariance of light. The absolute time/space/ether interpretation features the exact same transformation equation as Einstein's, and is thus just as simple; one rather uses a master clock instead of a local clock. Moreover, the absolute interpretation is much more sensible, as it leads to causal explanations for relativistic phenomena. In conclusion, while we welcome and encourage criticism and critique, we encourage you to be a little more discerning in your future objections! Thanks!
@dialectphilosophy I have a question for you. I love your videos and I find extremely interesting to hear different angles and challenges to existing assumptions. But this begs a question: many of your videos seem to imply new ways to look at physics (maybe even a way to work around the limits of the current one), so do you also have any scientific paper submitted on the topic? It's nice you share these with the public but if you want to make a real scientific contribution you have to go through a peer review. I was just curious if you have done anything like that
@@DonatoMeliWhile peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific validation, history shows that breakthrough ideas can emerge outside this system. Einstein, for instance, made some of the most transformative discoveries of the 20th century without going through formal peer review in his 1905 papers on relativity, published in Annalen der Physik. Similarly, the theoretical work predicting the Higgs boson was shared via preprint platforms like arXiv, bypassing traditional peer review, yet it still contributed to one of the greatest discoveries in modern physics. Another example is the Bitcoin white paper (2008), written by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, which introduced the concept of decentralized digital currency. Despite never undergoing peer review and with no one even knowing the true identity of the author(s), Bitcoin has had a profound impact on financial systems and technology. Whether or not Bitcoin will replace traditional currencies remains debatable, but its revolutionary ideas have undeniably reshaped the global financial landscape. Conversely, the peer review process has sometimes allowed flawed or even fraudulent work to be published. A notable example is Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 paper in The Lancet, which falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism, causing widespread public health issues before being retracted. Another example is the Jan Hendrik Schön scandal, where fabricated physics research passed through peer review and was published in prestigious journals like Nature and Science. While some fields may be more or less prone to issues like this, it is doubtful that any particular field is completely immune. For instance, in fields like computer science, errors or fraud are generally easier to catch due to the ease of replicating experiments and verifying results, which makes such cases rarer but there are examples of it happening. In contrast, fields like psychology and the humanities have been grappling with a well-known "replication crisis," where many studies fail to produce the same results when repeated. This variability in replicability highlights that certain fields may face more challenges in validating claims, but no area of science is entirely insulated from the possibility of flawed or questionable research passing through peer review. These examples demonstrate that peer review is not an infallible marker of credibility. Ultimately, the validity of any scientific claim must rest on the strength of the evidence and reasoning behind the argument, regardless of the medium through which it is conveyed. Whether a claim is made in a journal, a preprint, or even a UA-cam video, it is the logic and data that should be critically examined. While peer review is extremely important and serves as a critical first filter in the scientific process, we must be cautious about assuming that peer-reviewed work is automatically infallible. Peer review is a valuable tool for ensuring that research meets certain standards of rigor, but it is not without limitations. The true strength of the peer review process emerges over time, particularly through the replication of studies and the gradual accumulation of evidence. As more independent researchers attempt to reproduce and expand upon the findings, the robustness of the original claims becomes clearer. This iterative process is what ultimately solidifies scientific consensus, making replication just as essential as peer review itself.
@@DonatoMeli To add to my previous comment, I think this ties nicely back to a quote from James Kidd, a philosopher of science, and demonstrates the practical utility of skepticism and epistemic humility: "Colleagues can let us down, shared epistemic practices can be abused, and institutions can be corrupted. The virtue of epistemic humility therefore builds in, at the ground level, an acute sense of the fact that epistemic confidence is conditional, complex, contingent, and therefore fragile." History clearly shows examples where even solidified academic or scientific consensus was objectively wrong in some way. Too much epistemic confidence can actually hinder scientific progress. In my humble opinion, I think "intellectual honesty" almost implies skepticism and epistemic humility.
7:05 *HUGE* problem. You say that by time, “we mean the idealistic stand-in of a perfectly regular process which itself is never subject to alteration by any other physical processes.” But this cannot be what we mean by time. Here’s where we need to be extra careful. We have to decide if we’re going to conceive time for itself as a thing _separable_ from the objects “in” it or if, rather, it is an _abstraction_ from things themselves. Are natural things only finite in coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be with the _addition_ of time? Or is it rather that natural things are precisely such _as temporal_ and that time is inseparable from objects? Indeed, when the clock stops, there is a sense in which _its_ time stops. When a muon’s decay slows down, there’s a sense in which _its_ time does as well. But this is only because _motion_ changes, and _motion_ is a unity of space and time. Taking time in pure abstraction from the concrete and relative motion of bodies can only have a conceptual (i.e., philosophical) significance, to find out why it belongs to nature, how it is distinguished in its structure of externality from that of space, and how both space and time belong to motion. There is no “absolute” time outside of this. There is no “universal” clock, a quantity of time in and for itself. Nature is irreducibly finite, contingent, disappearing, and full of relative untruth. But Newton would mistake the abstract for the “actual.” By simply positing time as an “idealistic stand-in” for what would have to be a _dynamical_ process, we badly substantialize an abstraction as concrete. Time _as such_ is simply not the object of an empirical physics which has separated itself off from the _a priori_ investigation of categories and their order of abstraction. So I would agree that modern relativists do much harm with their language and I think your perception of the history from Mach to Einstein is generally correct. The positivism of this period and the unwitting inheritance of it _still_ linger in our day’s endeavor to know nature. But I think this is baked into a larger conceptual problem of badly substantializing time itself as something coincident with matter instead of an inherently immanent and immaterial aspect of what it _means_ to be material. In this way, Mach and Einstein aren’t merely making the mistake of ignoring actual time or mistaking the two times. They are already wrong in adopting Newton’s _a priori_ categorical framework to begin with. And even more encompassing is the issue of misunderstanding what physics does. Time as such is simply not its object of investigation. I would be far more radical in my diagnosis of this part of modern physics.
indeed,according Aristotel , no distinction between carry(infinity)and motion, carry(infinity) could not exist without motion. To move in space, thing must disappear HERE and then appear THERE. To move in time, thing must appear BEFORE and then disappear AFTER. "disappears" means digit at right becomes empty and carry (infinity) goes (but not still arrived to digit at left). "appears" means carry(infinity) becomes number in digit at left. Number is equlibrium between quantity& quality, curvature&dimension. Again, according Aristotle, time is a number of changes between BEFORE and AFTER. So , carry(infinity) exists only in motion ( departure from one digit ... arriving to other). Stop of motion means number(equilibrium). Time counts changes inside digit(in KER) Space counts changes outside digit(in IMG). If turn things inside out like a glove(quantity- quality inversion) then Space becomes dof(degree of freedom) and Time becomes lte(TEMPERATURE). IF relocate Counter outside of number system(shape, finite chain of digits, digit's amount is dimension of shape) then it becomes time and Finite chain of number systems becomes space. Energy of each number system is it's Carry(infinity). I only want to say that infinite chain of digits is non-logical. Infinity(carry) out of infinitely digit seems senseless to me (old programmer). Either no carry or chain is finite. In first case we receive set of digit, in second D-dimensional shape. ************************ If i look at digit from ABOVE i see curvature(quantity), If i look at digit from BELOW i see dimension(quality), If i look at digit from HERE i see number, If i look at digit from THERE i see -number , If i look at digit BEFORE i see infinity, If i look at digit AFTER i see zero.
Any chain is as weak as its weakest part. And your reasoning breaks at least totally when you advocates for « time to be dynamical ». This is absurd à priori, since what would measure such « dynamical passage of time »? Time?
Interesting, Heideggerian perspective I would assume. But one thing comes to mind - if the possibility of absolute time is nonexistent as actually available to us, nevertheless its possibility is possible - nevertheless we can not discount that absolute time exists as the unknowable.
10:35 To me, this doesn't really reflect absurd statements, but rather reveals that time itself is an abstract idea and is not an observed fact. Where is time? All I see is moving objects. To say "time itself does not stop, clocks do." is to insist once again that an unobserved abstract language idea called "time", devoid of any substance, is reality.
Yes, you are right. Those are just manners of speech. Most physicists know that a clock slowing down to a near halt is not time stopping. Dialect is trying to gin up clicks.
I do not understand why most commentators refuse to acknowledge the overlap between philosophy and natural science in these subjects! This is evident to anyone who has studied the philosophy of science in depth.
Dialect, Once again, I agree with half of your points and disagree with the other half. I completely agree that it is important to maintain a distinction between actual quantities and our measurements of those quantities. Measurements of both space and time always rely on certain assumptions about the instruments that we use. Namely, that their behaviour during the measurement process remains stable and predictable --- even if the physical interaction we are trying to study is much more chaotic. This includes assumptions that our measuring rods -- left undisturbed by external interaction* -- continue to remain the same shape and size. It includes assumptions that our clocks -- left undisturbed by external interaction -- continue to tick at the same rate. Unfortunately, "actual space" is not partitioned into clear, coherent grid-lines that the human eye can see. There is also no metronome that ticks off each unit of "actual time" that the human ear can detect. So, we have to use the tools we have at our disposal. Absolute space and absolute time may or may not be real -- but since, in any case, we have no way to measure them directly, we have to use physical processes instead. You try to argue that Einstein was somehow unique in basing his definitions of space and time on assumptions about physical processes - in his case, the dynamics of light. However, Einstein is neither unique nor incorrect to do this. Since Newton, we have used inertial coordinate systems (aka inertial frames) to coordinate space and time. These inertial frames also define space and time on a physical basis -- namely, the assumption that Newton's Laws Of Motions hold true in some system of coordinates. All Einstein did was recognize that the inertial frames, as defined by Newton through his Laws, are also frames in which light propagates isotropically at speed c. He realized the empirical fact that the two definitions -- starting from different physical assumptions -- still gave us the same family of coordinate systems. They are experimentally equivalent. We cannot explain why this is so from pure reason alone. It is simply, as you say, a "brute fact of nature". The usefulness of these definitions lies not in their correspondence to "actual space" and "actual time", since we already agree that those quantities cannot be directly measured. Their usefulness comes from the ability to systematize an enormous number of other experimental facts into a simple, symmetric form. Choosing some other type of coordinate system to study physics in is still possible. However, the equations are much simpler and more elegant when expressed in terms of inertial coordinates -- which are, as I mentioned, equivalent to light-based coordinates. Again, you repeat the myth that the two-way speed of light is set, purely by convention, to be c. I have already put a comment under your Matrix video discussing why this is not true. Please read that comment. It also has articles linked to it that explain the non-conventional nature of one-way speed of light in more detail. Love your videos, Dialect.
Hey Amal, thanks for watching! Perhaps you missed our "Superposition" video, but the experimental equivalence of inertial coordinate systems can be explained from pretty basic aspects of wave mechanics. Indeed, to suggest it is a brute fact of reality is to restrict the possibility that other physical phenomena can interfere and affect the behavior of light, which will always limit the future realm of models for reality. In short you are practicing a religion, not performing science! And yes, while the two-way speed of light is empirically determined to be c, the one-way speed of light can never be measured so long as there is not a faster-than-light signal available to us; this renders any choice of one-way speed for a c a convention. Lastly, we will be tackling the nature of space and time in a different video -- but you are correct in your sense that they are not "absolute" structures that really could be determined to 'exist' somewhere in reality. Rather they are useful notions that allow us to retain causal explanations and do science. In other words, they are, as Kant posited, the quanta of our intuition, or the language of our measurement -- for we cannot perform any measurements whatsoever without first invoking a notion of space and time.
@@dialectphilosophy If elementary particles are not waves, but particles, then quantum superposition is not explained by wave mechanics. It is then only merely _accounted for_ by wave mechanics, which just means "can be modeled" (using a possible convenient fiction). No one really knows if "wavefunctions" are ontic or epistemic. So a little humility is called for here. I am sure you are aware that effective superposition of particles can be explained in more than one way, so again, no one yet knows the correct explanation of quantum superposition.
@@dialectphilosophy It is not practicing religion to use a model that is useful. It might be practicing religion to assume that since the model makes assumptions about the world that it is therefore "not valid". There is no such thing as an invalid model so long as it's logically consistent within its assumptions, _there are only more and less useful models_ . Afaict Einstein's model and the model you've presented are equally _useful_ when it comes to predicting reality. If you want to make an argument on why we should focus on the more general one, I believe you should frame it in terms of how it could help with finding more useful models, not by appealing to Newtonian absolute-coordinates metaphysics or bashing Einstein. Edit: formatting
@@zyansheep The only metaphysics is Einstein's theory. What you wil tell about the Tesla opinion that the Theory of Relativity was just “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
Time is essentially a mental construct that represents a relation between events (as we say event "A" occurred before "B," and "B" before "C," which is a temporal relation). Its reference is the relative measurement of motion, which allows us to estimate the number of occurrences, just as we measure a "day" by the movement of the sun from one sunrise to the next.
While I don't fully understand most of the content on this channel, I do love what you guys do. I have no formal physics education and it's more so a topic I like to ponder on when I'm under the influence of a substance, but with that being said I've always been an Einstein "follower" in the sense that I believe his outlook on physics is probably the most correct. With that being said I'm enjoying watching you guys debunk his theories even if I don't fully understand them. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, in the process of debunking Einstein's theories (who's are the best for classical physics), does this suggest that you guys are working on creating your own even more accurate theories and models of the universe? Are you guys working on getting any papers published? I ask this because you speak with a confidence that makes me think that you're trying to get at something deeper that you've discovered. Maybe a theory of everything.
@@vfa.vinicius formalising them mathematically is nice, but the Maths are just an analogy describing the phenomenon. The "picture" of what's happening is what's supreme. This deep thinking of philosophy is what must come first. The boy needs time to cook.
@@grahamzibarPhysics is literally the mathematical model of observable phenomena. If you don't propose a mathematical model that makes equivalent or better predictions, then you haven't developed a new theory of physics. That why string theory has been falling out of favor.
I like your content. It is needed because there is tremendous disagreement between all trained Physicists regarding "interpreting" Einstein's work. But there is no disagreement regarding the math...perfect (even I, an undergrad, can follow it). But, following the math alone leads to some well known contradictions that have spawned METAPHYSICAL theories by....leading physicists (not plain ole youtubers). That alone suggests something is wrong. Further, Einstein KNEW his theory was incomplete. The point is that I like your demands to integrate the math with an intuitive understanding. Of course, this is needed MUCH, MUCH more on the Quantum Physics field....the "shut up and calculate" practice has made academics wealthy and changed our world.....but we all suspect that in a few thousand years (at most!) future physicists will chuckle at our inability to reconcile the math of Quantum Physics with an intuitive understanding of it. I wish there was a "Dialect" channel for quantum physics, but I suspect that the math too, too difficult. So ya, keep goin'!
Finally. I always thought it was ridiculous that physicists draw this “wormhole” of curved space time to dream up about time travel. But in the first place, time is a tool to create a sequence in events and cannot be graphed in 1dimension
all good theories are heretical. Thought you would have figured that out by now. Out with the old, in with the new and off with their heads. Go ask Alice
I do not get it. Don't you understand what scientific discourse is all about? It's about the passionate exchange of different ideas. Arguments and counter-arguments are exchanged and everyone can evaluate them. It is not a call for inquisition if someone does not agree. Were do you see this if someone voices criticism. It is a call for debate. Nothing more. Our society would be better off if we realized this more often.
I've always considered STR as a measurement-only theory, and sometimes got puzzled by some experts who believed it actually describes the physical reality. As an example, on one forum someone asked an "STR expert" a question that went like this: "Imagine a steel rod rotating freely in a round hole in a block of steel. Imagine now we observe a Lorentzian contraction, and now the hole and the rod are ellipses. The question is how can this rod still rotate freely?". So this STR expert went into a long stream of possible theories on how it could happen, including the rod acquiring some weird physical properties, allowing it to rotate. If you just interpret the STR as observation transformations there are no paradoxes like these.
relativity noob here question 1)isnt the point if relativity that your reality is just what you measure?because one inertial.system cant say the other is wrong? question 2) couldnt the str expert just have said: for the steel rod,as it circles in the hole it changes its alignment, but the lorenz contraction only acts on the parts in the direction of movement of the system.
@@SylveonSimp I'm not an expert either, I just notice if you pose a tricky question the STR experts give wildly different opinions and answers. Another one that send them into stupor was a rotating disk, where the circumference must always be less than 2*pi because every neighborhood on the disk is in motion and thus contracting. All hell breaks loose trying to explain this geometric paradox.
@@maxoobbxxx8032 I think it's because the theory is a) hard to understand/grasp and b) one can always easily miss something. Unfortunately Einstein is dead, who is the next eminent authority?
"and now the hole and the rod are ellipses" " _are_ ellipses". There's the problem right there: not understanding the very "relativity" part of Relativity. They are not ellipses. They never _become_ ellipses, any more than they become ellipses in the static, non-dynamic, case of viewing the rod and hole at a simple geometric angle. If I tilt a plate away from me to 45º, does it become an ellipse?
Great video. I ll say though that the way your argument is laid out is a bit contrived. In physics we do indeed deal with so many concepts that let's say escape our grasp as they cannot be measured (e.g. the wavefunction itself is not an observable). So you are 100% right in saying that a measure of physical process can only be taken as a stand in / placeholder for the platonic object that is observed / measured. In the case of relativity, the fact that light motion is taken as platonic is problematic, although if we replace light with travel of information / causality then we save ourselves some trouble. Light was chosen because it's the fastest moving thing that we can observe and use for measurements, but if we replace the motion of light with motion of causality we're good. We know already there are media where light travels less fast than some particles (e.g. Chrenkov radiation) but speed of causality is still limited to speed of light in vacuum, where they are both equal. I could go significantly longer on this topic, but a comment is not the best way to write it. Love the references, I ll check them out
Well this is a complete misunderstanding of Mach’s argument. Mach does not say that time is the reference to a movement of 1 body (eg the sun), but precisely a reference to the movement of all bodies of the universe. And those movements, taken as a whole, define what we call inertial time. Mach is well aware that the movement of the sun is ‘imperfect’. You absolutely do not answer to Mach’s critique. About Einstein: it is true that SR is often teached in a wierd way, but the we can’t argue for that against Einstein. Einstein was really clear in his 1905 paper that we could choose other conventions for the one way speed of light, and that would lead to the same physics. He just made a practical choice and is explicit about that. To say that Einstein made a mistake here is a total disregard, and a singular misunderstanding of Mach's writings.
You're incorrect here; Einstein did NOT indicate that other conventions could be chosen in his 1905 paper. This is exactly what makes his statement that we cannot define common time without assuming invariant & isotropic light (as depicted at the end of the video) so monumentally incorrect. And based on this vagueness of your critique, it does not seem likely you have actually bothered to read his 1905 paper at all. We will also be addressing Mach's argument more fully in another video, but again it does not seem very plausible that you have even read his work, or bothered to look at the quotes put up in the video. In a short gist, the flaw in Mach's argument is that quantities like "mass" which he wishes to invoke in order to define relations of space and time cannot themselves be "measured" or "observed" without one first invoking a notion of space or time, so Mach's argument ultimately winds up being circular.
@@dialectphilosophy "... monumentally incorrect ..." is garbage discourse mate. Empirically Einstein was monumentally successful. Whether that implies "correct" or not is what could be debated.
@@dialectphilosophy Also, have *_you_* read the paper? I mean _carefully?_ Right from the outset Einstein is clearly making "Postulates" to build a theory. Do you have any idea what that means? A theory can be inapplicable, or empirically falsified, but it cannot otherwise be "monumentally wrong". _"Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by 'time.' ...It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of 'time' by *substituting* “the position of the small hand of my watch” for 'time.'"_ --- he goes on to fully grapple with the _practical_ definition of clock time, referring to the sensible measures. Substitution is here a stand-in not a replacement (but I am only reading the English translation, maybe Einstein was actually just stupid in German?). Nah. He knew what Newton meant. Seems like old Albert fully agreed with Newton.
@@dialectphilosophy Hello, What bothers me the most is the tone you use in your video. I can answer your questions precisely, with quotes. I have the texts in French, so I translate from that language. Concerning Einstein: He indicates that it is possible to make other conventions, as he begins by envisaging another in the 1905 article: “We could, of course, be satisfied, for the temporal evaluation of events, with an observer who would find himself, like a clock, at the origin of the coordinates and who, to each luminous signal reaching him through empty space and bringing him the testimony of an event to be evaluated, would associate a position of the hands of this clock. But this type of mapping has the disadvantage of not being independent of the point at which the clock-wielding observer stands - as we know from experience. A much more practical stipulation can be reached by reasoning as follows [...]”. Here, Einstein explicitly considers another convention. This is the convention where the speed of light of a ray moving away from the observer is c/2, and the speed of a ray moving towards the observer is infinite. This is an isotropic but inhomogeneous convention. This would lead to a relativity of positions and not just velocities, which Einstein wanted to avoid, since it did not contain any new physics. In what follows, where he makes the choice we know about simultaneity, he introduces it by saying: “The latter can, however, be defined by convening that by definition [...]”. He explicitly uses the terms “convention” and “by definition”, so there's no ambiguity in what Einstein is saying. It is certainly very interesting to study these other possible conventions, to show what is really at the heart of the physics involved. But don't let it be said that this would be to repair Einstein's error - that's a deliberately false assertion. Then, concerning Mach: As you know, Mach defines the ratio of masses as the opposite of the inverse of the ratio of accelerations between pairs of bodies. But this formula is only valid in an inertial reference frame with inertial time, and for a pair of bodies 'isolated' from the rest. In the rest of his book, however, he criticizes precisely these notions. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, Mach says nothing about the difficulties involved in defining mass. We can at least clearly state that he was aware of these difficulties, as he writes in Ch. II, VII, §5: “Even if we keep to the Newtonian point of view, and completely disregard the difficulties and obscurities we have pointed out, which the abbreviated denominations of time and space only conceal without removing, it would be possible to simplify Newton's exposition a great deal [...]”, whereupon he re-exposes his definition of mass, which he therefore knows to be unsatisfactory. But it's already much better than Newton's proposed circular definition. It's clear that, in Mach's vision, a consistent theory of mechanics must start from the totality of the universe. And that mass can only have a precise meaning by examining this totality. This may seem like a crazy project, but it's the one that emerges naturally from his precise analysis of space and time. In fact, it's quite common to consider that general relativity has not fulfilled this Machian project, even if not all physicists agree on this. In any case, the way in which general relativity is usually taught has a lot to do with Newton's absolute ideas, and not enough, in my opinion, with the Machian conception. Finally, it's worth noting that both Mach and Einstein, although highly critical of Newton's notions of space and time, were always extremely admiring of the latter, and always wrote about it. It would be a little more interesting if you adopted a similar approach when analyzing, and possibly criticizing, the work of Mach, Einstein or others.
Thank you for producing this, it is good to encourage rational scrutiny. Although we have no mechanism to measure absolute time, its existence should not be ignored. For explanatory reasons, I often use the rotation of the Earth as a naïve substitute for absolute time. I also use a distant pulsar, as the periodicity is more accurate. Philosophically it is not the accuracy that is important here, it is how it represents an absolute and universal temporal displacement. When referring to absolute time I prefer to use displacement of time as this will distinguish between universal, absolute time and relative and emergent duration. The two are not mutually exclusive, for they are two distinct aspects of the whole ontology of time. Time is a dichotomy of absolute and relative time, absolute and universal in its spatial and temporal ordinality, yet divergent and frame dependant in the measured duration that indicates speed. Between 1832 and 1967 we defined the second as 1/86,400th of an absolute rotation of the Earth. I will naively call these absolute seconds for explanatory reasons. Imagine the Earth as a giant 24-hour clock with an obelisk on the equator for the hour hand. If we flew a geostationary satellite above the obelisk every degree of rotation would still delineate the same universal 240 absolute seconds at the satellite. Since 1967 we define the second with an atomic clock. This can no longer define the same thing, a relative time second is now demonstrably different to the aforementioned absolute second, as the SI second is no longer a universal displacement, because due to the combined effect of SR and GR an atomic clock coterminously ticks faster at the GEO satellite. The day is absolute but the duration of that day is relative, with an extra 42 micro-seconds at the satellite, the day is longer there. In SR we can imagine two spacecraft one flown by Alice and one by Bob. Both are heading for the same destination. Both mainly travel at a constant speed, Bob sets off first as he travels slower. At position A Alice passes Bob, both have exactly similar clocks and start to record the periodicity of a very distant pulsar, arbitrarily perpendicular to their direction of travel. They stop recording the pulsar when Bob joins Alice at the destination. Travelling faster than Bob, Alice’s clock, ticking slower than Bob’s will have recorded less time for the same amount of pulses from the pulsar. From this, we can deduce that both displaced the same absolute time but at different relative time durations. Proving relative time dilation, in SR and exposing the fallacy of the relativity of simultaneity as a consequential postulate. To unify time dilation of both SR and GR in a background-dependent model the speed of light has to be constant in all frames of reference. I will return now to the obelisk on the equator and the GEO satellite. With a cable connecting the satellite and the obelisk, we could travel up and down in a Tsiolkovsky-type space elevator. Like a giant clock, the whole system rotates in absolute time unison, the relative duration is slower at the satellite as an atomic clock ticks faster there, measuring more relative duration over the day relative to the obelisk. Because the speed of light is a constant we use light travel time as a distance, such as light years in astronomy. The SI metre is defined by the relative time it takes a photon of light to traverse the metre ruler. I like to refer to them as light-speed rulers. If relative time changes, then so must the length of a light-speed ruler, if C is to remain constant. In Einstein GR a light-speed ruler would shrink and grow as you go in and out of a gravity well due to the hyperbolic space-time geometry, making the coordinate speed of light faster at the satellite than at the obelisk.
The SI metre must by definition, define the scale of the universe. Descending the Tsiolkovsky-type space elevator and the shrinking light-speed ruler means the universe must expand. This must be a correlation and not an absurd causation. For C to be constant, and the expansion of the universe, universal, the light-speed ruler must be shrinking in absolute time unison at different relative time rates. With a longer time measurement on the satellite, the changing scale is slower than on the obelisk. The obelisk is travelling faster through absolute time. How fast the universe is expanding depends on the clock of the observer. If we use the JWST to measure the expansion rate it will be slower due to its faster clock in its L2 halo orbit, than if we measure it with the HST travelling over 17,000 mph in its low Earth orbit. Alice in her spacecraft travelling at relativistic velocity will measure an even faster expansion rate. SR and GR are unified with a single isomorphic scalar transformation, a contraction in asymmetric time. The coordinate speed of light is universal at any now moment in time yet it has been faster in a relative way, in the past, resulting in the redshift-to-distance relationship. This redshift represents a changing relative distance with no absolute change in position. Comoving distances are model-dependent and irrelevant when the expansion is due to a scalar change. Only peculiar movements represent absolute positional change. Thank you for reading this polemic by an autodidactic layperson. You may find my ideas easier to follow when watching my latest presentations that you can find by searching: On The Nature of Time and Simultaneity A 20 04 2024. On The Nature of Time and Simultaneity B 09 03 2024. On The Nature of Time and simultaneity C 16 04 2024.
If you go to a related idea, in the quantum scale, we keep thinking that we have measured the quantum of time, meaning the smallest unit of time. But then when our "clocks" got better, we discovered that time existed as smaller units: We just could not measure it before. So this is the same phenomena, that we thought time stopped because our clock stopped, and then we disproved it by getting a better clock. If it can happen in the quantum side, why can't we think that light as a time measure, doesn't actually measure the real time before it fails.
@@hchang007 - I think there's two types of time. Time at the macro level, which is the manifestation of change in state of a complex system (such as a person), and time in it's raw, absolute form, at the quantumn level. This distinction seems missing from conversations in general - and it irks me.
Would this time that exist in nature still be moving before the big bang? Likewise if the universe was empty of energy or matter for a moment would this time still be moving as part of an empty space? > So to ask it another way: "What is the default native speed of time; Zero or 'c'? Not easy to answer if it can be answered at all :)
@@axle.student - Interesting questions. Before the Big Bang? Who knows - there's supposed to be nothing at all before it - but it's imopssible to say. If the universe was devoid of energy and matter, then time could still pass - because the space/time framework remains (quantumn fields). There's a stage, but no actors. I'm not sure time has a speed, because we define speed using time, I think of it as cycles of a processor. The speed of light doesn't define time, it defines the speed of change in macro objects.
@@youtoob1811 "Before the big bang" was just an analogy to describe a space-time environment without motion. 2 common concepts of time are: Time that is fundamental and always flows forward by default. (Would default to 'c') Time that is nothing more than an emergent measurement to describe motion of objects or fields. (would default to 0 and range toward a maximum 'c' when there is motion.) Relativity seams to have a bit of a fruit salad mix of the 2 going on, or maybe just the wrong way around :) Just an observation I encountered.
I know this is far down the line, but could you give us a super brief synopsis of what your interpretation of general relativity would be? Is it similar to Brans-dicke gravity?
The Equivalence Principle. Gravity and Acceleration are equivalent. Newton's Laws of Motion. F=ma. Gravity/g-force comes from Acceleration E=mc. Acceleration defines mass. Gravity is the resistance of the mass to being Accelerated by an outside force. What the question should be is 'What defines Acceleration'. Two possibilities. A creator god (Genesis) or an infinite universe. One that has always been in motion. As Carl Sagan would put it. Both possibilities are equally frightening to a physisist. Newton's F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a. Its circular logic. Acceleration creates Acceleration. So you are left with explaining infinity. Infinity is an undefined, boundless entity. E=mc. Acceleration is now bounded, defined, finite. The infinite universe is now bounded/defined by the speed of light. There is no cosmological center. No beginning and no end. Either in time. Or in space. Just an infinite cycle of birth and rebirth. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. We exist because infinity exists. Eventually, energy will transform itself into intelligent life.
@@stewiesaidthat wrote, >> "Gravity is the resistance of the mass to being Accelerated by an outside force." You're describing inertia, not gravity. Gravity is the _accelerating flow of 'space' itself_. That is literally both the cause and definition of gravity. >> "What the question should be is 'What defines Acceleration'." Acceleration is change of velocity. RATE of acceleration is GR's "curvature of space" cryptically describing gravity. Thus "curvature" determines the 'strength' or FORCE of gravity.
I'm excited for more. Your ideas help me challenge myself and stretch ideas I think need stretching. I appreciate the subtlety you've pointed out about affixing time to another physical thing that's "just gotta be that way." In a marginally related vein, I've become staunchly opposed to how "spin" is being used, particularly in quantum concepts, to mean something other than spin. Actual, physical spin is quite sacrosanct as it can represent a concrete, time-series event. Can't help but think that "half-spin particles" damages the definition of spin. I get the sense that coming videos will get into how to interpret different geometries/coordinate systems and I'm very much looking forward to that. If I'm following your path of intuition, you'll likely anchor the ticks in the coordinate system to something real and literal like spin. Ramble done, stoked for moar
Using Newton words alone seems a bit of an argument based on authority but then for an even more authoritative voice Aristotele would argue against absolute time...
I don't understand how the thinking ever got started that time is anything other than a measurement... it's a tool humans made u😢p the same as maps, or excel sheets, ie. a way to order and depict information🎉. Nothing is flowing, there's nothing to stop
Arguing by authority would be taking Newton's words and saying they are correct by virtue of his having said them. Rather, we argue they are correct because they are in alignment with the most logical and sensible notions one can ascribe to space and time. But yes, it helps seeing that others have much such arguments in the past.
dialect provided explanations and examples on why Newton's warning should be taken seriously, thus this video is not using an argument based on authority but one based on logic.
@@dialectphilosophy Let me clairfy "seems a bit". The overall tone of the video seemed a bit dramatised this time, perhaps it may be the images that made me read newton words presented as some sort of prophecy... perhaps I skimmed through the video too quickly, but I see others remarked on the tone of the video this time around, I suppose is good to get feedback from the taste of your audiences. I've always found beyond surprising that people that pursue a career in science, and physics in particular, rarely confront themself with the principia philosophical remarks, not even out of curiosity it seems, its reading should be mandatory in all science classes. Newton had to shield his work from philosophical criticism and this made him try to lay strong and surprisingly well balanced metaphysical foundations/boundaries, but those foundations were then forgotten by his followers as physics triumphed and such need ceased to exits. Many conceptual mistakes are made again and again on the ontological status that scientists naively attribute to the terms of their work. But to be fair things got also really complicated very quickly with the crisis of the sciences, Husserl, and the amazing effectiveness of higher mathematics in physics. As per the logic of the argument I think one would have to argue deeper around the epistemology of mathematical sciences in general, and while there is little hope to settle that debate, one should look with awe at the fact that some - surely wrong - theories have been conceived that work so well. I do appreciate your study here, I got problems with relativity and in general with all mathematical physics, I do think it's a problem to put maths in the geometry of space and then claim it contains time by virtue of the arithmetics that make it a dynamic artifact of the mind, but I don't get much time to think about this and as such: I do definitely find your work very interesting and enjoyable, what I would suggest of this one is to leave it on the channel, mark it as (DEPRECATED) and issue a take 2 of the same on less a conflicting pose. But then again that's just my taste and I would likely have to watch the next one in a hurry as well... keep up the good work!
-- regarding the nature of "Time": What we humans call "time" is in fact "relative cadence", a comparison and descriptive specification ("measurement") by ourselves of the state of motion of one region of the universe (e.g. a runner's traversal of a given length of track) relative to, and stated in terms of, the state of motion of another region of the universe (e.g. the sweep second hand around the face of our stopwatch). That is, what we call "time" is relative motion (as we observe / measure it) - nothing more and nothing less. The fact that we have assigned our neurologically abstracted inference a linguistic name (indicator / index) simply implies that we are using the cyclic increments of motion of an agreed upon standard (e.g. 12-hour) clock to describe an observed (or conjectured) state of motion at a different location with respect to, and in terms of. We should not infer from that fact that we have discovered and reductionistically "isolated" yet another "distinct entity", apparently some enigmatic "substance" or "thing", that is a distinct "part" of the universe, analogous to the way we human "observers" have traditionally regarded ourselves as "separate" and isolatable from, and even "outside" of it. That would be a human linguistic "category" mistake. [See also Newton's "Scholium" in Principia Mathematica.] The real enigma, and the question you should be asking, is: Why and how can it be that the internal and external motions of all these "separate things" we see scattered throughout the universe be so precisely synchronously correlated, no matter by how great a distance they are separated? And why is the "constant" velocity of light through the apparent "void" of "empty space" separates those particulate "mass"-object (PMO) "things", the point-radial acceleration impulse 'shock' waves by means and in terms of which we "see" those PMOs, also the asymptotic maximum velocity of relative "motion" to which these PMOs can be "accelerated" with respect to each other during any finite period of this mysterious and enigmatic "time"? And how can the "constant" velocity of light "c" through "empty space" be the same relative to each and all of these PMOs no matter their velocity < c through that same "empty space" relative to each other?
The answer to this question can be logically deduced by recognizing that: 1) The motion through "empty 3 dimensional space" of any PMO relative to another PMO must be (and must have been) initiated by an "impulse" of acceleration*, and that since the speed of light through empty space is constant, and has always been constant, any "acceleration" (including the point-radial acceleration that is inertial "mass") is a "displacement from the speed of light"; 2) Acceleration, as a continuous velocity change gradient through space over time, is aptly defined and described as "self-relative motion" All of this "mass and light in motion relative to each other" can be accounted for by recognizing that the "maternal universe" that "we" are conscious of, including our consciousness of it, is comprised of the self-relative vortexual and wave motions of an otherwise structureless Scale-Uniform superfluid Medium (SUM), as the "spacetime" that A. Einstein identified gravity as the (apparent) "curvature" of. This SUM has configured itself by means and in terms of its self-relative motion, into what we can accurately describe in modern-day engineering terms as "a self-organizing distributed network of particulate I/O devices", i.e. PMO's, as the momentum rerouting switches that comprise this self-aware (via ourselves, at a minimum) momentum routing circuit. Thus the universe we are conscious of can aptly be recognized and described as a self-configuring, self-aware, sentient being. And like the "mathematics" symbol system we "humans" have invented to describe it with such "unreasonable effectiveness", the SUM universe is a self-referencing system, a self-gravitating gravitational field, what we have decided to call a "black hole" -- a self-differentiating and self-fractalizing by means of its self-relatively accelerating acceleration-flow motion horn toroidal geometry SUM superfluid vortex. The velocity of light functions as both the singularity single point center of gravity of each PMO (and that every group of PMOs is either gravitationally "falling" toward, or "explosively" accelerating away from), and the infinitely distant (as far as every PMO is concerned) surrounding event horizon "edge of the universe". *a.k.a. accelerating "force" -- as a transfer of "momentum"= acceleration (i.e. the exchange and equalization of their reciprocally relative motion) either by collision of one PMO with another PMO, or by re-directed "venting" of a portion of a PMO's equidirectionally balanced point-radially inward "internal" momentum (a.k.a. inertial "mass"= resistance to counter-directional acceleration) point-radially "outward" in an unbalanced re-"direction".
By "sensible" Newton meant the 5 senses ( eg looking at a clock). Like a physical measurement of some kind, He was making the distinction between relative time and universal time. Not in the "it doesn't make sense" use of the word. Einstein is quite clear that he is defining time for his paper as the time coordinate ie what clocks measure. He uses words like .."in accordance with the definition" clearly implying the definition he has described. He wasn't making the assertion that "what clocks measure" is the over-arching (metaphysical?)definition of time itself. (although when you think about it, it isn't a bad definition). That's how I read the English translation anyway. I never understood the obsession with one-way time ect. Einstein was, like the others, working with Maxwell's equations in which c is a scalar quantity, nothing to do with direction. (didn't Rohmer use one way light to measure c in the 1600's in his observations of the moons of Jupiter?) Any way, why would turning around and pointing your torch the other way change the speed of light? (Just as an aside...can't I measure velocity with just one clock?)
Replying to the end question. No, you need two clocks. If you have only one, you assume that you can see when the movement starts from afar. But it takes as much time for the information to come to you than it takes to get to the one clock. So really the measurement of time would be zero.
You raise a good point, did Newton intend "sensible" to mean as relating to the five senses as opposed to "being a sensible choice"? Like you, that was our initial idea as well. However, that seemed to clash with his usage of the "sensible" in the next sentence, in which he indicates that the words "time, space" etc. are meant to properly indicate their sensible measures. This would contradict the whole point of the passage, in which he was obviously arguing against conflating relative measures with absolute space/time. However, it's possible this was a translation error, because "sensible" there is included in brackets, meaning it was added possibly erroneously by the translator. "Sensible measures" then again shows up in the final line when it seems Newton intended "measured quantities," which seems incongruent. So our best guess is that the translator got the different notions confused, because on the whole the paragraph reads inconsistently. One would have to consult the original latin text. However, regardless of how one interprets it, the general thrust of the paragraph is unchanged. Einstein does define time as what clocks measure in his 1905 paper. He states this explicitly. As indicated in the video, he even writes that such a definition is satisfactory when only one clock is in consideration. We suggest watching our "Loophole" video if you still don't understand the one-way speed of light problem, because you will never understand relativity if you don't understand that!
@@dialectphilosophy It's not about relativity really. I understand it as well as the next (lay)man. It's just seems to be a desperate ploy by people trying to debunk relativity. Like I said, in Maxwell's equation c is a scalar. And why would c change if I spun around and faced the other way. Not saying you are right or wrong, it just seems silly to me.
@@andrewiglinski148 Maxwell showed that his equations are a solution to the wave equation. The wave equation has a speed factor. He predicted EM waves at speed c. c he calculated from experimental data . (2 constants, permeability and permittivity of space, both scalar). A scalar is just a number, nothing to do with direction. Hertz detected his waves some time later. So yes the wave propagates in some direction but it's speed is invariant ..according to ME's.
It's a big misunderstanding of special relativity and the scientific process in general. To claim you can't use a light clock because it's "affected" by external things makes no sense - it's a thought experiment. We can imagine an unaffected light clock, and that is as good a measure of time as any we can suggest. Sure, it may not be physical or intuitive, but what alternative definition of time can we even make? No alternative is offered in this video. Also no one actually uses this as a measure of time anyways (we usually use atomic clocks), it just works in the simple thought experiment used to derive the Lorentz factor. While it's true we assume something about the two way speed of light here being the same as the one way speed, experimental evidence supports relativity as a model - whether it's exactly true is not the point. Of course, it's very very important to ask questions about such assumptions of the theory for sure, but to suggest Einstein was "wrong" is a bit ridiculous - we can still use Newtonian mechanics even though we know it is a simplistic model that doesn't work at high speeds or at the quantum level - it's a model, it's not claiming to be exactly correct, it's stating a theory and seeing if it fits the experiment. That is the scientific process
@@lrlrch8351 yeah it's clickbait (it got me, can't pretend it didn't) but he also doubles down on it - it's not just for clickbait, it's the point made in the video
The channel's reply to the top comment on this video is a bit of a joke: "moral courage and spiritual fortitude to stand up to establishment". I've given this video far too much of my attention lol, wish I wasn't clickbaited. Even if this *new* angle on relativity is an exact description of physics (which isn't how the scientific method works), the attitude is so far off. Science is a collaboration of new ideas and wacky theories in an approach to make a better model of the world. If relativity is a "pseudoscience" every theory (as opposed to theorem) ever proposed is too
If you make the assumption that "astronomy is the study of how "stuff" moves around the earth" then you will never get to the TRUEish nature of the universe cause "stuff" does not move around the earth, the earth is not the center..... Yes you can imagine that the two clocks are synchronized but you cannot actually confirm that they are. E made the simplifying assumption that the speed of light is the same in both directions. You can't prove that soooo Dialect is just addressing that the 0.5 factor in the calculation of the speed of light is not knowable and going down the rabbit hole to explore what that relaxation of that assumption does to the situation.
Besides, black holes are not constructed by man. So their comparison of a black hole with a broken clock is misleading to say the least. What is said in Newton' s paragraph is just that t and Dt are different physical quantities.
I enjoyed this video. It reminds me of how much I can't wait to get back in the game and start making my own videos again, especially on relativity. Good work!
The usage of the word "sensible" refers to actions or phenomena that are perceived through our senses, making it synonymous with "physical" or "empirical." Therefore, a "sensible measure" would mean a "physical measure." However, concepts such as time, space, place, and motion are not physically measurable in themselves; rather, they serve as frameworks for measuring events (in time), positions (in space), locations (in place), and changes in position (motion). The warning presented in the video is a clear and accurate representation. The video effectively explains that relativity is a method for measuring quantities, not the quantities themselves. However, Einstein violated this mathematical principle by presenting relativity as if it represented actual quantities, such as relativistic time, which he made "natural"-thereby turning it into "sensible time" or physically "natural time." This move undermined the independence of absolute time. Moreover, "sensible space" would refer to "natural space," which in relativity is considered bendable. This interpretation is a clear violation of the true concept of space, which is the dimension within which everything exists and all events occur. Place is a point in space that represents a measure of distance from an origin, while motion measures how fast objects change their location. Although relativity attempts to relate cosmic time to existential events within the universe, it cleverly redefines clock time as "natural time." This misleadingly suggests that because a clock is a physical object, the time it measures must also be natural. In reality, the concept of "natural time" is a farce. Relativity also disregards the more general understanding of wavelength dilation, which corresponds to the distortion of clock time. Instead, it presents this phenomenon as time dilation, even though time dilation is never measurable on a standard clock, which is designed to measure standardized time-not the flawed time dilation introduced by relativity. Experiments conducted by biased followers of the relativistic view of natural time led to the erroneous conclusion of dilatable time, when in fact, they should have measured wavelength dilation. This occurs due to phase shifts in frequencies, resulting in a small energy loss in an oscillator’s wave, which correlates with the so-called time dilation. Furthermore, the concept of relativistic gravity as a result of spacetime curvature is a fabricated interpretation. The experiments involving gravitational lensing, which claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, are biased. In reality, the photon’s path bends due to a momentum exchange with the gravitating body, causing a curvature in the gravitational field, which is wrongly attributed to spacetime curvature. The theories of relativity are based on fundamentally flawed concepts of time and space as "spacetime," which makes the entire relativistic framework unreliable. Time is, by its nature, cosmic and absolute, meaning there is no such thing as time dilation or the reduction in the age of returning twins, as presented in the twin paradox. In summary, the video correctly exposes the flaws in relativity and highlights how Einstein’s theory contradicts Newton’s warning.
Hi! It feels like you are blaming Einstein for giving us thery that is wrong but it seems very unfair. His theory works and he was well aware of the philosophical problems of the one way speed of light. But his theory was the best at the time and is the best even now. Of course it is important to have such philosophical debate but you can't say Einstein was wrong. By the way 1:26 this was very unnecesary part of the video. It is an argument trying to undermine the credibility of Einstein that has nothing to do with his work and shouldn't be used in this regard in my opinion. This only reveals your apathy against him which further undermines your credibility. Be careful with that otherwise a nice video :)
Hey Lukas! Great to see you on here -- when are your next videos dropping? We've been waiting patiently! There isn't any other physics content out here on UA-cam quite like yours! As I'm sure you understand from our POV, we do not agree that Einstein's theory is the best; it wasn't at the time, nor is it now. There is a difference between what is convenient and what is correct, and Einstein's 'theory' (really more an interpretation) was merely only ever the former. Moreover, it's set us back to the dark ages, philosophically speaking, and so it's no wonder that theoretical physics has not progressed in 70 years. Also, there's an irony here of you asserting we are undermining our credibility by questioning Einstein's credibility... so does credibility matter or doesn't it? Please make up your mind 🙃 If we go hard on Einstein in this video its because there's a great gulf between the public perception of what he achieved versus what he actually accomplished. There is not a single physical prediction in his 1905 paper or subsequent E=mc^2 paper that had not already been made elsewhere by other physicists. And yet, he credited none of them in his papers, and subsequently was happy to take all the credit in the public's eye for work he had not himself accomplished. So are statements like those at 1:29 about Einstein's academic reputation or how other accomplished physicists viewed him at the time relevant to whether his arguments are correct? Absolutely. Because they tell us that Einstein was inherently lazy and as such, always looking for the shortest route to accomplish his goals (he graduated with marks high enough just to receive his diploma. He skipped many lectures, and was so disliked by his professors that one even went out of his way to hire assistants from the engineering department simply to have an excuse NOT to hire Einstein). Thus, in this context, it makes sense that he appropriated the works of others, then found a way to put a new spin on them via the injudicious application of an erroneous philosophy of time. And then we can understand that his great 1905 achievements did not in fact display the qualities of "genius" but rather the follies of a youthful mind. If it hurts people's feelings to hear objective facts about Einstein's character, maybe it is time for some introspection as to why they chose to idolize an individual whom they truly knew very little about, and why they feel it is so necessary to uphold this individual's reputation, especially if that individuals 'theory' is truly as strong and successful as they claim it to be.
@@dialectphilosophy "he credited none of them in his papers,... he appropriated the works of others" That is simply not true. If that were true, how did he manage to do it without anybody stepping in? Why did noone of those, whom he allegedly stole the ideas from, complain?
@@dialectphilosophyIt’s interesting to see how strongly you feel about Einstein, but let’s unpack some of your claims. First, the assertion that Einstein's theory is merely a convenient interpretation rather than the best scientific model overlooks the extensive empirical support it has garnered over the years. While you may believe it hasn't led to significant progress in theoretical physics, many would argue the opposite. Einstein’s theories, especially Special Relativity, have fundamentally transformed our understanding of time, space, and energy. His work laid the groundwork for advancements in various fields, including physics, technology, and even engineering. For example, the principles of Special Relativity are crucial for the operation of particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. These machines rely on relativistic effects to accelerate particles close to the speed of light, allowing physicists to explore fundamental questions about matter and the universe. Additionally, Einstein's theories have influenced modern technologies, such as GPS systems, which require precise calculations that account for time dilation effects due to both velocity and gravity. Without Einstein's insights, many technologies we take for granted would not function correctly. Regarding your claim that Einstein didn't make any unique predictions, this is misleading. His work on the photoelectric effect-where he explained how light can eject electrons from a material-was groundbreaking and directly contributed to the development of quantum theory. This was recognized with the Nobel Prize in 1921, which clearly indicates that his contributions were not merely derivative.And Brownian motion equation was no doubt Unique contribution. While you criticize Einstein for not crediting others, it’s important to recognize that scientific progress is often cumulative. Lorentz's transformations were indeed pivotal, but Einstein’s approach fundamentally redefined the understanding of space and time, moving beyond Lorentz’s framework. In fact, Lorentz himself acknowledged the significance of Einstein’s work. As for the characterizations of Einstein’s academic life, they don't diminish the validity of his scientific contributions. While he may not have been an ideal student, many great minds throughout history were not traditional scholars. Ironically, your dismissal of Einstein’s achievements seems to contradict the opinions of numerous esteemed physicists like Feynman, Dirac, Planck, and Hawking, who have all praised Einstein's contributions and the profound impact they have had on physics but you just had Qouted 1 or 2 . The complexities of time and space in Einstein's theories may challenge traditional views, but they have also opened up new avenues of understanding. Dismissing his work as “lazy” or derivative fails to appreciate the innovative spirit that drives scientific inquiry. In summary, rather than viewing Einstein’s contributions through a lens of skepticism, it may be more beneficial to engage with the robust evidence and broad consensus that supports his theories. Science is about building on previous work, and Einstein certainly laid a foundation that has allowed physics to advance significantly.
@@dialectphilosophy New video is about to be published but I was very busy these days so it took quite too long but it is not gonna be anything new but more like a historical overview behind Maxwell's equations. I want a piece of fresh physics on the channel :D About the credibility, it is both. When you are talking about established theories that are more than 100 years old it shouldn't matter who formulated it if you want to discuss physics (Even if he was a serial killer). You have a loyal audience who will likely share your feelings against him even though they might not fully appreciate your reasoning and that is kinda unfair to Einstein but it is your channel and it is ultimately your decision if it is a pure physics/philosophy channel or "Einstein was a fraud" type of channel which I know several on youtube. Anyway, in physics we build on the shoulders of our ancestors and also special relativity was also build this way that is nothing weird or nothing different from how other theories were discovered. Maxwell's equations are also not all Maxwell's, for example. After all, Einstein is known mostly due to the General Relativity, not the special relativity.
I think the word sensible didn’t mean what you think it means today. When Newton used the word sensible he is meaning something that can be sensed. His statement is saying that for concepts that are purely relativistic in that they don’t have any absolute part to them, can only be accessed through measurements that can be sensed in some ways. The common usage of sensible to mean serious, or realistic , is just a modern usage, and so I think your ideas about what Newton meant are unfortunately wrong from that point onwards.
He wasn't being obscure, Newton was simply giving voice to an altogether elementary point - that physics is a model. Isaac knew it. Albert knew it. Dialect, apparently, does not.
Well too bad relativity model is not complying with experiment. Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited. The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant. It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame. Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars. There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory. There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector. If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star, relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body. There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening. Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system. A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work. The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity. In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data. An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven. Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending. The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor. General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
@@michaelpieters1844 Reading your comment has made me go through a lobotomy, for the love of god all you're saying is wrong and it takes either a single google search or basic knowledge of even just classical physics not even relativity for your Sagnac point
While it’s true that Newton expressed caution regarding the nature of time, it’s important to recognize that Einstein’s theories were not merely a rejection of Newtonian principles but rather an evolution of them. Einstein's relativity builds on the idea that time is intertwined with space, creating a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. This framework has been validated through numerous experiments, such as those involving GPS technology, which rely on relativistic corrections. The assertion that Einstein conflated light and time overlooks the empirical evidence supporting his theories. Light's constant speed is not just a theoretical construct; it has been confirmed through countless experiments. The relationship between light and time is not a simplification but a profound insight into the nature of the universe, as it reveals how observers in different frames of reference perceive time differently. The so-called "one-way speed of light problem" has been addressed within the framework of relativity itself. While synchronization of clocks is indeed complex, this complexity does not invalidate the theory; rather, it highlights the nuanced understanding required when dealing with relativistic effects. The ability to measure time and distance accurately has been refined over the years, leading to technologies that function effectively within Einstein's framework. While reevaluation is essential in science, it should be based on evidence and rigorous testing rather than philosophical speculation alone. Einstein's work has revolutionized our understanding of time and space, and dismissing it without substantial evidence risks undermining decades of scientific progress. The arguments presented in the video raise interesting points for discussion but ultimately fail to undermine the robustness of Einstein's theories. Scientific advancement relies on evidence-based inquiry, and while questioning established norms is vital, it must be grounded in empirical validation. Einstein’s contributions remain fundamental to our understanding of physics and continue to inspire further exploration into the mysteries of time and space.
You're incorrect here -- isotropic light speed has never been measured, nor could it be. See our video "Loophole" for more. Einstein's theory did not "build on the idea space and time were intertwined" rather it contrived them to be that way in order to maintain a specious and unobservable one-way invariance of light. There is nothing profound about pretending light speed is the same in every inertial reference frame, rather is was merely a lazy solution that allowed Einstein to avoid giving physical explanation to the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein's theories haven't revolutionized anyone's ideas about space and time, merely confused and obfuscated them. And the framework has never been validated by experiment, and couldn't be, since it is a solipsistic model. In all, your comment reads like the spouting of a fragile religious doctrine rather than a careful or studied scientific analysis of a problem.
@@dialectphilosophy Are you really on discussion or on a bad so-called influencer trip, harassing people and neglecting their contribution and knowledge ? OK man your choice, long history short: build up your antithesis logically, then come talk to me or just post a video with evidence. just to go against Einstein so far, as one stated here in his comment : just come down and relax !
The x's and t's in the Lorentz transformations are COORDINATES. I don't understand what you mean x is for 'space' & t for 'time'. Don't conflate coordinates with the actual space. Now, we CAN use coordinates because of our assumption that physical space has the structure of a topological manifold which may turn out to be an approximation but an approximation that served us very well up to this point.
Guys instead of insisting that Dialect is misunderstanding what's going on, try watching some of their other videos first. It's clear from the comments that most people aren't fully understanding the arguments being made in this video and their criticisms are thus moot. Those comparing Einstein and Dialect should note that many of the points made and the perspective taken here by Dialect have already been written about in a paper mentioned by Dialect in another video. So it is not merely Dialect making these points but a small community of professionals. Dialect is breaking down the initial ideas further and presenting them in a comprehensive and compelling way to a general audience. In addition, a huge difference between Einstein and Dialect is that the latter has an additional 70 years of history to work from, using the work and effort of thousands of scientists that the former never knew. With 70 more years of additional knowledge, it is far easier to find flaws in Einstein's formulism regardless of comparative intelligence. As another commenter joked, Einstein and his ilk are "so right" that it only takes 19 fudge factors and possibly 6 extra "curled" spacial dimensions to make the theory work 😂. And utlimately even Einstein confessed that he "didn't understand relativity" anymore after the mathematicians got a hold of it, so its quite plausible that Einstein wouldn't fully disagree with the criticisms put forward here. Lastly I would say that I don't think anything in here is bashing Einstein or other physicists and that the points put forward are done so in a clear and concise manner. Those accusing Dialect of arrogance reveal their own arrogance by accusing them of such. When it comes to the dogmatic philosophical underpinnings of modern physics, I think using strong language to destroy the philosophical ideas which have rotted the development of physics to the point of stubborn stagnation for nearly 100 years is appropriate. Asking Dialect to "just chill" is asking for science to stop because some of the things being said sound mean. I don't think anything said here was mean and that it would be a mistake to misconstrue it as being mean, a character attack, or in any other negative or personal sense. Einstein was a genius but he most certainly wasn't correct about everything, there's nothing mean about pointing that out.
@@wesjohnson6833 Oh really? I thought your point was to insinuate that I was a hypocrite for saying that some of the commenters were being arrogant, and also to belittle the rest of my statement by calling it word salad. However, I didn't say, "those who accuse others of arrogance are arrogant," instead I was saying that many of the commenters were being arrogant and that their accusations against Dialect revealed this fact in the way of projection- that is, they subconsciously are accusing others of what they themselves do. Now is it hypocritical or arrogant to point out this projection of theirs? And if you were instead trying to point out a flaw in my logic, then why didn't you reply the same way I did in that, "by that logic you would be arrogant as well"? I neither accused you of arrogance nor hypocrisy unlike your statement were you called me arrogant- I merely pointed out that your retort was self-defeating. I think throughout this little comments section I've been clear, fair, and open-minded. I think the world becomes a better place through respectable, honest dialog. But instead of countering anything I said, you resorted to a character attack. Do tell, what exactly did I say that is deserving of such a response? It appears to me that if you're so concerned with arrogance perhaps maybe the place you should be looking is inside yourself.
@@mksmellsbetter5425 "Those accusing another (Dialect} of arrogance reveal their own arrogance by ACCUSING them of such. " So why pretend it's about projection and then defend a statement you never made? Where's the "honest dialogue" there? If you're so concerned with projection maybe the place you should look is inside yourself, or better yet, those accusing me of projection only reveal their own need to project.
Basically in the sentence about the syncronization conventions, the real choice is that the choice is free, you can use any ratio of speeds in opposite directions, which means you can use any notion of simultaneity form any frame of reference. And also for the purposes of deriving lenght contraction and time dilation, any convention will do, you can take any basis you want. And so it is that you are free to choose a convention at all that you can derive lorentz invariance from, not the equal time convention. If you think about it a bit carefully, you will see that if you didn't have the free choice in every reference frame, the equal time convention could not work, and so it is a pretty big omission. The real logic behind lorentz symmetry, is more a kin to gauge symmtries in that the freedom of choice is the point, it nails down and constrains the physics. It is quite similar to this case. There is nothing wrong with einstiens description, he just derived it wrong, it is one out of many representations you could use of the same invariant physics at the level of the causal relationships involved.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.
We already have the finite speed of light in quantum mechanics. We already have accounted for finite speed of causality in quantum mechanics. The actual problem with combining general relativity with quantum mechanics is that we cannot find out how gravity works with quantum mechanics. The “problems” you point out are non-existent.
special relativity was already incorporated into quantum mechanics buddy. What you call general relativity reads more like special relativity because you don't mention the core tenet of general relativity, which is a stretchy space-time fabric.
What a lovely suprise once again! This comment section is going to be civil😅 I think you guys are creating the BEST content about the whole subject of relativity on UA-cam PERIOD and you should continue doing what you do, because we just need that type of content so much! Again a big thanks and keep it up guys!
Einstein saying: "We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition..." - That is a mistranslation from German into English. I have explained it in several of my talks - Einstein was mistranslated from German into English. i.e. mainstream is going by a mistranslation of Einstein. Physicists don't seem to have bothered with making sure translations are accurate.
You are right. The wording "cannot be definied at all unless" is incorrect. It should rather read "may now be defined by". The corresponding original passage in Einstein's paper reads: wir haben bisher nur eine "A-Zeit" und eine "B-Zeit", aber keine für A und B gemeinsame "Zeit" definiert. Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß ... A faithful translation of that passage would be: By now, we have just defined an "A time" and a "B time", but no common "time" for A and B, yet. The latter may now be defined by establishing by definition that..."
Having just read another comment of dialect's, where he refers to this translation, I have now an idea, how this incorrect translation could have come about. It could be by misreading the German word "nun" in "Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden" for a German "nur". The first word, used by Einstein, means "now", while the second word means "only". The latter would change the meaning completely into that, what the incorrect translation suggests.
@@alexanderkohler6439 Yes that is what is thought. This translation error was pointed out long ago. What is strange is why it was never corrected. But apparently in papers that are treated as historic - no corrections are allowed. So, the paper just keeps getting republished with the error uncorrected. Hawking and others have republished the paper with the error.
@@rogeranderton418 Do know, when that translation error was pointed out for the first time and by whom? Apart from that, I was just wondering, whether there ever was an official translation published in a recognized journal. I think there is no such official translation. What I found instead via the English wikipedia were the following two translations: a) 1920 by Megh Nad Saha and b) 1923 by George Baker Jeffery. Translation b) contains the incorrect phrase that dialect is basing his video on. Translation a), however, is correct by saying "This last time (i.e., common time) can be defined, if we establish by definition that".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! Lacking such evidence, I'm willing to write off this video as click-bait, but will keep listening as long as it doesn't head toward the already debunked MOND. I know this creator is no dummy and has provided a wonderful explanation of the metric tensor in GR for which I am grateful. However, I remain very skeptical on the current topic.
For me the real question/problem is: -How we define the measurement of velocity (v=d/t -> that suggests that we have already defined/established the measurement of distance and time, or equivalently: we have the definition of distance and time). -How we define measurement of time (t=d/v -> that suggests that we have already defined/established the measurement of distance and velocity - that is the measure of the passage/advancement/progression of some chosen natural process / phenomenon / a natural course to what we can compare passage/progression of other processes, or equivalently: we have the definition of distance and velocity). -How we define the measurement of distance (d=v*t -> that suggests that we have already defined/established the measurement of velocity and time, or equivalently: we have the velocity of distance and time). It seems that any of the three (d, v, t) needs to be defined on the grounds of the other two. I might be wrong but this 'framework' seems to be immanently/intrinsically/inherently/inevitably circular that means there will always be some arbitrary choice of definition that would not satisfy the requirement of absolute and total rigor.
1. Einstein relativity says we can use the speed of light and time RELATIVE to our observation and be used as a reference frame to make it a casual. 2. Newton is saying "within the bounds of the framework these are philosophically true until disproven, but the units and measurements should not be considered constant but dynamic and special cases" which is true the constant G changes in quantum relativity compared to general/special relativity. 3. Light from the sun relative to earth is absolute since the Earth's pattern around the Sun is absolute by means of Newtons Constants. 4. Other relativity theories are... relative... so they are relative to the observation, and can be different that's the definition of the relative frameworks. 5. Most of your argument with two clocks etc require Einstein's relativity of time to argue it isn't real. "We have not define a time etc for time" is saying same thing as Newton. "We don't have a absolute time in Newton physics, but Newton used Constants this way, what if we....". 6. C² is light not moving one way but two ways, a to b and b to a, under logic if a+b then b+a, and light moves thr speed of light away from light so speed of light can be ASSUMED a constant in a special case, as in SPECIAL relativity.
The slapstic behavior really brings in views, doesn't it? That's why your (this type of) videos contain 80% bashing and 20% actual content. The first time you brought up the issue with relativity, I really wanted to see more details, despite completely unnecessary trash talking. For example, I wanted you to show how the idea extends to GR? Can you marry it with QM since other theories are struggling with it? But no, you only explain the same old special theory of relativity over and over again with at least 15 mins of bashing other physicists...
Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited. The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant. It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame. Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars. There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory. There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector. If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star, relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body. There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening. Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system. A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work. The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity. In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data. An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven. Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending. The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor. General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
I see your point, but for now, both Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are working perfectly and have been experimentally verified. Newton’s theory of gravitation was once considered a 'theory of everything,' but after Einstein, we now know it is part of a larger framework. Under everyday conditions with normal speeds, SR reduces to Newtonian mechanics, and similarly, under weak gravitational fields, GR reduces to Newtonian gravitation. Most scientists are aware of this. The question is, if our devices, like GPS, utilize these theories and experiments continue to verify them, why bother challenging them-unless a scenario arises where we need to address these issues, such as in efforts to unify GR and Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Raising awareness is good, but attacking Einstein seems unnecessary and even a bit disrespectful.
The Ptolemaic system works perfectly fine for predicting motion of the planets & stars, and one can always add more epicycles if needed. So by your logic, why bother challenging it? 🤔 That seems disrespectful to Ptolemy. As a side note, Einstein is neither the great genius nor character he has been made out to be. Every "discovery" in his 1905 paper and subsequent E=mc^2 paper had already been made elsewhere, and he straight-up plagiarized ideas and concepts and mathematics from other thinkers and physicists without giving them credit. Indeed, all he did was put a new philosophical spin on a pre-existing mathematical formalism -- and a wrong one at that. (And his discovery of GR was also not so original as you've been led to believe.) The truth is the truth, irregardless of whose feelings it hurts!
I understand your analogy with the Ptolemaic system, but the difference here is that relativity has undergone rigorous experimental testing and continues to be validated by devices we use daily, such as GPS, which accounts for both SR and GR. If there were substantial problems with the theory, we would expect to see evidence by now, similar to how the Ptolemaic system's flaws became apparent over time. Regarding Einstein’s originality, it’s true that science builds on the work of others, and Einstein was influenced by thinkers like Lorentz and Poincaré. But what made Einstein stand out was how he unified these ideas into a revolutionary theory, particularly his insights on spacetime and gravity. While Hilbert developed field equations around the same time as Einstein, it was Einstein’s understanding of gravity as spacetime curvature that fundamentally reshaped our view of the universe. Science always leaves room for improvement, but right now, relativity works extremely well within its domains, and dismissing Einstein's contributions seems unfair given the lasting impact and continual verification of his work I think.
@@fraoltirfessa4951 When Einstein got rid of the space medium thus rendering it null and void, he replaced it with the reified ('realified') abstraction "spacetime", enabling the "void" to be treated mathematically _as if_ it were something real. In order to accommodate this newly invented "no space medium" doctrine, he invented, out of whole cloth and by fiat, absolute invariance of lightspeed in all inertial frames. Thus was set in stone an *inverted paradigm* that far outstrips the Ptolamaic inversion in its ramifications. This inverted model, using the modern equivalent of equants, deferents and epicycles, has "worked" spectacularly well... up to a point. There it falls on its face confronting the 'Big Issues' in physics like the *causal mechanism* of gravity, quantum gravity, QM/relativity conciliation, dark matter/dark energy etc. Pursuing Unification under this inverted model is like chasing the rainbow. The harder it's pursued, the more doggedly it recedes from grasp.
@@dialectphilosophy "The truth is the truth, irregardless of whose feelings it hurts!" That appears to be the only truthful sentence in your comment. Everything else in your comment is just deceit and distortion. For instance, take your comment on Einstein's 1905 paper. Einstein's original discovery (not "discovery") is contained in paragraph 2 of that paper were he introduced two simple principles. He then showed that these two principles were already sufficient to deduce all the equations in the subsequent paragraphs 3-10 in an elegant and simple manner. He is not being praised for the equations in paragraphs 3-10, which were indeed partially known before, he is being praised for finding precisely those two principles in paragraph 2 and making them the starting point for all subsequent deductions. Whom did he plagiarize with respect to these two principles? Lorentz? Certainly not. Lorentz himself attributed the principle of relativity to Einstein, as it definitely was Einstein, who introduced it first in his 1905 paper leading to a revolutionary change in perspective in explaining phenomena in electrodynamics and other areas of physics.
Instead of bashing modern physics, using that time instead to show how your theory works better than previous theories is much more a better use of time. Someone who has a new theory shouldn't go around shitting on everyone else, they should demonstrate their knowledge and convince them that this is the right way...
Your comment isn't without Merit. What isn't particularly obvious is that dialect is moving towards something that will shake up physics, and I know where they're going with this. Physics is very much a bureaucracy, and I have seen with my own eyes how physicists and mathematicians, who worked on my project in the 1990s, were exceedingly careful to protect their reputations by keeping their work very secret. I also got bashed over the head often by the physics community while simultaneously the very members of that Community were working secretly towards what I'm quite sure dialect is going to reveal. So there's actually something more going on here, and dialect is treading very carefully and very thoroughly. But rest assured it will be tied together in a way that will be essentially, I hope anyway, irrefutable. I possess one key piece of the puzzle perhaps, and experimental device which I hope one day to build. But I'm getting up there in age myself so I hope to find someone interested in taking it on. It's fairly simple too.
@@chalichaligha3234 You are most definitely on the right track. I'll leave it to dialect to finish it out, but an Aether with no inherent inertia is what we came to. Inertia becomes an upper level phenomenon. We were even able to calculate the size of individual ether particles.
@@chalichaligha3234 You got it! The Aether is simple, and follows very simple rules, and as the Aether interacts with itself things emerge. There could be an enormous number of emergent levels before we even get to where we have inertia. That part of of course is unknown. The device I want to build is essentially an Aether fan. I hope I answered your question. There are many astonishing consequences of what we came up with. For instance you could travel faster than light. But not really! What you can do is move The Ether out of the way. You can't go faster than the speed of light, but you could make the speed of light go faster. The speed of sound was once thought a barrier too.
I have a personal simple definition of time (as in spacetime) : how many interactions a particle makes between 2 displacements. In a dense environment, statistically, a particle will interact most of the time and will therefore hardly move at all. And since it will move less often, it will find it much more difficult to extract itself from this environment. This brings out the gravitational attraction effect. Conversely, in a vacuum, only the Higgs interaction can prevent a particle from moving. This brings out the intrinsic inertial mass of the particles. Interactions other than the Higgs change the state of particles. In a dense environment, the state of the particles changes very often and the system evolves quite rapidly. In an empty environment, the state of the particles changes very little and the system evolves rather slowly. This brings out the relativistic effects of time. When we increase the amount of movement of a particle, we reduce the amount of interaction between that particle and its environment. For a complex system (such as a human), this means that we obtain very little information about our environment and therefore about the distances actually travelled. From the point of view of a photon, its environment is limited to the two points of its interactions: in other words, a flat universe. This brings out the relativistic effects of space. I guess you get the global idea.
So in essence you are just complaining that Einstein assumed that light speed was the same in every direction? The one way speed of light problem is already well known and Einstein made it clear that this was just an assumption. Also I think everyone in physics knows that measurements aren’t the same as the physical concepts they try do describe. It’s the core idea of science that alle we can do is make measurements that can disprove theories but can never actually prove them, that’s the principle of falsification.
You are missing the point. If you use light as a measure that you can't get to a valid answer. Light is tied to our perception of reality (ie the measurement) and cannot be divorced from it. So ask yourself how are you going to measure anything without using light?
That is the principle of falsification á la Karl Popper, that we can never prove anything. But his view was partly wrong, because of course we can prove things. "I know for certain that I know nothing for certain" is a logical contradiction and should be tossed out. Read Leonard Peikoff.
@@WilliamRoosa-h3f it might not be the perfect tool for measurement but it’s the best we got. To rule out external interference we have agreed on experiments having to be repeatable and continuously tested.
It's more about time dilation than one or two way speed of light. It's been described that falling into a black hole since your clock stops your time stops and somehow you get to see infinite time in 0 time... Like the velocity is somehow also tied to the clock's tick rate...
@virtueman1 You don't understand he never said we cannot proof anything he said If something is Unfalsifiable it is not Science If you don't agree with Karl popper then you have to abounded Science because he actually Gave his Falsification test for protection of Science from David Hume's Casuallity Argument Also you cannot proof you cannot be certain about anything because it is self contradictory But there is no doubt That Newton's Absolute Time is A Philosophy like Plato's Theory of Form not Science
Finally one site that debunks Relativity. I am working on that about 22 years, I was focused to understand what could happen when we start to relate general relativity and restricted relativity and found out that these 2 de facto contradicts themselves. Then I tried to take what restricted relativity is telling and bind more accurately with Newton's theories. I am starting, very slowly since I am self taught, to define something. I just found that the universe embraces a major paradox, I found that the space's curvature is flat due to the conflict between flat and hyperbolic geometry. This leads to a dramatic change of perspective of the universe itself, where because of this mass tends to become energy and energy tends to become mass leading to a uninverse where Big Bang and Big Crunch are superimposed. Just rewatch again all the video with this in mind and maybe some more ideas will come out. My idea is that light has a mass, but since it travels in a broth of energy it converts instantly to energy acting as a waveform. My idea is to change the idea of curved spacetime to a flat one, where even light has very impalpable fraction of time that acts as a mass. And this is compatible with restricted relativity's formula.
My friend, you instinctively and logically is accepting correct assumptions. The problem is there where even OM is rejecting the postulates of GR. Of course Space is flat, because the weakest force in the Universe (Gravity) cannot affect and bent Space. Space can be bent on microscopic scale from the strongest force - (SNF). You need to start building your model with correctly formulated fundamental elements. You can find them in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 Please help me, I was thinking about a flat space that is the result of both hyperbolic and round space that in the microscopic scale are in contrast and fight eachother. This then leads only to an apparent flat space that swings very fast the more the scale is microscopic. To me this could be compatible with quantum theory's experiments. What do You think about?
@@lairbox I am not sure to which quantum experiments you are referring, but there is a great inconsistency with the Standard Model, where the properties are cherry picked to sweet the desire result. You should start your considerations with a correct understanding that Space is a Physical Medium. - Just click on Wikipedia - "Vacuum Energy" and you will find that QM has found that Space posses 10
A lot of ppl here dissing this video. You ppl are terrible listeners. Dialects' criticism of current physics is what scientists do when they spot a real issue. Science is as much a philosophy as it is a tool. Language MUST be accurate. Communication needs to be useful, and not even Einstein was flawless. All the players of our understanding of physics need a thorough review when we've hit the science wall.
@@Sho-ryu-kame The issue is he is not pointing out an empirical issue, he's pointing out a philosophical issue. There is no difference in measurable prediction between the two models, only a notion that one has absolute coordinates and the other doesn't. Now it may be the case that it becomes an empirical issue if we can actually measure the difference between the models, but until that happens he's basically arguing about levels of generalization for metaphysical reasons. (I be less annoyed if it was for epistemological reasons but metaphysics is impossible to argue with)
@@zyansheep Routine data collection can be done without considering philosophy, but trying to evaluate a theory or construct a new one does require scientists to actively address some areas of philosophy, most notably epistemology, but sometimes even metaphysics. Logical positivism is about as indefensible as anything gets in philosophy and is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of science. In recognition of the problem of induction, the theory laden nature of observation, etc. It is necessary, but not sufficient for a theory to be mathematically consistent and be able to make accurate predictions. But this isn't pure math. We're talking about the real world and the math needs to mean something in order to say something about the real world. If you just point to the math and say there is no meaning, then all you did was curve fitting, not science. Epistemically, this creates problems far beyond the scope of the comment section, but is discussed at length in the philosophy of science. Science is not whatever you do acquire grant money and otherwise advance your career. Science is a body of knowledge that describes the real world. That's not the same thing as what mathematics is.
Just for chuckles, lets try a slightly more complex gedanken, using two ships. Each carries a laser identical to the other. Pick a spot out in deep space as Base and call it point X. Have a third identical laser, all three matched in frequency(/wavelength), thus establishing simultaniety for all three. The third laser is fixed in place for reference, the other two are aboard the ships. Now fly the 2 ships outbound in opposite directions, both at the same speed and for the same distance. At a preset time, they both decelerate, stop and make U-turns, then begin the inbound leg toward Base with their lasers turned on. Both lasers are trained on Point X during the inbound run, and the ships _do not decelerate_, but rather fly on past X at the same time. Then they decelerate, make U-turns and return to base. At Base during the inbound run, the ships' lasers were being compared in frequency and phase and with the fixed (reference) laser, `and` results recorded. If all three remain identical, that means lightspeed IS invariant per Mr. Einstein's edict. But if there is variance, that means it's not. And the experiment should be redone on at least two more axes, to get an idea of the variance's directionality.
At last, someone understand what I was telling my friends about Einstein's relativity is wrong because of the main factor that we cant, for the moment, perfectly define what is time in space. Even if its the best theory that we have for the moment indeed! Thks to your video! It helps some of my friends to understand what I was saying! 😊
This channel has some excellent video explainers (like the one for the metric tensor), but the rest of the videos are just vacuous metaphysical contrarianism trying to appeal to an audience that doesn't understand the argument (which is actually badly presented or even not there, despite the nice graphics and interesting quotes) and that loves to hear about some secret knowdledge that disproves the mainstream because "physicist never thought DEEEPER". The most fundamental mistake of this and other videos in the channel is to think that science is concerned with onthological truth and not only with epistemic truth. Even if your philosophical standpoint is that physics is describing true actual independent reality in some way, that is irrelevant for the scientific process. For example: Kepler said that planets trace elliptical orbits. How can be obsolutely sure about that? Maybe it just so happened that when looking for the position of the planet each time it was in an ellipse, each observation corroborated that. But perhaps between datapoints the planet went to Andromeda and back just in time for the next observation to be made. We would have to make a continuous observation. Not only that, but we would also need absolute knowledge of these measurements (no uncertainty) wich is impossible in physics. So you could always say that actually in reality they don't follow ellipses. But does that matter to science? No. What matters is that the model of an ellipse not only explained the observations withtin the margins of error but also makes predictions that are parsimonius and allow to test the hypothesis. If you are willing to expand the hypothesis space to the idea that actually the planets just happened to be at points that are part of ellipses, each and every time they were observed, but then they go crazy and do all kind of weird things between observations, then you are doing this: 1) Not allowing for specific predictions: since expanding the hypothesis space allows you to avoid been falsified by the next observation by moving the goalpost. This happens with string theory recently, where you have a family of theories that allow you to always state that everything is made of string regardless of the results of experiments. Or similar to what happened with epicycles in ptolemaic astronomy, which would always adapt to fit the observations without any risk of been falsified. 2) Not making a parsimonious description of nature: instead of understanding underlying patterns that would allow to compress the information of all the observations into simple causal relationships you would be describing the observations alone. Science would be a chronicle of measurements and never actually allow for any understanding of nature, which would again make predictions futile, since anything would be equally expected/unexpected. 3) You would be destroying the copernican worldview that gave birth to modern science: Nature would be conspiring to please a specific kind of observer in an extremely specific way (in sucha way that the observer would be tricked into thinking planets move in ellipse when they don't). It would be extremely antropocentric to state that each time someone looks at the sky, the Moon comes back quickly from its complicated travel path trought the universe just to sit in the exact place that the observer would expect from a specific simple model of the moon moving in an elliptical orbit. And if not extremely anthropocentric then we would have to accept that our observations are an extreme serendipity, such an improbable situation that the purpose of science as "a way of making predictions of future observations" would be completely defeated. No, we don't care what the planets actually onthologically do (many physicist will believe that they literally do what the models say they do and other will believe that the models aproximate some the observations and not reality, but science as a whole is agnostic). We only care that a simple mathematical model can describe the observations and produce unique falsifiable predictions. There is no place in the scientific method where you will find a step that guarantees to be adressing onthological truths, only epistemic, and that sufices, because ultimately we only care about the prediction that the airplane I'm boarding will be able to fly or will crash because it didn't met the predictions of our hydrodynamic model, and not if the actual turbulence flow model is the ground truth that God wrote in stone. Usefullness is the core of science like it or not, if science is telling the absolute truth is irrelevant. And all the philosophical theoritician mumbojumbo regarding any non-observables has no impact in the success of a scientific theory not it tells us anything about reality. It's simply platonism, not science. One can see that the author of the video is totally unaware of this (even if mentioning Leibnitz briefly) as in several parts of the video, where it seems that Einstein failed to understand what the onthology of time is or is not, when in reality that is completely irrelevant (and inaccesible) to science or Einstein. You can also see this biased aproach and the unwillingness to accept that science is not the pursuit of the absolute unmovable truth by how he actually missinterprets quotes from Newton, for example. When in 5:28 Newton says "sensible", it doesn't mean "acting on good judgment" as the video implies but "sensible" as in "with the potentiality of been captured by the senses or instruments that can yield readings that can be sensed" (or casually connected in such a way that the information is accesible to the observer). Playing with the meaning of that word is one of the tricks of this video.
@10:10 you are so horribly revisionist dude. Read Einstein! He took "light" to be an idealization, so was in conformance with Newton. He, more than you it appears, understood actual physical light rays were not his ideal concept. We can do the same, say, to formulate the Klein-Gordon and then Dirac Equations, using _plane wave forms_ to deduce the operators for time and space translation. No one ever is suggesting that perfect plane waves are real.
@11:00 "time stops at the event horizon" is just conventional loose language. Again, no self-respecting physicist means by that that time vanishes, they just mean a distant observer cannot use measurements on the horizon to make a clock, but someone passing through the event horizon can. Same with the Big Bang, where "time stops" is only a manner of speech. If you assume CPT symmetry then the Big Bang is conformal and there is an analytic continuation and everything becomes massless, so matter cannot be made into a clock, but time has not vanished. Yes, you are right, people _should_ say "observed clocks stop" or "tick ever more slowly" according to coordinate time, whereas proper time is still all there intact.
@@Achrononmaster Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited. The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant. It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame. Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars. There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory. There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector. If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star, relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body. There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening. Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system. A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work. The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity. In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data. An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven. Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending. The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor. General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
Measurements made without any background reference frame is what Einstein calls 'relative'. Going past Newton we find Galileo defining the 'principle of equivalence' on which Einstein's relativity rests, solving the problem of 'reference frame', as Einstein discovers that outside the light cone one fails to pin a reference frame, so simultaneity cannot be established. The real problem is when Carlo Rovelli fails to formulate the theory of quantum puzzles of QM based on 'relativity', where there is no light cone and everything is simultaneous in QM.
People here saying you're wrong just because you're contradicting Einstein without even analizing the logic and the documentation you give, are not realising that they're doing the same thing Einstein hated at his time: blocking rational thoughts in favour of historically important figures posed as dogmas, which gave himself trouble in his years of pubblication. Even though relativity came far with its predictions, it's not perfect, and everything should always be able to be doubted. Keep up the good work You're the only channel who's not afraid of saying what you think. Don't listen to haters
I'm so glad someone is calling this out. everything that is 'special' or 'weird' about relativity is only that way BY DEFINITION ultimately! its just because of the ridiculous coordinate systems and assumptions that are made beforehand, like you pointed out. I think the whole idea of light as having any significance as some kind of 'causal agent' should be reexamined. it's nothing but the boson for 1 of the 4 fundamental forces. there's 2 (or 3) others, and there's absolutely nothing special about the electromagnetic boson as opposed to the others
@@timjohnson3913 oh you mean all bosons travel at the speed of the graviton? like i said, you're specifically choosing the electromagnetic boson as something special, by definition
That seems to be the time. Since all "bosons" tick the same (by analogy of a bouncing ball, which needs to cover more distance as it travels through space, thus each click goes slower) any other physical result comes slower. You age slower, chemical reactions are slower, physical effects are slower. Thus this is time for you, and for all intends and purposes its real. For any moving object or under gravity we assume that this "boson" ticking clocks are the ultimate mechanism of time.
My small input as an Astrophysics and Cosmology graduate: Time is not defined as the passage of light between two points in space in General Relativity, causality is. We use light in Einstein's equation because light travels at the speed of causality, causality itself being the letter or the constant called c in the equations , but any elementary, massless particle ( the quanta of their specific fields) will travel at the speed of causality c, this was what made Maxwell's breakthrough so relevant and important to Relativity as well, he proved that Electromagnetic waves can only propagate at a specific speed, the speed of causality. Einstein just chose light, or photons in particular as one of those elementary particles from which to attach a measurement because they travel at the fastest speed permitted by the universe in terms of cause and effect. Events sometimes can ocurr in different order as long as they don't have a cause and effect between them. The term "speed of light" has been used as an easy explanation in general media to refer to the speed of causality, but c is not the speed of light exclusively. Any other deductions that stem from this statement are fundamentally wrong since many experiments have proved that c is actually the speed of causality. And I'm not trying to be a hater, just to clarify some stuff and some many common misconceptions.
Hey there, thanks for watching, and for your input! You're correct to point and clarify that it is not only light in a vacuum which is capable of traveling at the speed of causality c, and we greatly simplified this point in the video. However, in his SR paper, Einstein does explicitly define time as the displacement of a light in an inertial frame divided by this speed c. Since GR adopts the definition of an inertial frame that SR posits, this is likewise how (local or proper) time is defined in GR. Regardless, even if one replaces "light path" in Einstein's paper with "path of elementary, massless particle", all the same problems of acausality persist; only now the scope is widened, since not only must the displacement of light through internal frames be regarded as a brute postulate, but so must the displacement of any and all massless particles.
I think that you misunderstood Einstein Theory of Relativity, I suggest you to look on the book by Max Planck "WHERE THE SCIENCE GOING" in the chapter VI " From Relative To The Absolute" and you will see the whole Einstein Theory Of Relativity purpose, Relativity confirms more dip the absolute and other things is that Einstein was against the quantum mechanics because of his Positivistic ' subjective' nature, Einstein was fanatic of Objective Reality. Thanks
What Einstein got wrong is that motion is Absolute to the frame of reference. What Einstein didn't understand is what a frame of reference is. Ow how to identify one. Light travels in its own frame of reference, independent of its source. That's TWO frames of reference. With electronic clocks, you've accelerated one frame but not the other. Time-dilation is strictly limited to the clocks frame of reference. The clock's motion doesn't translate to the observer's. This is shown by Nasa's flight log data. During lift-off, astronaut's experience accelerated heart rates while the onboard clock is ticking slower. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. How fast you go in the space frame does not translate over to the time frame.
@@stewiesaidthat First, "motion is Absolute to the frame of reference"? This is a clear misunderstanding of Einstein’s theory. Relativity is literally based on the idea that motion is relative, not absolute, and that everything depends on the observer’s frame of reference. There is no "absolute motion" in the theory-Einstein himself proved this through the idea that there’s no universal or preferred reference frame. If this person thinks otherwise, they’ve fundamentally missed the point. Next, the claim that "Einstein didn’t understand what a frame of reference is"-well, that's ironic. Einstein defined the modern understanding of reference frames in physics. He understood them quite well, thanks. The idea that light travels independently of its source was actually one of Einstein’s big insights in special relativity. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames, but this doesn’t mean the frames are absolute. Light’s constancy is relative to the observer, no matter their motion. Now, the bit about "two frames of reference" and time dilation-yes, time dilation happens because of the different reference frames. One clock accelerates relative to the other, and this relative motion creates time dilation. But the claim that “time dilation is strictly limited to the clock’s frame of reference” is false. Time dilation happens between the moving clock and any observer measuring its time-it’s not restricted to the clock alone. This is why astronauts in high-speed orbits experience time differently from those on Earth. We can observe this difference from different frames. As for the heart rate and clock ticking argument-astronauts' heart rates increase due to g-forces during lift-off, but this has nothing to do with the clocks themselves or time dilation in the relativistic sense. The clocks on board are affected by their velocity relative to the Earth (special relativity) and their proximity to a gravitational field (general relativity), not by how fast someone's heart is beating. Finally, "how fast you go in the space frame does not translate to the time frame"-uh, what? This is a confused statement. The whole point of relativity is that space and time are linked in spacetime. Motion through space does affect time, which is precisely what time dilation is about. 🍎🍎
If you can’t present an experiment (even a sensible thought experiment would do) for which SR and GR make wrong predictions but your suggested alternatives make correct ones, all of this is essentially vacuous bla bla. I wouldn‘t be so harsh if you wouldn‘t keep claiming that Einstein was “wrong”. If he was, prove it, and if you can‘t, stop making such claims.
I think that what is being referred to here is *absolute time* . Saying that time stops at the event horizon implicitly means *relative* time, not time for all observers in all systems everywhere, i.e., absolute time. Relativity implies that absolute time does not exist, or that if it did, it would be impossible to measure from within any system. So, to say you’ve measured relative time is not to erroneously claim you’ve measured absolute time. Which is not to say that Relativity doesn’t lead to contradictions. But then again, quantum physics is founded on contradictions. No wonder Einstein was fond of Gödel. I wonder if he ever read Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself.”
Hmmm. I get that Einstein's two-way speed of light assumption was probably just there to make the theory slightly more elegant to write down, but whats the actual _rational_ argument for _not_ making this assumption? Is it simply an epistemic heuristic saying that one should always generalize theories as much as possible in order to make it easier to generalize current theories into newer theories given newer observations? If so, I guess that makes sense, but I don't know if I like the framing that "oh Einstein made this one assumption and *RUINED* future theoretical efforts!!1!". The metaphysical arguments of true vs measured notions of time are kinda epistemically meaningless in my eyes... I think the argument would be much stronger if you actually delved into the socio-cultural epistemic effects on theoretical developments that come from teaching Einstein's assumption vs teaching without his assumption. (You might need to read up a little on patterns of discovery in science tho lol)
rotational speed of polar bear is a fraction of the speed of a jaguar in Amazon forest. Similarily Earth rotates the sun, which goes around glactic center, which seems to go towards great attractor. All this in space, that we don't currently know what it's exactly "made of". So measuring the speed of electromagnetic radiation in this moving trainwreck is not a matter of crackpot simplification when what you are doing is exactly that: "looking into the rabbithole" and seeing what is it all about. Wonder if one could measure this in LIGO somehow in those long vacuum tubes and what would be margin of error there...
I think Dialect is making epistological argument that a new theory should, if possible, not make any assumptions about some concepts that aren't applied to any other concept. To be specific, Einstein assumes (or at least isn't bothered to define) that the passage of light is itself equal to abstract concept of time, and time has never before been equalized with some physical process because it it primarily abstractly defined concept. Dialect is arguing that it isn't invariance of the speed of light that causes length contraction and time dilation, but the other way around, and those concepts should be derived from the known laws and mathematics of wave mechanics, and Dialect claims to have a theory that does exactly that (watch some other videos on the channel). And in that theory 2-way speed of light isn't the same as 1-way. I'm not sure that similar theories hasn't been researched by science community, I'm not the specialist on the matter.
If Dialect were to look into Kerr black holes, frame dragging, and ergospheres, they'd realize that GR has no issue with a two-way speed of light. Only SR had an issue with it, so the point is moot as we already know SR is wrong.
What an amazing video! :-) 17:37 "it is impossible to know if two clocks are ever synchronized" Are you sure about that? If you take two atomic clocks and connect them with a wire, then can you easily know exactly how many attoseconds or even more they differ, and then synchronize them. Now can you move one clock until the wire is stretched out and redo your synchronization. To make sure that you are still right, can you use the "blink" (sorry can't remember the word) in the universe, that is even more accurate than any atomic clock we possess. In that way can you adjust for gravity, height, différance in earths rotation and so on.
The GPS system is actually a good news-bad news for Einstein's relativity. The good news is that GPS demonstrates that time dilation is a real physical phenomenon and can affect clock rates during both induced velocity and changing gravitational positions. The bad news is that it disproves Einstein's proposal(s) for how time dilates, since relativity would not allow clocks in relative motion to be be synced. The GPS system can and does sync just fine by altering the satellite clock (frequency generator) to compensate for the fact that it runs at a rate different from clocks on the earth's surface.
If the time between two events in one frame is different than the time between them in the other frame and that difference is not always consistent, doesn’t that mean we can’t use the time between events from two frames to determine the time dilation? So why is it that the time dilation formula is derived using just that by comparing the time between events in one frame (the events of light hitting the mirrors) to the time in the other? So doesn’t that mean that we can’t trust the time dilation formula especially since for instance the relativity of simultaneity states that two events can be simultaneous from one perspective but not simultaneous in the other which would mean that the time dilation here is infinite time to zero. In fact, time dilation can be derived to have many different formulas depending on which direction of light you are measuring the time dilation from. For example, if you imagine light is traveling right and a moving object is traveling right at speed v. The moving object will see light has travelled a distance of c-v when 1 second passes for the stationary observer since light travels c distance in 1 second. That means c-v seconds must have passed for the moving observer when 1 second passes for the stationary observer since the moving observer has to see the light move at speed c. This means you can say time dilation formula is t' = t x (v-c). If you consider a light moving to the left instead of light moving to the right the formula would then be t' = t x (v+c) instead. And if you have another angle of light you will get a more different formula. In the actual derivation of time dilation. Light was traveling up and down between mirrors in the moving perspective. We can simplify this as light only moving up in the moving perspective since same distance will be travelled either case. That would mean form the stationary perspective light is traveling at an angle which has an x component equal to v (the speed of the moving observer). If we calculate the time dilation for the angle of light that has an x component equal to v we get the time dilation formula we all know. Of course, none of the formulas (including the actual time dilation formula) accounted for length contraction. To account for length contraction, we must use the Lorentz Transformation formula to get the time and space coordinates of light form both the stationary and moving perspectives. Even with the Lorentz Transformation formula you will get a different time and space coordinates of light depending on the angle of light. The light moving to the right, the light moving to the left, and the light moving at angle such that x component is v all will have different time and space coordinates. The reason this happens is that time dilation is not reality and special relativity is a flawed theory.
This is terrible and you have clearly misunderstood the whole thing about light. When einstein talks about light, he talks about something that just moves at the speed of light not the actual physical concept of light. He then imagined his thoughts experiments according to that idea. Its nature and how it interacts with the enviroment doesn't really matter. Not only that, but just because light is mentioned in that specific thought experiment, it doesn't mean that this only has to do with light or clocks. You can have a human next to the mirror contraption and say that for that observer, the person dies of old age after N bounces. Then the same thing should happen for an observer moving with respect to it. For the latter the bounces will be less frequent and thus the man is going to age slower. Einstein was unorthodox accorisng to Newton but he is still right and a video on youtube about special relativity won't just kill an intuition that has been around for 100 years now just be philosophizing
18:25 Perhaps one of the most beautiful lines ever written in a physics paper. Making the motion of light a matter of convention, it marks the fundamental change of paradigm on space and time. To me the one way speed of light "problem" suggests that there is no such thing as motion in space. That space is a construct we make to organise information of the events once they are measured by us. We can't know the speed of light because such speed does not exist, and can be arbitrarily chosen in such a way that physics looks simple. This is why there is no satisfactory explanation for it being the same for all the observers. Because it's a mere convention. All Minkowski's geometry is a convention.
"Because it's a mere convention. All Minkowski's geometry is a convention." I guess there are some of us that question the foundation of those conventions, and how it relates back to nature. "Off by One" may not seam a problem under most circumstances, but at the extremes it can be the difference between 0 and Infinity.
You should appreciate Einstein more. Physicists create theories with assumptions best suited for their time. Einstein's thoughts are deep, he discusses the problem of absolute space in his book "relativity" in an appendix. Bringing up his last position in his class is cheap.
Fun fact: one of his teachers went out of his way to hire students from the engineering department as assistants, simply to have an excuse NOT to hire Einstein! 😂
Zeno's paradoxes make the concept of matter impossible. What is substance? What is solid, firm, impenetrable? What is the one, very own, individual? The idea is floating around that matter must be absolutely solid, at least at its smallest core. Zenen, however, has highly relevant, massively confusing objections to this: If something were fulfilled in the deepest space, if it were massive at the point which is still completely dimensionless, so to speak, which would be the basic condition for massiveness in space, then it would need an infinite number of such massive points to obtain even the smallest volume. However short the distance between the points may be, it is still not a distance. So there must be a void between the points, or the whole concept of space is a dead end anyway. Plato drew the consequences from Zeno's paradoxes and declared everything that exists to be identical. His pupil Aristotle also gave up the idea of matter in space and only wanted to consider 2D flat structures to be real, “structures that could at most arch into the third dimension and could only form something similar to a volume if they were combined together.” Others, such as Heraclitus, have approached the ultimate validity of elementary substance from a different angle. “Such a substance must be completely homogeneous in itself, it must not also contain different things.” But not containing any details also means complete paradox. It is something, but this is without any granularity, melts between your fingers and yet must muster the strength to cohere with others. In the face of so many principles of exclusion, however, we must not lose our compass, because in order to understand a world of reactivity, there must be something in front of us. There must be a remote effect which, as we now know, must be able to leap over a distance without this concentration having to be built from voluminous primordial substance. Are there therefore necessarily concentrations that can act like substance and is there also a void in between, places where no effect is possible?
No, the void does not exist, there are only strong concentrations and weaker ones that hardly trigger any effects. As we know today, there is this fluctuating vacuum in which there is a lot going on, but these movements are completely undirected and their strength is purely random. Brownian molecular motion and more simply known as heat. A duality of a something surrounded by a nothing, such a thing does not exist and is not absolutely necessary. “There is no such thing as nothing” - the pre-Socratic naturalists agreed on this. Nothingness is the term for the non-existence of something. There are no potatoes, but there is nothing purely as a concept, nothing more. At the time, this realization had blatant logical consequences. If nothingness does not exist, then the world has not emerged from nothingness and cannot be nihilated back into a non-existent nothingness. No emergence is therefore also no annihilation possible. The abstract, non-representational, incorporeal wholeness stands there unalterably, forever and ever eluding all fateful influences precisely because of its untouchability. Instead of assuming the existence of space, we should be talking about an interlocking, a continuum of the in-formed. There is no emptiness of space, nor is there a fullness of space insofar as mass cannot be full at a point. It is therefore only a question of extension, of overcoming isolation, of separation from one another. The explanation of the concept of time makes sense the other way round. On an imaginary timeline from past to future, the now must also be present in the shortest moment. The now cannot disappear only to be reborn later on the timeline.
The point in time that the now must have profoundly fulfilled in order to exist behaves just as paradoxically as the point in space; you can arrange as many dimensionless points in time in succession as you like, but there is still no extending timeline. But the now does not need a timeline either, it simply has to remain present. It is enough for the now to remain in dimensionless instantaneity. Now is always. Everything passes, but the now remains. Those pre-Socratic elementary philosophers attached great importance to the fact that the primal elemental substance, which must be uncreated, must also remain beyond any transformation. A difference between being one way before and being completely different later, possibly aged or worn out, such subtleties cannot represent the essence of the uncreated. It is called prima matter, that which existed before all fatefulness, which makes it possible for a changeable formation process to take place. The methaphysical literally determines what happens. This creates compositions that can all diverge again. However, the quantity of basic substance units does not change, nor do their properties. They come and go and sometimes stay for a while, but all connections are ultimately not permanent, even if many have come together in a black hole. Conclusion: Wholeness togetherness takes place in dimensionless instantaneity. Disintegration into multiplicity and diversity is completely impossible. There can be no isolation, only a lack of reaction. Any form of activity cannot be present in that prima matter, which rests perfectly within itself, is in hermetic unity. So that what we perceive as concentration is in reality not an individuality, but quite the opposite, an amalgamation of everything into a single entity. Thus the all-connectedness, the total interconnectedness with all, is the only essence of matter that causes all properties. Seen in this way, there are no laws of nature but only properties of its participants. The search for matter itself therefore starts in exactly the wrong direction from the outset and a radical turnaround must ultimately be made. It is not the part itself that is to be discovered, but a union of the many around it. A 180-degree turnaround is needed to make sense of this miraculous thing called matter. The One is a union of all and this One is also included in all. It is about nothing other than maintaining unity, because a separation from each other would be an activity and such an activity cannot possibly have taken place. This nature of prima matter is preserving wholeness and is not progressing.
In my experience with these comments, many of the participants have been speaking with a good deal of unjustified confidence. So far, I've commented 5 or 6 times, and what has often happened is that either the conversation stops or the commenter deletes their comment. I would suggest that people inspect their biases. This is meant to be a scientific debate, not a religious one. If something someone says in these comments angers you, assuming they didn’t have a hostile tone, that reflects a problem with your reaction, not with what they said. For example, if I point out that our symbolic systems should not be confused with reality, and that causes cognitive dissonance in you, that should be a clear sign to reevaluate your beliefs. Science is not a religion, and we don’t get to act like religious people when confronted with evidence or arguments that challenge our views. Shouldn’t science be about questioning our assumptions, or are we more comfortable just echoing what we think the majority believes? edit: It seems like some are more interested in echo chambers and quick dismissals of anything outside their bubble, regardless of the merits of the argument. What’s even more absurd is that many of the people doing the dismissing haven’t done the research themselves or read the papers-they’re just echoing someone else’s interpretation of the work. Yet, they feel qualified to dismiss logically sound arguments. I reject such dismissals because they often represent a failure to engage with ideas on their merits and instead rely on vague, poorly defined terms and appeals to authority that do nothing to further meaningful discourse. It also reflects a superficial understanding of both the subject matter and the nature of inquiry itself. It sidesteps the real intellectual work of examining the strengths and weaknesses of an argument and promotes intellectual laziness. This mindset doesn't seem so different from religious dogma-"My authority X said Y is true, so questioning it is heresy." I’m not going to bother responding to dismissive comments like that. If you disagree, address the specific points or be ignored.
@@lepidoptera9337 That’s an empirically overstated claim. While modern physics has been validated by two centuries of observational data, this doesn’t imply that the models reflect some absolute or objective reality. For example, I think it is crucial to highlight a common logical mistake that even the greatest minds in both scientific and spiritual fields often make. This mistake centers on the assumption that our symbolic systems can reflect some sort of objective or absolute X, where X could be truth, reality, time, consciousness, etc. To be clear, I’m not denying the existence of these absolute concepts-denying that could lead to a paradox. Instead, I’m saying the reasoning behind such claims is flawed, and the debate (for or against) risks becoming incoherent. Gödel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability clearly demonstrate the limits of formal symbolic systems. It might be useful to distinguish between tenable and untenable theories, and to further separate those concepts from usefulness. By "untenable," I specifically mean a theory that cannot be defended against reasonable objections, whereas a tenable theory could be. The idea that we can somehow capture and convey some absolute X and verify it without using further symbolic representations is untenable. However, the idea that our symbolic systems can sometimes capture causal properties relative to the system of symbols itself-rather than reflecting any objective causal reality-is tenable. Basing the speed of causality on time and light is untenable but useful, whereas basing time and light on causality is both tenable and useful. Time and light are emergent properties that arise from more fundamental causal structures. Lastly, a statement becomes dogmatic not because it is true or false, but because it is presented as incontrovertibly true. Science should always be open to inquiry and revision-no theory should be treated as beyond question.
@@lepidoptera9337 And that was a dismissive response to a logically sound argument. If you wish to disagree with me, I ask that you engage with the argument itself rather than making hand-wavy dismissals. From this point forward, I will not respond to short, dismissive comments. The same applies to anyone else who wishes to comment: I will not engage with rhetorical or fallacious arguments. This is meant to be a reasoned discussion, not a rhetorical or religious debate.
@@lepidoptera9337 What kind of answer is that? You know that, in all this context, where many people with knowledge discuss the matter, your comment shows quality of absent mind! 😅🤔
@@ft7339 We can apply Bayesian reasoning to assess the likelihood that someone claiming to have a PhD in physics is engaging in this type of behavior. Demographics: Typically, the minimum age for obtaining a PhD is around 22-26. Younger individuals are statistically more likely to engage in certain online behaviors like shown here, but this tends to decrease with age and education. Higher education, especially at the PhD level, often correlates with more focused and thoughtful discussions. Behavioral Patterns: The way someone engages in a conversation can provide clues. Someone with a PhD might be expected to engage with specific arguments or evidence in a constructive way. Certain casual behaviors, like using smiley faces in serious discussions, could suggest a different context or level of engagement. Based on these observations and the nature of their comments, it's reasonable to conclude that it is less likely than not (
We can apply Bayesian reasoning to assess the likelihood that someone claiming to have a PhD in physics is engaging in this type of behavior. Demographics: Typically, the minimum age for obtaining a PhD is around 22-26. Younger individuals are statistically more likely to engage in certain online behaviors like shown here, but this tends to decrease with age and education. Higher education, especially at the PhD level, often correlates with more focused and thoughtful discussions. Behavioral Patterns: The way someone engages in a conversation can provide clues. Someone with a PhD might be expected to engage with specific arguments or evidence in a constructive way. Certain casual behaviors, like using smiley faces in serious discussions, could suggest a different context or level of engagement. Based on these observations and the nature of their comments, it's reasonable to conclude that it is less likely than not (
It's the simplest idea. It may not be proven but it is useful regardless of the fact. The assertion that light speed is anisotropic hasn't been proven either, is apparently impossible to disprove (since the testable two way speed case is equivalent to the isotropic light speed) and only serves to complicate the theories that rely on it.
Excellent video from crackpot. Even if you could get away with a SR-equivalent theory with horrible anisotropic equations and observer-speed-dependent 1-ways speed of light in the classical case, the fact that we live in a Minkowskian geometry is proven definitively by the predictions of the standard model. The decay of muons is perfect proof that time dilation is a real phenomenon and not an illusion. In fact, there is no mechanism, no clock, inside the muon that could explain its duration when it arrives at Earth at high speed. It is a fact of quantum mechanics that there is no cause for muon decay. The anomalous magnetic moment calculation & experiment of the electron is yet another spectacular proof that SR is the correct theory to describe the symmetry of space-time. As Minkowski said, ‘Space of itself, and time of itself will sink into mere shadows, and only a kind of union between them shall survive.’ Newton absolute space and time is false, get over it, it's been 120 years now.
Actually there is no definite proof for the muon decay being influenced by 'time dilation' by srt. It could also just be that the more energetic the particle, the less fast it decays. It is all circular reasoning there and does not proof shit. Newton's absolute time and space reigns supreme. And all theories denying these simple facts are metaphysics just like Tesla said. Modern physics is a complete joke.
@michaelpieters1844 You can't just make things up. The LET is a theory of classical electrodynamics. Lorentz's aim was to have an electromatic theory that could explain all observations. This was a fairly popular paradigm at the beginning of the 20th century (the fact that all physics was reducible to electromagnetism). Even mass was thought to derive from electromagnetism. In this theory, the contraction of lengths is dynamic, i.e. it is the reorganization of EM fields that explains this effect. In this theory, the ether is the only reference frame in which objects at rest relative to it are not contracted. The problem is that Poincaré shows that this ether is not detectable, that even an observer moving relative to the ether will see objects (at rest in the ether) contracted due to a problem of clock synchronization. All this is ad-hoc, but that's not the problem. Special relativity has a completely different physical content. The effects of length contractions are kinematic effects. It is the fact that objects move in a Minkowski space that explains these contractions. The very structure of space-time explains Lorentz symmetry. And the undetectable ether disappears. Now why was special relativity preferred to LET? We could talk about aesthetic arguments, Occam's razor, etc. But the important point is the development of quantum mechanics. QM simply destroyed the classical vision and the possibility of explaining everything with electromagnetism. Lorentz's naive version of the electron was shown to be false and special relativity has since been overwhelmingly accepted. Indeed, even if SR and LET make the same predictions classically, LET is not compatible with QM and is therefore FALSE. Classical electrodynamics is only an approximation and cannot be the fundamental theory. Mansouri-Sexl's theory is completely equivalent to Lorentz's and therefore wrong (the latter also recognize that special relativity is a much better theory, for other reasons).
@@OliveVerte-d9mYou do know that Einstein’s relativity nonsense has never been validated. No experiment to date has shown a link to acceleration in space va acceleration in time. Lead 210 decays into lead 206 when it's mined. Why is that? Because motion (time) is absolute to the frame of reference. Place objects in a freezer. Time is slowed down. Remove from freezer, time speeds up. Same with lead. Lead doesn't decay in the ground because there is no place for the energy to go. Once it's mined, that energy is released it escapes the frame of reference. Your muon example is completely bogus. You are taking the average and applying it to the whole. Muons are created when radiation from the sun accelerates charged particles. Each muon has a different energy value and a different creation point. Plus it experiences a different environment - atmospheric pressure/energy. Modern physics is stuck on stupid because of what the alternative entails. F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration. Where does Acceleration come from then? Two possibilities. A creator god (Genesis) or an infinite universe (Giordano Bruno). Modern physics scoffs at the Bible and Bruno was burned at the stake for his infinite universe theory. Newton's gravitational attraction nonsense. Einstein's relativity nonsense. They exist because you can't handle the truth.
Thanks! Bravo! Just donated superthanks. Your series have been mind blowing. I agree that perhaps as mortals that live inside space-time and have chemistries for brains, or even our instruments like computers that live inside space-time. That we will never know. Science had been super arrogant to think that it is possible to seek real truth. You have completely unraveled that illusion. This is not a small feat. It's turtles all the way down, If you know what I mean. Since we're limited by our mortality and our physical presence, we will never know what lies behind existential reality. A two-dimensional being can never hope to explain, understand, control, and acquire power from the third dimension. It's exceedingly easy for that two dimension being to explain away that the third dimension doesn't exist or is a pure hallucination of their version of "Lorentz's Ether". It's the same for an ice planet with very thick ice and liquid ocean. A sentient fish civilization under it will have theories that makes perfect sense for them, that all living things must live underwater, since their entire lives they do not know anything else. They may not even have any theories of black hole because they can never leave. They might even think their world ends at the ice border. Their version of the Ether is basically the rest of the universe. I am using the term Ether as an "unknowable, unmeasurable" thing : at least with our current technology. The problem, as you said, is if we measure all scientific progress using relativity, then we basically establish a understanding framework where true space and true time cannot exist, and then we base all our scientific theory from that point on. It is the same as the fish or the 2D beings. By accepting it, we have basically given up trying to search for anything beyond. So many things about science are suddenly showing up as limitations. We can't know if there's something before the Big bang, or if the Big bang itself is at risk. We can't know if there's something smaller than our smallest quantum theories. We can't know if physics is the same inside the event horizon. With quantum erasers, we've shown that causation can go backwards in time. So many holes, not temporary holes, but permanent ones that we know we CANNOT KNOW with our current observation techniques (or ever) and current way of collecting information. Everything seems to suggest that it really is The Matrix. It just depends on how big you think the Matrix is. It does mean that maybe there is something just behind the Matrix and unfortunately we cannot see it.
Very well written, and insightful! Our quest for knowledge often leads to revelations about the limitations of such pursuits. "We know that we know nothing" yet we must ultimately keep on inferring, all the same... Thank you for your support, and stay tuned!
It's ALL about the Einstein bashing to attract EU folk. The only thing missing is the Tesla brown nose'n. IMO it's a rather douchey way to go about things if you really want to be taken seriously. Just put FWD your superior ideas so they can be examined FFS.
Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited. The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant. It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame. Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum. The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars. There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory. There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector. If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star, relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body. There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration. There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening. Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system. A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work. The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity. In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data. An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven. Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending. The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor. General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus. General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
If clocks slows when traveling at high speed, but time itself doesn't, then how come we ovserve inceased half-life in unstable particles coming from space or in particle accelerators, when these particle are moving in speeds close to C, in exact accordance with Lorentz time trasformation? BTW, this is measured with clocks in rest, or better yet at setup that involve the particle having to transverse a distance to a detector, which is considerably longer than distance that could be transversed at low speeds, i.e. without referring to clocks at all.
@auseryt why is it BS? I see a lot of comments dismissing the video without explaining what has been misinterpreted or why what dialect is proposing is nonsense or BS. Without any effort to explain this, it is you, sir, who spouts the BS. At this presenter has fully explained himself even if he is wrong. At least there's a potentially engaging discussion on the horizon. Be apart of it
A brilliant video and I agree with your point to question relativity. Time is not an actual invariant but a measurement, the very foundations of relativity need to be re-cognized. Another important point is the limitations of the geometric framework used that assumes isotropy. Some further thoughts on this: Einsteinian Time is Relative and Measurement-Based Time as a Dimension in Spacetime In both Special and General Relativity, time is treated as the fourth dimension, inseparably linked with the three spatial dimensions to form a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. The structure of spacetime is dynamic, influenced by the presence of mass and energy. Gravity, in this context, is not a force but the curvature of spacetime caused by mass. Einstein made the speed of light the universal speed limit and an invariant for all observers. This invariance means that time and space must adjust to ensure that the speed of light remains constant across all reference frames. This leads to effects like time dilation, where time slows down for objects moving at high velocities relative to an observer. Time in Einstein's theory is inherently relative-it depends on the observer's state of motion and the gravitational field they are in. It is fundamentally a measurement of the sequence of events, shaped by the geometry of spacetime. Time here is a parameter that helps measure the interval between events but is not considered an absolute entity. Limitations of Relativity's Time Time is Not Absolute: In relativity, time is not a universal constant. It can stretch or compress depending on the observer's frame of reference. While this explains many observed phenomena, it leaves time as a variable dependent on the speed of light, leading to questions about its true nature. Emergent Nature of Time Time as a Measurement vs. Time as an Emergent Property Einsteinian Time: Time is a coordinate, a measurement of intervals within the spacetime continuum. It is relative, dependent on the observer's velocity and gravitational field, and is directly linked to the speed of light as the limiting velocity. Einstein's Gravity: Gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass. It dictates how objects move and how time flows. In this view, the universe is a dynamic stage where the geometry of spacetime evolves due to the influence of mass and energy. Reality Beyond Temporal Constraints Einsteinian Perspective: The universe is a four-dimensional spacetime, with time as an integral part of the structure. Events are located in spacetime coordinates, and reality is understood through the lens of how spacetime curves and evolves. time is not an inherent dimension as in Einstein's relativity, nor is it a mere measurement. Instead, it is an emergent property.
You put a valid doubt but is simpler to understand if you apply Lorentz´s factor as a scale value. For example, in time don´t change the speed of the handle, keep it constant as the universal passage of time is; just change the scale of the dial. When a 50% of time dilation is present, imagine the dial from 0 to 6 (not in twelve units); for a 75% of time dilation the dial will only contain 3 units. Of course, at the speed of light the dial will have the same value all over. Meanwhile, the handle follows the universal passage of time, the value given by the clock will show zero change, always the same value. By using the scale change it´s easier to understand. For the length contraction, just imagine an engineer or architecture ruler, the value indicated depends on the scale selected. The ruler length does not change or shrink, just the values are different because the scale is changed (very important, no space is missing when the contraction is applied!). You can read more of this in a paper named "A new interpretation of special theory of relativity" DOI: 10.21275/SR23918031232 hope it will inspire in this important questioning that you are presenting. Regards
Do you even understand what a conspiracy is? At no point in time, has this channel proposed that anyone is involved in a conspiracy to do anything. Like their channel name implies, they are using dialectical reasoning to try to understand and present the ontological arguments of physics. That is a commendable endeavor that should be encouraged and supported whether or not you agree with the hypothesis presented. So far, every video has been presented with transparency and accountability.
Clocks are sensible measures of time, e.g., clocks (or shadows or grains of sand) can be sensed through a human eye even if time itself is insensible. We have five senses; that is what Newton mean by "sensible." I agree that our language is a big problem here, but elementary students know that in reality there are no perfect vacuums, and that light is slowed when passing through different media, like a glass of water. The main idea is that causes always precede effects irrespective of one's inertial frame of observation. No inertial frame is special; nobody has their own, special physics. Thanks, Copernicus.
I would advise a little bit of modesty here. Last time I checked Einstein made many predictions which were confirmed with experiments, so far Dialect made none. You guys may still be right though. Just prove it. You don’t need to discredit anyone. Be constructive.
Hey viewers, we know you're super-excited to go and read through the comment section found below, but first -- a few important notes about both the Latin and German translations!
1) Multiple viewers have pointed out that Newton's use of the word "sensible" meant "dealing with senses" i.e., that which can be touched, felt, etc. as opposed to "that which makes logical sense", which was our interpretation of it. Indeed the former meaning is consistent with Newton's usage of "sensible" in his writings elsewhere. While we initially considered that meaning, we ruled it out because it would have meant Newton was directly contradicting himself with his usage of "sensible" in his second sentence. But as it turns out, the translator put "sensible" in brackets in the second sentence where it did not belong. Indeed, it seems even the translators had a hard time keeping up with Newton's various distinctions and terminology!
2) "Those violate the accuracy of language" is more directly translated from Latin to "those violate the scriptures". Here it appears Newton was referring to the "scripture" meaning of words like time & space, i.e., their absolute conception. However, we stand by the interpretation of this sentence, since the point of Newton's writing here was to indicate that distinct terminologies must be held separate from one another, which is ultimately an issue of language. Indeed neither of these translation issues affect the ultimate thrust of Newton's passage, which was that the absolute ideals of space and time, notions which are requisite for understanding our reality in the first place, should not be conflated with the measured quantities which we then in turn use to represent those ideals.
3) As an astute commenter pointed out, Einstein's crucial sentence about light isotropy, in which he writes that "the latter time cannot be defined at all", may also have been a translation error which has gone mostly unnoticed by history! The direct German text reads "Die Letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden" which appears to most directly translate to "The latter time can now be defined." The word "nun" or "now" is one letter off from the word "nur" meaning "only" so perhaps the translators thought it was a misprint. If Einstein did truly choose that language, this would be more in line with indicating that he did believe light behavior & simultaneity to ultimately be a conventional choice, although this would raise many questions about why he did not ever talk about or consider any other possible conventions. Regardless of his intentions, it’s clear that the English translation was the interpretation given to Einstein’s theory by the wider physics community.
The usage of the word "sensible" refers to actions or phenomena that are perceived through our senses, making it synonymous with "physical" or "empirical." Therefore, a "sensible measure" would mean a "physical measure." However, concepts such as time, space, place, and motion are not physically measurable in themselves; rather, they serve as frameworks for measuring events (in time), positions (in space), locations (in place), and changes in position (motion).
The warning presented in the video is a clear and accurate representation. The video effectively explains that relativity is a method for measuring quantities, not the quantities themselves. However, Einstein violated this mathematical principle by presenting relativity as if it represented actual quantities, such as relativistic time, which he made "natural"-thereby turning it into "sensible time" or physically "natural time." This move undermined the independence of absolute time.
Moreover, "sensible space" would refer to "natural space," which in relativity is considered bendable. This interpretation is a clear violation of the true concept of space, which is the dimension within which everything exists and all events occur. Place is a point in space that represents a measure of distance from an origin, while motion measures how fast objects change their location.
Although relativity attempts to relate cosmic time to existential events within the universe, it cleverly redefines clock time as "natural time." This misleadingly suggests that because a clock is a physical object, the time it measures must also be natural. In reality, the concept of "natural time" is a farce.
Relativity also disregards the more general understanding of wavelength dilation, which corresponds to the distortion of clock time. Instead, it presents this phenomenon as time dilation, even though time dilation is never measurable on a standard clock, which is designed to measure standardized time-not the flawed time dilation introduced by relativity.
Experiments conducted by biased followers of the relativistic view of natural time led to the erroneous conclusion of dilatable time, when in fact, they should have measured wavelength dilation. This occurs due to phase shifts in frequencies, resulting in a small energy loss in an oscillator’s wave, which correlates with the so-called time dilation.
Furthermore, the concept of relativistic gravity as a result of spacetime curvature is a fabricated interpretation. The experiments involving gravitational lensing, which claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, are biased. In reality, the photon’s path bends due to a momentum exchange with the gravitating body, causing a curvature in the gravitational field, which is wrongly attributed to spacetime curvature.
The theories of relativity are based on fundamentally flawed concepts of time and space as "spacetime," which makes the entire relativistic framework unreliable. Time is, by its nature, cosmic and absolute, meaning there is no such thing as time dilation or the reduction in the age of returning twins, as presented in the twin paradox.
In summary, the video correctly exposes the flaws in relativity and highlights how Einstein’s theory contradicts Newton’s warning.
Regarding time dilation - I wonder what we can say about this example:
We have 2 steaks. One sitting inside the fridge and one sitting on our table. After 1 week, the one on the table has already being rotten, while the one inside the fridge remains "young".
If we didn't want to do physics, we could say that from the table steak's perspective, it itself has experienced real time, while the one in the fridge is well... In the fridge and thus their time has been dilated.
And visa versa the one inside the fridge can claim that no - it itself is not inside the fridge, instead the one on the table is inside the oven - and thus - the one inside the fridge experienced real time, while the one inside the oven aged much faster than it.
If those 2 steaks have respective clocks made out of meat - then these clocks will further strengthen their beliefs...
If these 2 steaks are also unable to see if they are inside a fridge or an oven - then they might come up with a theory of relativity; And that one of them should have experienced less time - the only question would be who that is...
But if we place an clock that is not made out of meat next to them - then we can measure that BOTH experience the SAME amount of time... What the pieces of meat don't know is that there is a mechanistic way that their time dilation can be understood - and that mechanism is called a "fridge" and one of them, is in it.
- - - -
The question now is - are we like the steak on the table or inside the fridge? Or is the geometry of the entire Universe such that it time really does slow down for someone in non uniform motion?
Einstein didn't care to explore this - because he isn't a philosopher - thankfully he is a physicist and thus as long as his model works, that is perfectly fine by him (and that's fine).
But if we want to philosophically explore what might be really going on here - is that it could be that we can have an absolute space and an absolute time - and still also experience the effects of time dilation and length contraction - as mere illusions, just like when you dip your spoon inside a glass of water and the spoon changes shape;
Or it could be that we can never really separate space and time in such a way that we can talk about them as absolutes;
My curiocity remains unshaken! :)
@@-_Nuke_- You can have an absolute time which locally gets modified due to some phenomena. And from such modified absolute spacetime regions you can observe the world which will appear differently due to modifications of spacetime you are in.
@@thakursn you are correct, the wavelength is responsible for 'time' dilation. Yet he was correct about the bending of space due to mass. What do you mean by that it is gravitational field that gets bent? If you may, explain the momentum exchange between photon path and the mass body.
I think you have misinterpreted Einstein.
I've read Einstein's paper many times. And it seems to me very clear that he, not only understood the difference between time as a physical phenomenon and its measurement, but he also wrote the brilliant intro of this paper exactly to deal with this confusion.
In the passage you refer to in 17:55, Einstein clarifies that all we know about time is what clocks show us, and therefore to prevent any confusion, we can substitute the meaning of the word "time", with the words "The position of the small hands of my watch".
He did not mean that what clocks show is time itself.
Also in 18:24, he Brilliantly points to the problem with the definition of time and suggests establishing by definition that lights move from A to B at the same speed it moves from B to A.
Presenting this assertion as definition and not as a fact, shows he knows the limits of his suggested theory, and knows that if his assumption is proven wrong, the theory will also fail.
Also as he writes the word "time" in quotation, means that he knows this is not the real/physical time but a measurement.
Today physics students indeed think that Lorenz transformations represent properties of space and time, but establishing that this fact is a result of Einstein's confusion in this paper, is your interpretation. (Which I think is wrong.)
I like your channel but I didn't like many parts of this video.
I think that your goal to correct the errors in the way we interpret relatively is very important.
But vilifying Einstein, representing him as a fraud, and minimizing his huge contribution, will not get you there, and instead of making physics students open their minds and listen to you, you will alienate them and cause them to close their minds.
Einstein's recognition of the problems inherent to defining simultaneity were certainly apt, and he was among the first to recognize this issue. But he immediately blundered afterwards by declaring that time should be defined via the path a light beam takes, since this required the view that light behavior be posited as absolute and a brute face of nature. In essence, he merely traded "absolute space and time" for "absolute light behavior". And the reason he put time in quotations was to emphasize, as he wrote earlier in his introduction, that talking about time is useless unless one has a measured quantity they can coordinate it to. So he was purposefully distinguishing his idea of time from Newton's absolute one, and moreover, indicating his belief there was no usefulness in the notion of absolute time.
Sooner or later we must all be reconciled to the fact that Einstein was not the genius he has been marketed to be; that in fact every "discovery" in his 1905 relativity paper and subsequent E=mc2 paper had already been made by other individuals, and that he simply put a new philosophical spin upon them. Moreover, in an act that speaks rather lousily to his character, he ultimately never gave proper credit to those individuals. (He also married his first cousin, which tells us that his genius, if real, certainly did not extend far beyond the domain of physics.)
If learning the truth causes individuals to "close their minds" -- that is, if they lack the maturity to sort fact from fiction -- then they were undoubtedly never meant for scientific pursuits in the first place, and that is certainly no loss for humanity.
@@dialectphilosophy I will have to strongly disagree here with you guys...
(Just for this comment, not the video). You guys (judging from this comment) seem to have an emotional bias against Einstein. Which in term strongly lowers the credibility of your opinions.
Marriage with his cousin? What does that have to do with philosophy?
Einstein wasn't the genius he is thought to be? I am sorry but that's an insult to the entire Human intellect. Again... Nothing to do with philosophy.
I will have to heed you an important warning here. This emotional bias against Einstein should stay away from discussions about physics. It provides nothing other than bitterness.
@dialectphilosophy I love your channel as well, and we definitely need to question a lot of elements of popular science but I agree with Lucidthinking, talking this way about Einstein just distracts viewers from the important parts of the video.
I understand how frustrating it is to be right about something and get push back from people who fall for simple cognitive biases but if you want your ideas to spread even further you should consider keeping a positive spin on all your videos and not attacking people that are beloved. There are plenty of ways to point out that someone is wrong without getting people worked up.
Please keep making great videos that highlight the flaws in the status quo!
@@-_Nuke_-You obviously have an emotional bias TOWARDS Einstein. And that is clouding YOUR judgement. Dialect merely rattles off a number of facts most physicists are already aware of - which is that Einstein contributed little to Special Relativity other than the philosophical interpretation. Most of the features of the theory don’t even bear his name! Still, Einstein tried to present many of the aspects of the theory as his own in his 1905 paper, which referenced and credited no one, despite borrowing direct language and ideas from Poincaré, Mach, Lorentz, and others. That is not academic integrity.
What does marrying his cousin have to do with anything? Because the credibility of relativity as a “true” theory has been tied to the image of Einstein as a “genius”. But he clearly made many life choices that are not in line with being a genius at all.
Indeed, Special Relativity was mostly other people’s theories, and Einstein had a LOT of help with GR, which took him over ten years, and even then he couldn’t even solve his own equations for it. Then the rest of his life he contributed absolutely nothing to physics.
Those are all facts - why don’t you try arguing with them, instead of arguing with your own emotional bias?
@@JS-teck Man I couldn't have said it better myself!
Einstein is not the problem. He is aware of his theory's limitations. But some physicists and popularizers after Einstein have jumped to some poor conclusions for just such reasons as this video points out. And they are getting in the way of scientific progress. Keep on keeping on, Dialect!
Very important comment!
True and I think that's the point.
Einstein was a problem because he was talking about the material world from the point of an objective Idealist who believed in God (everything is causality law, the God don't play dice) and that this god is energy. For this fault was responsible Mach his teacher. For that reason, Einstein was fighting Bohr who believed only in uncertainty that the result of the experiment has no law, and it has an influence from the observer, which this is subjective Idealism. Only a dialectic materialist have the ability to speak about matter and to do small wrongs. Because uncertainty and relativity and causality are natural laws. Dialectic laws.
This is definitely the key point. At first, I thought Einstein was the one responsible for spreading these misguided ideas. However, it turns out that it was the physicists who came after him, especially the modern ones who popularize science. They become almost a cult and don't even allow any criticism of relativity. It's worth mentioning that Einstein still bears some responsibility for this.
@@emotionalvideos6897 Yes, Einstein was responsible, because when sir Elighton, came out with his photography's proof that the light bend because of the bending of the space time continuum from our Sun, first, Einstein disapproved that, but then he was accepted it. He was persuaded. He refused the possibility, that the law of Snell about the bending of light from refraction, like an optical phenomenon, could be the reason. This, because Einstein was actually a very bad physicist bellow any average. Even as a mathematician, he hasn't it. Probably, working in this patent office in Zurich, he has stolen the work of someone else, as some bad people mention. This was the explanation of the photoelectric phenomenon, and for that he took the Nobel. After this, anyone believed on his moron genius. Now, many serious physicists, especially from the quantum theories, when they hear about the GR thy laugh, but no one is coming at frond to reject him because without the GR there isn't any place except in Bible for the "theory" of the B.B. Furthermore, make their career even Nobel Prize's laureates, on the predictions about black holes and gravitational waves, you know the names. So, if today someone came out against Einstein, he has to be e revolutionist, like me, a retired person who don't need money, ha ha ha, anymore or fame, because he will meet against him all of them plus the Vatican. The Vatican, if you know, is a very strong enemy for the reason that the B.B. theory has taken, the blessing of one Pope, and the Popes, after the decision of the Cardinals in 1891 it seems to be the human nearest to the god. Then he has the infallibility for anything, it has his blessing. Einstein was also persuaded by Lemaitre at the third attempt of him to have his agreement on his B.B. theory. People are persuaded with only two things when they are persuaded on a lie. Money, or fame. Money coming from the bank of Vatican are good and the fame when you know that your GR theory is a joke also is good. So, what do you think? Einstein was a victim of after him physicists that came after him to take a piece of his fame, or he was also guilty as well?
imo this series should have a much lighter touch to it, like "Explaining a (perhaps) simpler and more intuitive perspective on spacetime" and you focus on just doing that. The bashing/praising of physicists feels excessive and may spawn a certain type of audience; personally I'd much rather you just put up your axioms/assumptions and build up a description of spacetime and then contrast it to typical explanations, while clarifying and showing that they both valid and equivalent as mathematical descriptions.
edit: lots of replies are arguing about metaphysics. My point is lots of viewers just come for a more intuitive way of understanding/model of Einstein's equations. Saying "Einstein is wrong" is like saying "Linear Algebra is wrong" b/c "every vector space has a basis" isn't true if you personally reject AoC
This is not a matter of a simpler or more intuitive "perspective". This is a matter of right and wrong, truth and untruth. The point of our video is that, although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one, as it is acausal and logically contradictory, and consequently this makes it pseudoscience. And there is no easy or pleasant way to state such a thing -- there is no easy way to point out that physicists have been so readily peddling untruths and superstitions for the past century plus, while castigating, ostracizing, demeaning and ridiculing all those who have honestly sought to question them.
Having done a number of videos like this one in our UA-cam career, we find comments like this stem less from how the material is presented and more from hurt feelings of individuals who, at some point or another, have put their faith, trust, love and enthusiasm into scientific authority; and don't want to confront that fact that physics is as liable to err and misdirection as any other field of pursuit out there. And we've been there, trust us. We used to adore the theories of relativity, and worship Einstein. But our faith was misplaced, as is yours. And until more people have the moral courage and spiritual fortitude to stand up to establishment, and find that they are able to say things like "Einstein was wrong", then there will be no further real progress in physics.
@@dialectphilosophy " although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one, as it is acausal and logically contradictory"-- this is the key issue. Most trained scientists today (as well as enthusiastic laymen) never encounter the possibility that *mathematical equivalence* does not equal theoretical or logical identity in the course of their education--they are too busy cramming their heads with math (which they often don't even understand). When they are forced to consider this, the fact it is so obvious leads to embarrassment, defensiveness, and obfuscation. Often times they try to invoke a philosophy of hyper-positivism on the occasion to wriggle out of the conundrum, but they are never consistent in holding that philosophy once they feel the threat has passed.
@@dialectphilosophy 'You should change your presentation of science so you don't offend anyone' >> This will lead us back to the dark ages. Keep up the good work Dialect 👍
@@dialectphilosophy
"The point of our video is that, although mathematically equivalent, Einstein's theory is NOT a valid one"
Most people consider mathematical equivalence as theory equivalence.
As far as most are conserned, the process of understanding physics is:
1. Observe that math governs the things around us
2. Figure out and get a hold on the math that does that
3. Repeat until everything that is described by math is described
If you think these rules aren't good, then that's fine, but that's metaphysics. I just want tricks for understanding/visualizing the equations that makes stuff do things.
"there is no easy way to point out..." I said how
@@dialectphilosophy Well, the best way to "stand up" might be to write a paper or a thesis, get it peer reviewed, and published.
When I hear the word "sensible" in Newton's warning, I hear "related to the senses " rather than "reasonable."
Same!
@@TheApsodist not the Same. Sensible means sensed by the 5 senses. Reasonable means thought out by the mind.
I agree.
But given the comment in question is about language, I think people should also note that there is a distinct difference in definition when a word is USED in different contexts. "Sensible" literally comes from "what is able to be sensed" but can also imply the value of what people place upon what is sensed. Many think it 'sensible' to include unspecified interpretations of what is sensed as though the description includes the logical related factors.
Interestingly this is also related to what is being interpreted or confused by Newton's comment. I think that Newton was saying that you have to be cautious to recognize that scientific definitions need to utilize a relationship between two or more observational DESCRIPTIONS. We are not able to speak on the literal absolutes (whether they exist or not) but must rely on relative definitions only. Time may or may not be an absolute but is not what we can speak on and so the scientific meaning can only be described as a relationship of two distinct positions statically defined such as between two images that have everything in common except some relative position change of something within them. We would pick two such distinct images (or frames) arbitrarily and then define other phenomena relative to that.
It feels like 90% of your videos are just lead up and anticipation. You spend most of your time introducing the _idea_ that modern physics, youtubers, scientists, etc are wrong, and about 10% of your time actually giving an alternative explanation. It makes me sad too, because I see some genuinely interesting ideas here and video making talent, but it feels like most of your videos just barely teeter on becoming vague conspiracy posting, and I **really** do not want that.
While I do think that the only real grounding of truth is what we can observe, simplifying our models and better explanations for them is extremely important to true understanding (as well as giving good clues on what experiments and tests to do in the future). And the reformulation of relativity in terms of wave mechanics and the differing speed of light is a *genuinely* fascinating idea. It's just... you have to actually make videos on that lol. The fact of the matter is that it is still simply an interpretation, and a (currently) less explored one at that. It needs much much more maturity and testable predictions before it can replace the traditional Einsteinian one. And hey! Again, maybe it will! but there needs more meat first.
Just please... chill a bit man... we're all trying to understand the universe with you, don't go trying to make enemies when you don't have to.
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
@@matthewhall6288 The disparity between the mass density and volume of earth and the apple is adjusting the spatial environment of the apple for the apples stem to detach itself from the twig to establish and create a point in space with a splash of invisible particles being produced. Gravity is not a fundamental but being provoked and an emergent property
I'm pretty sure if you just kept reading a 18:05 Einstein himself says this definition of time is only satisfactory locally and not universally. Plus he speaks as though he's looking for a meaningful way to define time, and defining time as other than "what working clocks measure" is almost unavoidable. Time can only be meaningfully defined as "what some kind of clock measures", be it an imaginary Universal clock or many local clocks like in Einstein's construction. The question is, which is more useful?
Einsteins relativity doesn't live or die by the speed of light specifically but by the speed of causality in general. His theory isn't acausal for this fact alone, it uses the speed of light as a proxy for the speed of information flow, i.e. the speed of causality. The maximum speed which two locations can share information or influence each other.
the isotropic speed of light is, not only the simplest way to interpret experimental outcomes of 2 way speed of light measurements, but also perfectly in line with Maxwells derivation of the magnitude which didn't rely on direction either.
Your comment correctly points out two issues: Einstein's local definition of time, and the fact that the speed of light in his theories serves as a proxy for the speed of causality. However, your reasoning may still fall into the same logical trap that the video describes. For instance, I can think of two questions related to your points:
- The use of clocks to define time is pragmatic, but the deeper question remains: does time exist outside of this operational framework?
- Even if we accept the operational definition of time, does the assumption of the isotropic speed of light truly capture the underlying nature of causality?
Additionally, if Newton suggested some form of "objective time" or "absolute time," I believe there was also a basic logical flaw in that assertion, which he himself warned against. Newton essentially cautioned against mistaking a measured quantity for reality, and I would take this further to caution against mistaking symbolic representations for reality.
From a pragmatic perspective, I find the concept of "objective time" or "absolute time" largely untenable. These same points apply equally well to what I call "symbolic realism," or the idea that these symbols actually reflect something "real." It seems to assume some sort of objective, bird's-eye view and implies that we can somehow access this view. My issue with this assumption rests on three key points:
1. We must use symbols to describe any such bird's-eye view.
2. We cannot verify or test whether our symbols accurately reflect that bird's-eye view without using even more symbols. This, in turn, requires further verification, leading to an infinite regress.
3. Our symbolic systems have inherent limitations, such as the necessity of interpretation. Therefore, it seems logically untenable to assume that any set of symbols could represent such a bird's-eye view objectively. Any such representation is always conditioned on some entity understanding the rules of the system and interpreting them correctly.
This isn't to say that symbols and models, such as those in Einstein's theory of relativity, don't have practical value. In fact, Einstein's models work remarkably well within the limits of observation and measurement. His theory helps us predict and navigate the world effectively by offering a framework for understanding relative time. However, these models are pragmatic tools rather than definitive statements about an objective reality. They operate within the constraints of our observations, not as windows into an absolute or universal truth.
Finally, my critique doesn’t dismiss the utility of symbols altogether. Instead, it highlights their limits when used to describe concepts like "absolute time" or even "relative time." While symbols help us make sense of the world, they are always interpretations mediated by the rules of the symbolic system we choose, not direct reflections of an objective reality. The danger lies in mistaking their usefulness for a representation of ultimate truth.
You missed the most important and key point of the video! If you define time as "what clocks measure" you must in turn define "measurement". But one cannot define measurement without invoking space and time, since one first needs those concepts in order to make a measurement at all, so that definition is circular. Indeed, as we warned at the beginning of the video, those who take for granted that they think they know what "measurement" is ought to be a little more careful and discerning. And so no, time cannot be meaningfully defined as "what clocks measure", and Einstein's attempt to do so for spatially separated clocks are what led him to his erroneous statement about the one-way speed of light, a topic we'll examine more in depth in an upcoming video.
Secondly, we can't imagine that you watched the video very closely, because our arguments about causality were not in regards to the fact that light is responsible for the transmission of causal information, this latter fact being one we outright stated in the video. Our statements about causality were in regards to the fact that Einstein was forced to make the motion of light in an inertial frame acausal, a brute-fact-of-nature postulate, in order to make it invariant, leading to the all the respective phenomena of relativity, i.e. time dilation, length contraction, relativistic mass, etc. likewise also being regarded as acausal, brute-facts-of-nature.
Lastly, it is a misconception that Einstein's theory is the "simplest" interpretation of the two-way invariance of light. The absolute time/space/ether interpretation features the exact same transformation equation as Einstein's, and is thus just as simple; one rather uses a master clock instead of a local clock. Moreover, the absolute interpretation is much more sensible, as it leads to causal explanations for relativistic phenomena. In conclusion, while we welcome and encourage criticism and critique, we encourage you to be a little more discerning in your future objections! Thanks!
@dialectphilosophy I have a question for you. I love your videos and I find extremely interesting to hear different angles and challenges to existing assumptions.
But this begs a question: many of your videos seem to imply new ways to look at physics (maybe even a way to work around the limits of the current one), so do you also have any scientific paper submitted on the topic? It's nice you share these with the public but if you want to make a real scientific contribution you have to go through a peer review. I was just curious if you have done anything like that
@@DonatoMeliWhile peer review is a cornerstone of modern scientific validation, history shows that breakthrough ideas can emerge outside this system. Einstein, for instance, made some of the most transformative discoveries of the 20th century without going through formal peer review in his 1905 papers on relativity, published in Annalen der Physik. Similarly, the theoretical work predicting the Higgs boson was shared via preprint platforms like arXiv, bypassing traditional peer review, yet it still contributed to one of the greatest discoveries in modern physics.
Another example is the Bitcoin white paper (2008), written by the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto, which introduced the concept of decentralized digital currency. Despite never undergoing peer review and with no one even knowing the true identity of the author(s), Bitcoin has had a profound impact on financial systems and technology. Whether or not Bitcoin will replace traditional currencies remains debatable, but its revolutionary ideas have undeniably reshaped the global financial landscape.
Conversely, the peer review process has sometimes allowed flawed or even fraudulent work to be published. A notable example is Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 paper in The Lancet, which falsely linked the MMR vaccine to autism, causing widespread public health issues before being retracted. Another example is the Jan Hendrik Schön scandal, where fabricated physics research passed through peer review and was published in prestigious journals like Nature and Science.
While some fields may be more or less prone to issues like this, it is doubtful that any particular field is completely immune. For instance, in fields like computer science, errors or fraud are generally easier to catch due to the ease of replicating experiments and verifying results, which makes such cases rarer but there are examples of it happening. In contrast, fields like psychology and the humanities have been grappling with a well-known "replication crisis," where many studies fail to produce the same results when repeated. This variability in replicability highlights that certain fields may face more challenges in validating claims, but no area of science is entirely insulated from the possibility of flawed or questionable research passing through peer review.
These examples demonstrate that peer review is not an infallible marker of credibility. Ultimately, the validity of any scientific claim must rest on the strength of the evidence and reasoning behind the argument, regardless of the medium through which it is conveyed. Whether a claim is made in a journal, a preprint, or even a UA-cam video, it is the logic and data that should be critically examined.
While peer review is extremely important and serves as a critical first filter in the scientific process, we must be cautious about assuming that peer-reviewed work is automatically infallible. Peer review is a valuable tool for ensuring that research meets certain standards of rigor, but it is not without limitations. The true strength of the peer review process emerges over time, particularly through the replication of studies and the gradual accumulation of evidence. As more independent researchers attempt to reproduce and expand upon the findings, the robustness of the original claims becomes clearer. This iterative process is what ultimately solidifies scientific consensus, making replication just as essential as peer review itself.
@@DonatoMeli To add to my previous comment, I think this ties nicely back to a quote from James Kidd, a philosopher of science, and demonstrates the practical utility of skepticism and epistemic humility:
"Colleagues can let us down, shared epistemic practices can be abused, and institutions can be corrupted. The virtue of epistemic humility therefore builds in, at the ground level, an acute sense of the fact that epistemic confidence is conditional, complex, contingent, and therefore fragile."
History clearly shows examples where even solidified academic or scientific consensus was objectively wrong in some way. Too much epistemic confidence can actually hinder scientific progress. In my humble opinion, I think "intellectual honesty" almost implies skepticism and epistemic humility.
Dialect is the most daring science UA-camr and I'm all here for it.
Great content !
7:05 *HUGE* problem. You say that by time, “we mean the idealistic stand-in of a perfectly regular process which itself is never subject to alteration by any other physical processes.” But this cannot be what we mean by time.
Here’s where we need to be extra careful. We have to decide if we’re going to conceive time for itself as a thing _separable_ from the objects “in” it or if, rather, it is an _abstraction_ from things themselves. Are natural things only finite in coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be with the _addition_ of time? Or is it rather that natural things are precisely such _as temporal_ and that time is inseparable from objects?
Indeed, when the clock stops, there is a sense in which _its_ time stops. When a muon’s decay slows down, there’s a sense in which _its_ time does as well. But this is only because _motion_ changes, and _motion_ is a unity of space and time. Taking time in pure abstraction from the concrete and relative motion of bodies can only have a conceptual (i.e., philosophical) significance, to find out why it belongs to nature, how it is distinguished in its structure of externality from that of space, and how both space and time belong to motion. There is no “absolute” time outside of this. There is no “universal” clock, a quantity of time in and for itself.
Nature is irreducibly finite, contingent, disappearing, and full of relative untruth. But Newton would mistake the abstract for the “actual.” By simply positing time as an “idealistic stand-in” for what would have to be a _dynamical_ process, we badly substantialize an abstraction as concrete. Time _as such_ is simply not the object of an empirical physics which has separated itself off from the _a priori_ investigation of categories and their order of abstraction.
So I would agree that modern relativists do much harm with their language and I think your perception of the history from Mach to Einstein is generally correct. The positivism of this period and the unwitting inheritance of it _still_ linger in our day’s endeavor to know nature. But I think this is baked into a larger conceptual problem of badly substantializing time itself as something coincident with matter instead of an inherently immanent and immaterial aspect of what it _means_ to be material. In this way, Mach and Einstein aren’t merely making the mistake of ignoring actual time or mistaking the two times. They are already wrong in adopting Newton’s _a priori_ categorical framework to begin with.
And even more encompassing is the issue of misunderstanding what physics does. Time as such is simply not its object of investigation. I would be far more radical in my diagnosis of this part of modern physics.
indeed,according Aristotel , no distinction between carry(infinity)and motion, carry(infinity) could not exist without motion.
To move in space, thing must disappear HERE and then appear THERE.
To move in time, thing must appear BEFORE and then disappear AFTER.
"disappears" means digit at right becomes empty and carry (infinity) goes (but not still arrived to digit at left).
"appears" means carry(infinity) becomes number in digit at left.
Number is equlibrium between quantity& quality, curvature&dimension.
Again, according Aristotle, time is a number of changes between BEFORE and AFTER.
So , carry(infinity) exists only in motion ( departure from one digit ... arriving to other).
Stop of motion means number(equilibrium).
Time counts changes inside digit(in KER)
Space counts changes outside digit(in IMG).
If turn things inside out like a glove(quantity- quality inversion) then
Space becomes dof(degree of freedom) and
Time becomes lte(TEMPERATURE).
IF relocate Counter outside of number system(shape, finite chain of digits, digit's amount is dimension of shape) then it becomes time and
Finite chain of number systems becomes space.
Energy of each number system is it's Carry(infinity).
I only want to say that infinite chain of digits is non-logical. Infinity(carry) out of infinitely digit seems senseless to me (old programmer). Either no carry or chain is finite. In first case we receive set of digit, in second D-dimensional shape.
************************
If i look at digit from ABOVE i see curvature(quantity),
If i look at digit from BELOW i see dimension(quality),
If i look at digit from HERE i see number,
If i look at digit from THERE i see -number ,
If i look at digit BEFORE i see infinity,
If i look at digit AFTER i see zero.
Any chain is as weak as its weakest part. And your reasoning breaks at least totally when you advocates for « time to be dynamical ». This is absurd à priori, since what would measure such « dynamical passage of time »? Time?
Interesting, Heideggerian perspective I would assume. But one thing comes to mind - if the possibility of absolute time is nonexistent as actually available to us, nevertheless its possibility is possible - nevertheless we can not discount that absolute time exists as the unknowable.
Do you have discord friend? I see you are well-read in Hegel’s works :)
10:35 To me, this doesn't really reflect absurd statements, but rather reveals that time itself is an abstract idea and is not an observed fact.
Where is time? All I see is moving objects.
To say "time itself does not stop, clocks do." is to insist once again that an unobserved abstract language idea called "time", devoid of any substance, is reality.
Yes, you are right. Those are just manners of speech. Most physicists know that a clock slowing down to a near halt is not time stopping. Dialect is trying to gin up clicks.
imagine a world were nothing moves or changes, the idea of time would make no sense
@@intptointp we see the effects of time everywhere.
@@ibendcrazy Actually, those are the effects of movement not time. (measure as the forward movement of time, and sometimes a time warp)
This really is a great thing to notice and this is the mach's emphasis on the definition of time,
@dialect got it wrong here.
I do not understand why most commentators refuse to acknowledge the overlap between philosophy and natural science in these subjects! This is evident to anyone who has studied the philosophy of science in depth.
because most physicists are actually just fancy symbolic manipulation machines. They are uneducated on the fundamentals
Dialect,
Once again, I agree with half of your points and disagree with the other half.
I completely agree that it is important to maintain a distinction between actual quantities and our measurements of those quantities. Measurements of both space and time always rely on certain assumptions about the instruments that we use. Namely, that their behaviour during the measurement process remains stable and predictable --- even if the physical interaction we are trying to study is much more chaotic. This includes assumptions that our measuring rods -- left undisturbed by external interaction* -- continue to remain the same shape and size. It includes assumptions that our clocks -- left undisturbed by external interaction -- continue to tick at the same rate.
Unfortunately, "actual space" is not partitioned into clear, coherent grid-lines that the human eye can see.
There is also no metronome that ticks off each unit of "actual time" that the human ear can detect.
So, we have to use the tools we have at our disposal. Absolute space and absolute time may or may not be real -- but since, in any case, we have no way to measure them directly, we have to use physical processes instead.
You try to argue that Einstein was somehow unique in basing his definitions of space and time on assumptions about physical processes - in his case, the dynamics of light. However, Einstein is neither unique nor incorrect to do this. Since Newton, we have used inertial coordinate systems (aka inertial frames) to coordinate space and time. These inertial frames also define space and time on a physical basis -- namely, the assumption that Newton's Laws Of Motions hold true in some system of coordinates. All Einstein did was recognize that the inertial frames, as defined by Newton through his Laws, are also frames in which light propagates isotropically at speed c.
He realized the empirical fact that the two definitions -- starting from different physical assumptions -- still gave us the same family of coordinate systems. They are experimentally equivalent. We cannot explain why this is so from pure reason alone. It is simply, as you say, a "brute fact of nature".
The usefulness of these definitions lies not in their correspondence to "actual space" and "actual time", since we already agree that those quantities cannot be directly measured. Their usefulness comes from the ability to systematize an enormous number of other experimental facts into a simple, symmetric form. Choosing some other type of coordinate system to study physics in is still possible. However, the equations are much simpler and more elegant when expressed in terms of inertial coordinates -- which are, as I mentioned, equivalent to light-based coordinates.
Again, you repeat the myth that the two-way speed of light is set, purely by convention, to be c. I have already put a comment under your Matrix video discussing why this is not true. Please read that comment. It also has articles linked to it that explain the non-conventional nature of one-way speed of light in more detail.
Love your videos, Dialect.
Hey Amal, thanks for watching! Perhaps you missed our "Superposition" video, but the experimental equivalence of inertial coordinate systems can be explained from pretty basic aspects of wave mechanics. Indeed, to suggest it is a brute fact of reality is to restrict the possibility that other physical phenomena can interfere and affect the behavior of light, which will always limit the future realm of models for reality.
In short you are practicing a religion, not performing science! And yes, while the two-way speed of light is empirically determined to be c, the one-way speed of light can never be measured so long as there is not a faster-than-light signal available to us; this renders any choice of one-way speed for a c a convention.
Lastly, we will be tackling the nature of space and time in a different video -- but you are correct in your sense that they are not "absolute" structures that really could be determined to 'exist' somewhere in reality. Rather they are useful notions that allow us to retain causal explanations and do science. In other words, they are, as Kant posited, the quanta of our intuition, or the language of our measurement -- for we cannot perform any measurements whatsoever without first invoking a notion of space and time.
@@dialectphilosophy If elementary particles are not waves, but particles, then quantum superposition is not explained by wave mechanics. It is then only merely _accounted for_ by wave mechanics, which just means "can be modeled" (using a possible convenient fiction). No one really knows if "wavefunctions" are ontic or epistemic. So a little humility is called for here. I am sure you are aware that effective superposition of particles can be explained in more than one way, so again, no one yet knows the correct explanation of quantum superposition.
@@AchrononmasterBy superposition, Dialect didn't mean quantum superposition. He meant the superposition of electromagnetic fields.
@@dialectphilosophy It is not practicing religion to use a model that is useful. It might be practicing religion to assume that since the model makes assumptions about the world that it is therefore "not valid". There is no such thing as an invalid model so long as it's logically consistent within its assumptions, _there are only more and less useful models_ . Afaict Einstein's model and the model you've presented are equally _useful_ when it comes to predicting reality. If you want to make an argument on why we should focus on the more general one, I believe you should frame it in terms of how it could help with finding more useful models, not by appealing to Newtonian absolute-coordinates metaphysics or bashing Einstein.
Edit: formatting
@@zyansheep The only metaphysics is Einstein's theory.
What you wil tell about the Tesla opinion that the Theory of Relativity was just “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense. The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying error. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”
Time is essentially a mental construct that represents a relation between events (as we say event "A" occurred before "B," and "B" before "C," which is a temporal relation). Its reference is the relative measurement of motion, which allows us to estimate the number of occurrences, just as we measure a "day" by the movement of the sun from one sunrise to the next.
While I don't fully understand most of the content on this channel, I do love what you guys do. I have no formal physics education and it's more so a topic I like to ponder on when I'm under the influence of a substance, but with that being said I've always been an Einstein "follower" in the sense that I believe his outlook on physics is probably the most correct. With that being said I'm enjoying watching you guys debunk his theories even if I don't fully understand them.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that, in the process of debunking Einstein's theories (who's are the best for classical physics), does this suggest that you guys are working on creating your own even more accurate theories and models of the universe? Are you guys working on getting any papers published? I ask this because you speak with a confidence that makes me think that you're trying to get at something deeper that you've discovered. Maybe a theory of everything.
Your ideas are bold, but there is a lack of papers formalizing them mathematically. Newton would publish a "Principia 2.0" to counter relativity
@@vfa.vinicius formalising them mathematically is nice, but the Maths are just an analogy describing the phenomenon. The "picture" of what's happening is what's supreme. This deep thinking of philosophy is what must come first. The boy needs time to cook.
@@grahamzibarPhysics is literally the mathematical model of observable phenomena. If you don't propose a mathematical model that makes equivalent or better predictions, then you haven't developed a new theory of physics. That why string theory has been falling out of favor.
I like your content. It is needed because there is tremendous disagreement between all trained Physicists regarding "interpreting" Einstein's work. But there is no disagreement regarding the math...perfect (even I, an undergrad, can follow it). But, following the math alone leads to some well known contradictions that have spawned METAPHYSICAL theories by....leading physicists (not plain ole youtubers). That alone suggests something is wrong. Further, Einstein KNEW his theory was incomplete. The point is that I like your demands to integrate the math with an intuitive understanding. Of course, this is needed MUCH, MUCH more on the Quantum Physics field....the "shut up and calculate" practice has made academics wealthy and changed our world.....but we all suspect that in a few thousand years (at most!) future physicists will chuckle at our inability to reconcile the math of Quantum Physics with an intuitive understanding of it. I wish there was a "Dialect" channel for quantum physics, but I suspect that the math too, too difficult. So ya, keep goin'!
Finally. I always thought it was ridiculous that physicists draw this “wormhole” of curved space time to dream up about time travel. But in the first place, time is a tool to create a sequence in events and cannot be graphed in 1dimension
This... is...
*ULTIMATELY HERETICAL.*
*I AM CALLING SCIENTIFIC INQUISITION!*
all good theories are heretical. Thought you would have figured that out by now. Out with the old, in with the new and off with their heads. Go ask Alice
I do not get it. Don't you understand what scientific discourse is all about? It's about the passionate exchange of different ideas. Arguments and counter-arguments are exchanged and everyone can evaluate them. It is not a call for inquisition if someone does not agree. Were do you see this if someone voices criticism. It is a call for debate. Nothing more. Our society would be better off if we realized this more often.
@@boyanfgi think hes being sarcastic lol
I've always considered STR as a measurement-only theory, and sometimes got puzzled by some experts who believed it actually describes the physical reality. As an example, on one forum someone asked an "STR expert" a question that went like this: "Imagine a steel rod rotating freely in a round hole in a block of steel. Imagine now we observe a Lorentzian contraction, and now the hole and the rod are ellipses. The question is how can this rod still rotate freely?". So this STR expert went into a long stream of possible theories on how it could happen, including the rod acquiring some weird physical properties, allowing it to rotate. If you just interpret the STR as observation transformations there are no paradoxes like these.
relativity noob here
question 1)isnt the point if relativity that your reality is just what you measure?because one inertial.system cant say the other is wrong?
question 2) couldnt the str expert just have said: for the steel rod,as it circles in the hole it changes its alignment, but the lorenz contraction only acts on the parts in the direction of movement of the system.
@@SylveonSimp I'm not an expert either, I just notice if you pose a tricky question the STR experts give wildly different opinions and answers. Another one that send them into stupor was a rotating disk, where the circumference must always be less than 2*pi because every neighborhood on the disk is in motion and thus contracting. All hell breaks loose trying to explain this geometric paradox.
@@maxoobbxxx8032 I think it's because the theory is a) hard to understand/grasp and b) one can always easily miss something.
Unfortunately Einstein is dead, who is the next eminent authority?
"and now the hole and the rod are ellipses"
" _are_ ellipses". There's the problem right there: not understanding the very "relativity" part of Relativity. They are not ellipses. They never _become_ ellipses, any more than they become ellipses in the static, non-dynamic, case of viewing the rod and hole at a simple geometric angle. If I tilt a plate away from me to 45º, does it become an ellipse?
@@-danR Exactly the point!
Newton invented a time machine and is here dissing Einstein under the moniker "Dialect"
Thrilled to see an opening quote from Heaviside!! Already liked.
Great video. I ll say though that the way your argument is laid out is a bit contrived. In physics we do indeed deal with so many concepts that let's say escape our grasp as they cannot be measured (e.g. the wavefunction itself is not an observable). So you are 100% right in saying that a measure of physical process can only be taken as a stand in / placeholder for the platonic object that is observed / measured. In the case of relativity, the fact that light motion is taken as platonic is problematic, although if we replace light with travel of information / causality then we save ourselves some trouble. Light was chosen because it's the fastest moving thing that we can observe and use for measurements, but if we replace the motion of light with motion of causality we're good. We know already there are media where light travels less fast than some particles (e.g. Chrenkov radiation) but speed of causality is still limited to speed of light in vacuum, where they are both equal. I could go significantly longer on this topic, but a comment is not the best way to write it. Love the references, I ll check them out
Well this is a complete misunderstanding of Mach’s argument. Mach does not say that time is the reference to a movement of 1 body (eg the sun), but precisely a reference to the movement of all bodies of the universe. And those movements, taken as a whole, define what we call inertial time. Mach is well aware that the movement of the sun is ‘imperfect’. You absolutely do not answer to Mach’s critique.
About Einstein: it is true that SR is often teached in a wierd way, but the we can’t argue for that against Einstein. Einstein was really clear in his 1905 paper that we could choose other conventions for the one way speed of light, and that would lead to the same physics. He just made a practical choice and is explicit about that. To say that Einstein made a mistake here is a total disregard, and a singular misunderstanding of Mach's writings.
> but precisely a reference to the movement of all bodies of the universe
Could you elaborate on what this means or how it works? I'm curious.
You're incorrect here; Einstein did NOT indicate that other conventions could be chosen in his 1905 paper. This is exactly what makes his statement that we cannot define common time without assuming invariant & isotropic light (as depicted at the end of the video) so monumentally incorrect. And based on this vagueness of your critique, it does not seem likely you have actually bothered to read his 1905 paper at all.
We will also be addressing Mach's argument more fully in another video, but again it does not seem very plausible that you have even read his work, or bothered to look at the quotes put up in the video. In a short gist, the flaw in Mach's argument is that quantities like "mass" which he wishes to invoke in order to define relations of space and time cannot themselves be "measured" or "observed" without one first invoking a notion of space or time, so Mach's argument ultimately winds up being circular.
@@dialectphilosophy "... monumentally incorrect ..." is garbage discourse mate. Empirically Einstein was monumentally successful. Whether that implies "correct" or not is what could be debated.
@@dialectphilosophy Also, have *_you_* read the paper? I mean _carefully?_ Right from the outset Einstein is clearly making "Postulates" to build a theory. Do you have any idea what that means? A theory can be inapplicable, or empirically falsified, but it cannot otherwise be "monumentally wrong".
_"Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by 'time.' ...It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of 'time' by *substituting* “the position of the small hand of my watch” for
'time.'"_
--- he goes on to fully grapple with the _practical_ definition of clock time, referring to the sensible measures. Substitution is here a stand-in not a replacement (but I am only reading the English translation, maybe Einstein was actually just stupid in German?). Nah. He knew what Newton meant. Seems like old Albert fully agreed with Newton.
@@dialectphilosophy Hello,
What bothers me the most is the tone you use in your video. I can answer your questions precisely, with quotes. I have the texts in French, so I translate from that language.
Concerning Einstein: He indicates that it is possible to make other conventions, as he begins by envisaging another in the 1905 article: “We could, of course, be satisfied, for the temporal evaluation of events, with an observer who would find himself, like a clock, at the origin of the coordinates and who, to each luminous signal reaching him through empty space and bringing him the testimony of an event to be evaluated, would associate a position of the hands of this clock. But this type of mapping has the disadvantage of not being independent of the point at which the clock-wielding observer stands - as we know from experience. A much more practical stipulation can be reached by reasoning as follows [...]”.
Here, Einstein explicitly considers another convention. This is the convention where the speed of light of a ray moving away from the observer is c/2, and the speed of a ray moving towards the observer is infinite. This is an isotropic but inhomogeneous convention. This would lead to a relativity of positions and not just velocities, which Einstein wanted to avoid, since it did not contain any new physics.
In what follows, where he makes the choice we know about simultaneity, he introduces it by saying: “The latter can, however, be defined by convening that by definition [...]”. He explicitly uses the terms “convention” and “by definition”, so there's no ambiguity in what Einstein is saying.
It is certainly very interesting to study these other possible conventions, to show what is really at the heart of the physics involved. But don't let it be said that this would be to repair Einstein's error - that's a deliberately false assertion.
Then, concerning Mach: As you know, Mach defines the ratio of masses as the opposite of the inverse of the ratio of accelerations between pairs of bodies. But this formula is only valid in an inertial reference frame with inertial time, and for a pair of bodies 'isolated' from the rest. In the rest of his book, however, he criticizes precisely these notions. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, Mach says nothing about the difficulties involved in defining mass. We can at least clearly state that he was aware of these difficulties, as he writes in Ch. II, VII, §5: “Even if we keep to the Newtonian point of view, and completely disregard the difficulties and obscurities we have pointed out, which the abbreviated denominations of time and space only conceal without removing, it would be possible to simplify Newton's exposition a great deal [...]”, whereupon he re-exposes his definition of mass, which he therefore knows to be unsatisfactory. But it's already much better than Newton's proposed circular definition. It's clear that, in Mach's vision, a consistent theory of mechanics must start from the totality of the universe. And that mass can only have a precise meaning by examining this totality. This may seem like a crazy project, but it's the one that emerges naturally from his precise analysis of space and time.
In fact, it's quite common to consider that general relativity has not fulfilled this Machian project, even if not all physicists agree on this. In any case, the way in which general relativity is usually taught has a lot to do with Newton's absolute ideas, and not enough, in my opinion, with the Machian conception.
Finally, it's worth noting that both Mach and Einstein, although highly critical of Newton's notions of space and time, were always extremely admiring of the latter, and always wrote about it. It would be a little more interesting if you adopted a similar approach when analyzing, and possibly criticizing, the work of Mach, Einstein or others.
Thank you for producing this, it is good to encourage rational scrutiny.
Although we have no mechanism to measure absolute time, its existence should not be ignored. For explanatory reasons, I often use the rotation of the Earth as a naïve substitute for absolute time. I also use a distant pulsar, as the periodicity is more accurate. Philosophically it is not the accuracy that is important here, it is how it represents an absolute and universal temporal displacement. When referring to absolute time I prefer to use displacement of time as this will distinguish between universal, absolute time and relative and emergent duration. The two are not mutually exclusive, for they are two distinct aspects of the whole ontology of time.
Time is a dichotomy of absolute and relative time, absolute and universal in its spatial and temporal ordinality, yet divergent and frame dependant in the measured duration that indicates speed. Between 1832 and 1967 we defined the second as 1/86,400th of an absolute rotation of the Earth. I will naively call these absolute seconds for explanatory reasons. Imagine the Earth as a giant 24-hour clock with an obelisk on the equator for the hour hand. If we flew a geostationary satellite above the obelisk every degree of rotation would still delineate the same universal 240 absolute seconds at the satellite. Since 1967 we define the second with an atomic clock. This can no longer define the same thing, a relative time second is now demonstrably different to the aforementioned absolute second, as the SI second is no longer a universal displacement, because due to the combined effect of SR and GR an atomic clock coterminously ticks faster at the GEO satellite. The day is absolute but the duration of that day is relative, with an extra 42 micro-seconds at the satellite, the day is longer there.
In SR we can imagine two spacecraft one flown by Alice and one by Bob. Both are heading for the same destination. Both mainly travel at a constant speed, Bob sets off first as he travels slower. At position A Alice passes Bob, both have exactly similar clocks and start to record the periodicity of a very distant pulsar, arbitrarily perpendicular to their direction of travel. They stop recording the pulsar when Bob joins Alice at the destination. Travelling faster than Bob, Alice’s clock, ticking slower than Bob’s will have recorded less time for the same amount of pulses from the pulsar. From this, we can deduce that both displaced the same absolute time but at different relative time durations. Proving relative time dilation, in SR and exposing the fallacy of the relativity of simultaneity as a consequential postulate.
To unify time dilation of both SR and GR in a background-dependent model the speed of light has to be constant in all frames of reference. I will return now to the obelisk on the equator and the GEO satellite. With a cable connecting the satellite and the obelisk, we could travel up and down in a Tsiolkovsky-type space elevator. Like a giant clock, the whole system rotates in absolute time unison, the relative duration is slower at the satellite as an atomic clock ticks faster there, measuring more relative duration over the day relative to the obelisk.
Because the speed of light is a constant we use light travel time as a distance, such as light years in astronomy. The SI metre is defined by the relative time it takes a photon of light to traverse the metre ruler. I like to refer to them as light-speed rulers. If relative time changes, then so must the length of a light-speed ruler, if C is to remain constant. In Einstein GR a light-speed ruler would shrink and grow as you go in and out of a gravity well due to the hyperbolic space-time geometry, making the coordinate speed of light faster at the satellite than at the obelisk.
The SI metre must by definition, define the scale of the universe. Descending the Tsiolkovsky-type space elevator and the shrinking light-speed ruler means the universe must expand. This must be a correlation and not an absurd causation. For C to be constant, and the expansion of the universe, universal, the light-speed ruler must be shrinking in absolute time unison at different relative time rates. With a longer time measurement on the satellite, the changing scale is slower than on the obelisk. The obelisk is travelling faster through absolute time. How fast the universe is expanding depends on the clock of the observer. If we use the JWST to measure the expansion rate it will be slower due to its faster clock in its L2 halo orbit, than if we measure it with the HST travelling over 17,000 mph in its low Earth orbit. Alice in her spacecraft travelling at relativistic velocity will measure an even faster expansion rate. SR and GR are unified with a single isomorphic scalar transformation, a contraction in asymmetric time. The coordinate speed of light is universal at any now moment in time yet it has been faster in a relative way, in the past, resulting in the redshift-to-distance relationship. This redshift represents a changing relative distance with no absolute change in position. Comoving distances are model-dependent and irrelevant when the expansion is due to a scalar change. Only peculiar movements represent absolute positional change.
Thank you for reading this polemic by an autodidactic layperson. You may find my ideas easier to follow when watching my latest presentations that you can find by searching:
On The Nature of Time and Simultaneity A 20 04 2024.
On The Nature of Time and Simultaneity B 09 03 2024.
On The Nature of Time and simultaneity C 16 04 2024.
You have earth rotating the wrong direction.
"Time does not stop, clocks do". Yes. Finally. I've been saying this for a while now.
If you go to a related idea, in the quantum scale, we keep thinking that we have measured the quantum of time, meaning the smallest unit of time. But then when our "clocks" got better, we discovered that time existed as smaller units: We just could not measure it before.
So this is the same phenomena, that we thought time stopped because our clock stopped, and then we disproved it by getting a better clock. If it can happen in the quantum side, why can't we think that light as a time measure, doesn't actually measure the real time before it fails.
@@hchang007 - I think there's two types of time. Time at the macro level, which is the manifestation of change in state of a complex system (such as a person), and time in it's raw, absolute form, at the quantumn level.
This distinction seems missing from conversations in general - and it irks me.
Would this time that exist in nature still be moving before the big bang? Likewise if the universe was empty of energy or matter for a moment would this time still be moving as part of an empty space?
>
So to ask it another way: "What is the default native speed of time; Zero or 'c'?
Not easy to answer if it can be answered at all :)
@@axle.student - Interesting questions. Before the Big Bang? Who knows - there's supposed to be nothing at all before it - but it's imopssible to say. If the universe was devoid of energy and matter, then time could still pass - because the space/time framework remains (quantumn fields). There's a stage, but no actors. I'm not sure time has a speed, because we define speed using time, I think of it as cycles of a processor. The speed of light doesn't define time, it defines the speed of change in macro objects.
@@youtoob1811 "Before the big bang" was just an analogy to describe a space-time environment without motion.
2 common concepts of time are:
Time that is fundamental and always flows forward by default. (Would default to 'c')
Time that is nothing more than an emergent measurement to describe motion of objects or fields. (would default to 0 and range toward a maximum 'c' when there is motion.)
Relativity seams to have a bit of a fruit salad mix of the 2 going on, or maybe just the wrong way around :)
Just an observation I encountered.
I know this is far down the line, but could you give us a super brief synopsis of what your interpretation of general relativity would be? Is it similar to Brans-dicke gravity?
The Equivalence Principle. Gravity and Acceleration are equivalent.
Newton's Laws of Motion. F=ma. Gravity/g-force comes from Acceleration
E=mc. Acceleration defines mass.
Gravity is the resistance of the mass to being Accelerated by an outside force.
What the question should be is 'What defines Acceleration'.
Two possibilities. A creator god (Genesis) or an infinite universe. One that has always been in motion.
As Carl Sagan would put it. Both possibilities are equally frightening to a physisist.
Newton's F=ma -> ma=ma -> m=m & a=a. Its circular logic. Acceleration creates Acceleration. So you are left with explaining infinity. Infinity is an undefined, boundless entity.
E=mc. Acceleration is now bounded, defined, finite. The infinite universe is now bounded/defined by the speed of light. There is no cosmological center. No beginning and no end. Either in time. Or in space. Just an infinite cycle of birth and rebirth.
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.
We exist because infinity exists. Eventually, energy will transform itself into intelligent life.
@@stewiesaidthat wrote, >> "Gravity is the resistance of the mass to being Accelerated by an outside force."
You're describing inertia, not gravity. Gravity is the _accelerating flow of 'space' itself_. That is literally both the cause and definition of gravity.
>> "What the question should be is 'What defines Acceleration'." Acceleration is change of velocity. RATE of acceleration is GR's "curvature of space" cryptically describing gravity. Thus "curvature" determines the 'strength' or FORCE of gravity.
@@soopergoof232
I'm excited for more. Your ideas help me challenge myself and stretch ideas I think need stretching. I appreciate the subtlety you've pointed out about affixing time to another physical thing that's "just gotta be that way." In a marginally related vein, I've become staunchly opposed to how "spin" is being used, particularly in quantum concepts, to mean something other than spin. Actual, physical spin is quite sacrosanct as it can represent a concrete, time-series event. Can't help but think that "half-spin particles" damages the definition of spin. I get the sense that coming videos will get into how to interpret different geometries/coordinate systems and I'm very much looking forward to that. If I'm following your path of intuition, you'll likely anchor the ticks in the coordinate system to something real and literal like spin. Ramble done, stoked for moar
Using Newton words alone seems a bit of an argument based on authority but then for an even more authoritative voice Aristotele would argue against absolute time...
I don't understand how the thinking ever got started that time is anything other than a measurement... it's a tool humans made u😢p the same as maps, or excel sheets, ie. a way to order and depict information🎉. Nothing is flowing, there's nothing to stop
Arguing by authority would be taking Newton's words and saying they are correct by virtue of his having said them. Rather, we argue they are correct because they are in alignment with the most logical and sensible notions one can ascribe to space and time. But yes, it helps seeing that others have much such arguments in the past.
dialect provided explanations and examples on why Newton's warning should be taken seriously, thus this video is not using an argument based on authority but one based on logic.
@@dialectphilosophy Let me clairfy "seems a bit". The overall tone of the video seemed a bit dramatised this time, perhaps it may be the images that made me read newton words presented as some sort of prophecy... perhaps I skimmed through the video too quickly, but I see others remarked on the tone of the video this time around, I suppose is good to get feedback from the taste of your audiences.
I've always found beyond surprising that people that pursue a career in science, and physics in particular, rarely confront themself with the principia philosophical remarks, not even out of curiosity it seems, its reading should be mandatory in all science classes. Newton had to shield his work from philosophical criticism and this made him try to lay strong and surprisingly well balanced metaphysical foundations/boundaries, but those foundations were then forgotten by his followers as physics triumphed and such need ceased to exits. Many conceptual mistakes are made again and again on the ontological status that scientists naively attribute to the terms of their work. But to be fair things got also really complicated very quickly with the crisis of the sciences, Husserl, and the amazing effectiveness of higher mathematics in physics.
As per the logic of the argument I think one would have to argue deeper around the epistemology of mathematical sciences in general, and while there is little hope to settle that debate, one should look with awe at the fact that some - surely wrong - theories have been conceived that work so well.
I do appreciate your study here, I got problems with relativity and in general with all mathematical physics, I do think it's a problem to put maths in the geometry of space and then claim it contains time by virtue of the arithmetics that make it a dynamic artifact of the mind, but I don't get much time to think about this and as such:
I do definitely find your work very interesting and enjoyable, what I would suggest of this one is to leave it on the channel, mark it as (DEPRECATED) and issue a take 2 of the same on less a conflicting pose. But then again that's just my taste and I would likely have to watch the next one in a hurry as well... keep up the good work!
Occam's TOE
-- regarding the nature of "Time":
What we humans call "time" is in fact "relative cadence", a comparison and descriptive specification ("measurement") by ourselves of the state of motion of one region of the universe (e.g. a runner's traversal of a given length of track) relative to, and stated in terms of, the state of motion of another region of the universe (e.g. the sweep second hand around the face of our stopwatch). That is, what we call "time" is relative motion (as we observe / measure it) - nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that we have assigned our neurologically abstracted inference a linguistic name (indicator / index) simply implies that we are using the cyclic increments of motion of an agreed upon standard (e.g. 12-hour) clock to describe an observed (or conjectured) state of motion at a different location with respect to, and in terms of. We should not infer from that fact that we have discovered and reductionistically "isolated" yet another "distinct entity", apparently some enigmatic "substance" or "thing", that is a distinct "part" of the universe, analogous to the way we human "observers" have traditionally regarded ourselves as "separate" and isolatable from, and even "outside" of it. That would be a human linguistic "category" mistake. [See also Newton's "Scholium" in Principia Mathematica.]
The real enigma, and the question you should be asking, is: Why and how can it be that the internal and external motions of all these "separate things" we see scattered throughout the universe be so precisely synchronously correlated, no matter by how great a distance they are separated? And why is the "constant" velocity of light through the apparent "void" of "empty space" separates those particulate "mass"-object (PMO) "things", the point-radial acceleration impulse 'shock' waves by means and in terms of which we "see" those PMOs, also the asymptotic maximum velocity of relative "motion" to which these PMOs can be "accelerated" with respect to each other during any finite period of this mysterious and enigmatic "time"? And how can the "constant" velocity of light "c" through "empty space" be the same relative to each and all of these PMOs no matter their velocity < c through that same "empty space" relative to each other?
The answer to this question can be logically deduced by recognizing that:
1) The motion through "empty 3 dimensional space" of any PMO relative to another PMO must be (and must have been) initiated by an "impulse" of acceleration*, and that since the speed of light through empty space is constant, and has always been constant, any "acceleration" (including the point-radial acceleration that is inertial "mass") is a "displacement from the speed of light";
2) Acceleration, as a continuous velocity change gradient through space over time, is aptly defined and described as "self-relative motion"
All of this "mass and light in motion relative to each other" can be accounted for by recognizing that the "maternal universe" that "we" are conscious of, including our consciousness of it, is comprised of the self-relative vortexual and wave motions of an otherwise structureless Scale-Uniform superfluid Medium (SUM), as the "spacetime" that A. Einstein identified gravity as the (apparent) "curvature" of. This SUM has configured itself by means and in terms of its self-relative motion, into what we can accurately describe in modern-day engineering terms as "a self-organizing distributed network of particulate I/O devices", i.e. PMO's, as the momentum rerouting switches that comprise this self-aware (via ourselves, at a minimum) momentum routing circuit. Thus the universe we are conscious of can aptly be recognized and described as a self-configuring, self-aware, sentient being.
And like the "mathematics" symbol system we "humans" have invented to describe it with such "unreasonable effectiveness", the SUM universe is a self-referencing system, a self-gravitating gravitational field, what we have decided to call a "black hole" -- a self-differentiating and self-fractalizing by means of its self-relatively accelerating acceleration-flow motion horn toroidal geometry SUM superfluid vortex.
The velocity of light functions as both the singularity single point center of gravity of each PMO (and that every group of PMOs is either gravitationally "falling" toward, or "explosively" accelerating away from), and the infinitely distant (as far as every PMO is concerned) surrounding event horizon "edge of the universe".
*a.k.a. accelerating "force" -- as a transfer of "momentum"= acceleration (i.e. the exchange and equalization of their reciprocally relative motion) either by collision of one PMO with another PMO, or by re-directed "venting" of a portion of a PMO's equidirectionally balanced point-radially inward "internal" momentum (a.k.a. inertial "mass"= resistance to counter-directional acceleration) point-radially "outward" in an unbalanced re-"direction".
By "sensible" Newton meant the 5 senses ( eg looking at a clock). Like a physical measurement of some kind, He was making the distinction between relative time and universal time. Not in the "it doesn't make sense" use of the word.
Einstein is quite clear that he is defining time for his paper as the time coordinate ie what clocks measure. He uses words like .."in accordance with the definition" clearly implying the definition he has described. He wasn't making the assertion that "what clocks measure" is the over-arching (metaphysical?)definition of time itself. (although when you think about it, it isn't a bad definition). That's how I read the English translation anyway.
I never understood the obsession with one-way time ect. Einstein was, like the others, working with Maxwell's equations in which c is a scalar quantity, nothing to do with direction. (didn't Rohmer use one way light to measure c in the 1600's in his observations of the moons of Jupiter?) Any way, why would turning around and pointing your torch the other way change the speed of light?
(Just as an aside...can't I measure velocity with just one clock?)
Replying to the end question.
No, you need two clocks.
If you have only one, you assume that you can see when the movement starts from afar.
But it takes as much time for the information to come to you than it takes to get to the one clock.
So really the measurement of time would be zero.
You raise a good point, did Newton intend "sensible" to mean as relating to the five senses as opposed to "being a sensible choice"? Like you, that was our initial idea as well. However, that seemed to clash with his usage of the "sensible" in the next sentence, in which he indicates that the words "time, space" etc. are meant to properly indicate their sensible measures. This would contradict the whole point of the passage, in which he was obviously arguing against conflating relative measures with absolute space/time. However, it's possible this was a translation error, because "sensible" there is included in brackets, meaning it was added possibly erroneously by the translator. "Sensible measures" then again shows up in the final line when it seems Newton intended "measured quantities," which seems incongruent. So our best guess is that the translator got the different notions confused, because on the whole the paragraph reads inconsistently. One would have to consult the original latin text. However, regardless of how one interprets it, the general thrust of the paragraph is unchanged.
Einstein does define time as what clocks measure in his 1905 paper. He states this explicitly. As indicated in the video, he even writes that such a definition is satisfactory when only one clock is in consideration.
We suggest watching our "Loophole" video if you still don't understand the one-way speed of light problem, because you will never understand relativity if you don't understand that!
@@dialectphilosophy It's not about relativity really. I understand it as well as the next (lay)man.
It's just seems to be a desperate ploy by people trying to debunk relativity. Like I said, in Maxwell's equation c is a scalar. And why would c change if I spun around and faced the other way.
Not saying you are right or wrong, it just seems silly to me.
The speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations once you form a propagating wave. That very much has a direction.
@@andrewiglinski148 Maxwell showed that his equations are a solution to the wave equation. The wave equation has a speed factor.
He predicted EM waves at speed c.
c he calculated from experimental data . (2 constants, permeability and permittivity of space, both scalar).
A scalar is just a number, nothing to do with direction.
Hertz detected his waves some time later.
So yes the wave propagates in some direction but it's speed is invariant ..according to ME's.
It's a big misunderstanding of special relativity and the scientific process in general. To claim you can't use a light clock because it's "affected" by external things makes no sense - it's a thought experiment. We can imagine an unaffected light clock, and that is as good a measure of time as any we can suggest. Sure, it may not be physical or intuitive, but what alternative definition of time can we even make? No alternative is offered in this video. Also no one actually uses this as a measure of time anyways (we usually use atomic clocks), it just works in the simple thought experiment used to derive the Lorentz factor. While it's true we assume something about the two way speed of light here being the same as the one way speed, experimental evidence supports relativity as a model - whether it's exactly true is not the point. Of course, it's very very important to ask questions about such assumptions of the theory for sure, but to suggest Einstein was "wrong" is a bit ridiculous - we can still use Newtonian mechanics even though we know it is a simplistic model that doesn't work at high speeds or at the quantum level - it's a model, it's not claiming to be exactly correct, it's stating a theory and seeing if it fits the experiment. That is the scientific process
I think he just says Einstein is wrong because it is youtube video and needs a clickbait. Nothing wrong witb that tho
@@lrlrch8351 yeah it's clickbait (it got me, can't pretend it didn't) but he also doubles down on it - it's not just for clickbait, it's the point made in the video
The channel's reply to the top comment on this video is a bit of a joke: "moral courage and spiritual fortitude to stand up to establishment". I've given this video far too much of my attention lol, wish I wasn't clickbaited. Even if this *new* angle on relativity is an exact description of physics (which isn't how the scientific method works), the attitude is so far off. Science is a collaboration of new ideas and wacky theories in an approach to make a better model of the world. If relativity is a "pseudoscience" every theory (as opposed to theorem) ever proposed is too
If you make the assumption that "astronomy is the study of how "stuff" moves around the earth" then you will never get to the TRUEish nature of the universe cause "stuff" does not move around the earth, the earth is not the center..... Yes you can imagine that the two clocks are synchronized but you cannot actually confirm that they are. E made the simplifying assumption that the speed of light is the same in both directions. You can't prove that soooo Dialect is just addressing that the 0.5 factor in the calculation of the speed of light is not knowable and going down the rabbit hole to explore what that relaxation of that assumption does to the situation.
Besides, black holes are not constructed by man. So their comparison of a black hole with a broken clock is misleading to say the least. What is said in Newton' s paragraph is just that t and Dt are different physical quantities.
I enjoyed this video. It reminds me of how much I can't wait to get back in the game and start making my own videos again, especially on relativity. Good work!
Hitting on new Dialect video like Jesse Pinkman hitting that bong.
The usage of the word "sensible" refers to actions or phenomena that are perceived through our senses, making it synonymous with "physical" or "empirical." Therefore, a "sensible measure" would mean a "physical measure." However, concepts such as time, space, place, and motion are not physically measurable in themselves; rather, they serve as frameworks for measuring events (in time), positions (in space), locations (in place), and changes in position (motion).
The warning presented in the video is a clear and accurate representation. The video effectively explains that relativity is a method for measuring quantities, not the quantities themselves. However, Einstein violated this mathematical principle by presenting relativity as if it represented actual quantities, such as relativistic time, which he made "natural"-thereby turning it into "sensible time" or physically "natural time." This move undermined the independence of absolute time.
Moreover, "sensible space" would refer to "natural space," which in relativity is considered bendable. This interpretation is a clear violation of the true concept of space, which is the dimension within which everything exists and all events occur. Place is a point in space that represents a measure of distance from an origin, while motion measures how fast objects change their location.
Although relativity attempts to relate cosmic time to existential events within the universe, it cleverly redefines clock time as "natural time." This misleadingly suggests that because a clock is a physical object, the time it measures must also be natural. In reality, the concept of "natural time" is a farce.
Relativity also disregards the more general understanding of wavelength dilation, which corresponds to the distortion of clock time. Instead, it presents this phenomenon as time dilation, even though time dilation is never measurable on a standard clock, which is designed to measure standardized time-not the flawed time dilation introduced by relativity.
Experiments conducted by biased followers of the relativistic view of natural time led to the erroneous conclusion of dilatable time, when in fact, they should have measured wavelength dilation. This occurs due to phase shifts in frequencies, resulting in a small energy loss in an oscillator’s wave, which correlates with the so-called time dilation.
Furthermore, the concept of relativistic gravity as a result of spacetime curvature is a fabricated interpretation. The experiments involving gravitational lensing, which claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, are biased. In reality, the photon’s path bends due to a momentum exchange with the gravitating body, causing a curvature in the gravitational field, which is wrongly attributed to spacetime curvature.
The theories of relativity are based on fundamentally flawed concepts of time and space as "spacetime," which makes the entire relativistic framework unreliable. Time is, by its nature, cosmic and absolute, meaning there is no such thing as time dilation or the reduction in the age of returning twins, as presented in the twin paradox.
In summary, the video correctly exposes the flaws in relativity and highlights how Einstein’s theory contradicts Newton’s warning.
Hi! It feels like you are blaming Einstein for giving us thery that is wrong but it seems very unfair. His theory works and he was well aware of the philosophical problems of the one way speed of light. But his theory was the best at the time and is the best even now. Of course it is important to have such philosophical debate but you can't say Einstein was wrong. By the way 1:26 this was very unnecesary part of the video. It is an argument trying to undermine the credibility of Einstein that has nothing to do with his work and shouldn't be used in this regard in my opinion. This only reveals your apathy against him which further undermines your credibility. Be careful with that otherwise a nice video :)
Hey Lukas! Great to see you on here -- when are your next videos dropping? We've been waiting patiently! There isn't any other physics content out here on UA-cam quite like yours!
As I'm sure you understand from our POV, we do not agree that Einstein's theory is the best; it wasn't at the time, nor is it now. There is a difference between what is convenient and what is correct, and Einstein's 'theory' (really more an interpretation) was merely only ever the former. Moreover, it's set us back to the dark ages, philosophically speaking, and so it's no wonder that theoretical physics has not progressed in 70 years. Also, there's an irony here of you asserting we are undermining our credibility by questioning Einstein's credibility... so does credibility matter or doesn't it? Please make up your mind 🙃
If we go hard on Einstein in this video its because there's a great gulf between the public perception of what he achieved versus what he actually accomplished. There is not a single physical prediction in his 1905 paper or subsequent E=mc^2 paper that had not already been made elsewhere by other physicists. And yet, he credited none of them in his papers, and subsequently was happy to take all the credit in the public's eye for work he had not himself accomplished.
So are statements like those at 1:29 about Einstein's academic reputation or how other accomplished physicists viewed him at the time relevant to whether his arguments are correct? Absolutely. Because they tell us that Einstein was inherently lazy and as such, always looking for the shortest route to accomplish his goals (he graduated with marks high enough just to receive his diploma. He skipped many lectures, and was so disliked by his professors that one even went out of his way to hire assistants from the engineering department simply to have an excuse NOT to hire Einstein). Thus, in this context, it makes sense that he appropriated the works of others, then found a way to put a new spin on them via the injudicious application of an erroneous philosophy of time. And then we can understand that his great 1905 achievements did not in fact display the qualities of "genius" but rather the follies of a youthful mind.
If it hurts people's feelings to hear objective facts about Einstein's character, maybe it is time for some introspection as to why they chose to idolize an individual whom they truly knew very little about, and why they feel it is so necessary to uphold this individual's reputation, especially if that individuals 'theory' is truly as strong and successful as they claim it to be.
@@dialectphilosophy "he credited none of them in his papers,... he appropriated the works of others" That is simply not true. If that were true, how did he manage to do it without anybody stepping in? Why did noone of those, whom he allegedly stole the ideas from, complain?
@@dialectphilosophyIt’s interesting to see how strongly you feel about Einstein, but let’s unpack some of your claims.
First, the assertion that Einstein's theory is merely a convenient interpretation rather than the best scientific model overlooks the extensive empirical support it has garnered over the years. While you may believe it hasn't led to significant progress in theoretical physics, many would argue the opposite. Einstein’s theories, especially Special Relativity, have fundamentally transformed our understanding of time, space, and energy.
His work laid the groundwork for advancements in various fields, including physics, technology, and even engineering. For example, the principles of Special Relativity are crucial for the operation of particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. These machines rely on relativistic effects to accelerate particles close to the speed of light, allowing physicists to explore fundamental questions about matter and the universe.
Additionally, Einstein's theories have influenced modern technologies, such as GPS systems, which require precise calculations that account for time dilation effects due to both velocity and gravity. Without Einstein's insights, many technologies we take for granted would not function correctly.
Regarding your claim that Einstein didn't make any unique predictions, this is misleading. His work on the photoelectric effect-where he explained how light can eject electrons from a material-was groundbreaking and directly contributed to the development of quantum theory. This was recognized with the Nobel Prize in 1921, which clearly indicates that his contributions were not merely derivative.And Brownian motion equation was no doubt Unique contribution.
While you criticize Einstein for not crediting others, it’s important to recognize that scientific progress is often cumulative. Lorentz's transformations were indeed pivotal, but Einstein’s approach fundamentally redefined the understanding of space and time, moving beyond Lorentz’s framework. In fact, Lorentz himself acknowledged the significance of Einstein’s work.
As for the characterizations of Einstein’s academic life, they don't diminish the validity of his scientific contributions. While he may not have been an ideal student, many great minds throughout history were not traditional scholars. Ironically, your dismissal of Einstein’s achievements seems to contradict the opinions of numerous esteemed physicists like Feynman, Dirac, Planck, and Hawking, who have all praised Einstein's contributions and the profound impact they have had on physics but you just had Qouted 1 or 2 .
The complexities of time and space in Einstein's theories may challenge traditional views, but they have also opened up new avenues of understanding. Dismissing his work as “lazy” or derivative fails to appreciate the innovative spirit that drives scientific inquiry.
In summary, rather than viewing Einstein’s contributions through a lens of skepticism, it may be more beneficial to engage with the robust evidence and broad consensus that supports his theories. Science is about building on previous work, and Einstein certainly laid a foundation that has allowed physics to advance significantly.
@@dialectphilosophy New video is about to be published but I was very busy these days so it took quite too long but it is not gonna be anything new but more like a historical overview behind Maxwell's equations. I want a piece of fresh physics on the channel :D About the credibility, it is both. When you are talking about established theories that are more than 100 years old it shouldn't matter who formulated it if you want to discuss physics (Even if he was a serial killer). You have a loyal audience who will likely share your feelings against him even though they might not fully appreciate your reasoning and that is kinda unfair to Einstein but it is your channel and it is ultimately your decision if it is a pure physics/philosophy channel or "Einstein was a fraud" type of channel which I know several on youtube. Anyway, in physics we build on the shoulders of our ancestors and also special relativity was also build this way that is nothing weird or nothing different from how other theories were discovered. Maxwell's equations are also not all Maxwell's, for example. After all, Einstein is known mostly due to the General Relativity, not the special relativity.
I think the word sensible didn’t mean what you think it means today. When Newton used the word sensible he is meaning something that can be sensed.
His statement is saying that for concepts that are purely relativistic in that they don’t have any absolute part to them, can only be accessed through measurements that can be sensed in some ways.
The common usage of sensible to mean serious, or realistic , is just a modern usage, and so I think your ideas about what Newton meant are unfortunately wrong from that point onwards.
He wasn't being obscure, Newton was simply giving voice to an altogether elementary point - that physics is a model. Isaac knew it. Albert knew it. Dialect, apparently, does not.
Well too bad relativity model is not complying with experiment.
Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited.
The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained
through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant.
It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component
from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame.
Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less
than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars.
There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory.
There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector.
If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star,
relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body.
There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening.
Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because
of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system.
A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work.
The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity.
In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data.
An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven.
Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending.
The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor.
General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
@@michaelpieters1844 Reading your comment has made me go through a lobotomy, for the love of god all you're saying is wrong and it takes either a single google search or basic knowledge of even just classical physics not even relativity for your Sagnac point
Modesl are models OF something.
Nope. Not the kind of model that current sociology thinks, without any ontology to offer for peer review of sentient beings..
@@LukeEganLyrics Current models are made of blatant mathematical absurdity.
While it’s true that Newton expressed caution regarding the nature of time, it’s important to recognize that Einstein’s theories were not merely a rejection of Newtonian principles but rather an evolution of them. Einstein's relativity builds on the idea that time is intertwined with space, creating a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. This framework has been validated through numerous experiments, such as those involving GPS technology, which rely on relativistic corrections.
The assertion that Einstein conflated light and time overlooks the empirical evidence supporting his theories. Light's constant speed is not just a theoretical construct; it has been confirmed through countless experiments. The relationship between light and time is not a simplification but a profound insight into the nature of the universe, as it reveals how observers in different frames of reference perceive time differently.
The so-called "one-way speed of light problem" has been addressed within the framework of relativity itself. While synchronization of clocks is indeed complex, this complexity does not invalidate the theory; rather, it highlights the nuanced understanding required when dealing with relativistic effects. The ability to measure time and distance accurately has been refined over the years, leading to technologies that function effectively within Einstein's framework.
While reevaluation is essential in science, it should be based on evidence and rigorous testing rather than philosophical speculation alone. Einstein's work has revolutionized our understanding of time and space, and dismissing it without substantial evidence risks undermining decades of scientific progress.
The arguments presented in the video raise interesting points for discussion but ultimately fail to undermine the robustness of Einstein's theories. Scientific advancement relies on evidence-based inquiry, and while questioning established norms is vital, it must be grounded in empirical validation. Einstein’s contributions remain fundamental to our understanding of physics and continue to inspire further exploration into the mysteries of time and space.
You're incorrect here -- isotropic light speed has never been measured, nor could it be. See our video "Loophole" for more. Einstein's theory did not "build on the idea space and time were intertwined" rather it contrived them to be that way in order to maintain a specious and unobservable one-way invariance of light.
There is nothing profound about pretending light speed is the same in every inertial reference frame, rather is was merely a lazy solution that allowed Einstein to avoid giving physical explanation to the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein's theories haven't revolutionized anyone's ideas about space and time, merely confused and obfuscated them. And the framework has never been validated by experiment, and couldn't be, since it is a solipsistic model.
In all, your comment reads like the spouting of a fragile religious doctrine rather than a careful or studied scientific analysis of a problem.
@@dialectphilosophy Are you really on discussion or on a bad so-called influencer trip, harassing people and neglecting their contribution and knowledge ?
OK man your choice, long history short: build up your antithesis logically, then come talk to me or just post a video with evidence. just to go against Einstein so far, as one stated here in his comment : just come down and relax !
Yay new Dielect, now I can finally get some sleep 💤
The x's and t's in the Lorentz transformations are COORDINATES. I don't understand what you mean x is for 'space' & t for 'time'. Don't conflate coordinates with the actual space. Now, we CAN use coordinates because of our assumption that physical space has the structure of a topological manifold which may turn out to be an approximation but an approximation that served us very well up to this point.
Guys instead of insisting that Dialect is misunderstanding what's going on, try watching some of their other videos first. It's clear from the comments that most people aren't fully understanding the arguments being made in this video and their criticisms are thus moot.
Those comparing Einstein and Dialect should note that many of the points made and the perspective taken here by Dialect have already been written about in a paper mentioned by Dialect in another video. So it is not merely Dialect making these points but a small community of professionals. Dialect is breaking down the initial ideas further and presenting them in a comprehensive and compelling way to a general audience. In addition, a huge difference between Einstein and Dialect is that the latter has an additional 70 years of history to work from, using the work and effort of thousands of scientists that the former never knew. With 70 more years of additional knowledge, it is far easier to find flaws in Einstein's formulism regardless of comparative intelligence. As another commenter joked, Einstein and his ilk are "so right" that it only takes 19 fudge factors and possibly 6 extra "curled" spacial dimensions to make the theory work 😂. And utlimately even Einstein confessed that he "didn't understand relativity" anymore after the mathematicians got a hold of it, so its quite plausible that Einstein wouldn't fully disagree with the criticisms put forward here.
Lastly I would say that I don't think anything in here is bashing Einstein or other physicists and that the points put forward are done so in a clear and concise manner. Those accusing Dialect of arrogance reveal their own arrogance by accusing them of such. When it comes to the dogmatic philosophical underpinnings of modern physics, I think using strong language to destroy the philosophical ideas which have rotted the development of physics to the point of stubborn stagnation for nearly 100 years is appropriate. Asking Dialect to "just chill" is asking for science to stop because some of the things being said sound mean. I don't think anything said here was mean and that it would be a mistake to misconstrue it as being mean, a character attack, or in any other negative or personal sense. Einstein was a genius but he most certainly wasn't correct about everything, there's nothing mean about pointing that out.
Are you accusing those who accuse Dialect of arrogance, of being arrogant? How arrogant. Extra word salad please.
@@wesjohnson6833 By that logic you would be equally as arrogant as I am. And if you call plain English word salad then I'll be serving it all night.
@@mksmellsbetter5425 I know. That was my point.
@@wesjohnson6833 Oh really? I thought your point was to insinuate that I was a hypocrite for saying that some of the commenters were being arrogant, and also to belittle the rest of my statement by calling it word salad. However, I didn't say, "those who accuse others of arrogance are arrogant," instead I was saying that many of the commenters were being arrogant and that their accusations against Dialect revealed this fact in the way of projection- that is, they subconsciously are accusing others of what they themselves do. Now is it hypocritical or arrogant to point out this projection of theirs?
And if you were instead trying to point out a flaw in my logic, then why didn't you reply the same way I did in that, "by that logic you would be arrogant as well"? I neither accused you of arrogance nor hypocrisy unlike your statement were you called me arrogant- I merely pointed out that your retort was self-defeating.
I think throughout this little comments section I've been clear, fair, and open-minded. I think the world becomes a better place through respectable, honest dialog. But instead of countering anything I said, you resorted to a character attack. Do tell, what exactly did I say that is deserving of such a response? It appears to me that if you're so concerned with arrogance perhaps maybe the place you should be looking is inside yourself.
@@mksmellsbetter5425 "Those accusing another (Dialect} of arrogance reveal their own arrogance by ACCUSING them of such. " So why pretend it's about projection and then defend a statement you never made? Where's the "honest dialogue" there?
If you're so concerned with projection maybe the place you should look is inside yourself, or better yet, those accusing me of projection only reveal their own need to project.
Basically in the sentence about the syncronization conventions, the real choice is that the choice is free, you can use any ratio of speeds in opposite directions, which means you can use any notion of simultaneity form any frame of reference. And also for the purposes of deriving lenght contraction and time dilation, any convention will do, you can take any basis you want. And so it is that you are free to choose a convention at all that you can derive lorentz invariance from, not the equal time convention. If you think about it a bit carefully, you will see that if you didn't have the free choice in every reference frame, the equal time convention could not work, and so it is a pretty big omission. The real logic behind lorentz symmetry, is more a kin to gauge symmtries in that the freedom of choice is the point, it nails down and constrains the physics. It is quite similar to this case. There is nothing wrong with einstiens description, he just derived it wrong, it is one out of many representations you could use of the same invariant physics at the level of the causal relationships involved.
General relativity and quantum mechanics will never be combined until we realize that each individual observer is observing them both at different moments in time. Because causality has a speed limit (c) every point in space where one observes it from will be the closest to the present moment. When one looks out into the universe they see the past which is made of particles (GR). When one tries to measure the position of a particle they are observing smaller distances and getting closer to the present moment (QM). The wave property of particles appears when we start trying to predict the future of that particle. A particle that has not had an interaction exists in a future state. It is a probability wave because the future is probabilistic. Wave function collapse is what we perceive as the present moment and is what divides the past from the future. GR is making measurements in the observed past and therefore, predictable. It can predict the future but only from information collected from the past. QM is attempting to make measurements of the unobserved future and therefore, unpredictable. Only once a particle interacts with the present moment does it become predictable. This is an observational interpretation of the mathematics we currently use based on the limited perspective we have with the experiments we choose to observe the universe with.
I ain't reading all that.
@@pikachuash8788 Don't worry it's a yap wrapper on the Copenhagen interpretation, not missing much.
Isn't the main issue with unifying QM and GR a matter of figuring out how to quantize gravity?
We already have the finite speed of light in quantum mechanics. We already have accounted for finite speed of causality in quantum mechanics. The actual problem with combining general relativity with quantum mechanics is that we cannot find out how gravity works with quantum mechanics. The “problems” you point out are non-existent.
special relativity was already incorporated into quantum mechanics buddy. What you call general relativity reads more like special relativity because you don't mention the core tenet of general relativity, which is a stretchy space-time fabric.
What a lovely suprise once again!
This comment section is going to be civil😅
I think you guys are creating the BEST content about the whole subject of relativity on UA-cam PERIOD and you should continue doing what you do, because we just need that type of content so much! Again a big thanks and keep it up guys!
Einstein saying: "We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition..." - That is a mistranslation from German into English. I have explained it in several of my talks - Einstein was mistranslated from German into English. i.e. mainstream is going by a mistranslation of Einstein. Physicists don't seem to have bothered with making sure translations are accurate.
You are right. The wording "cannot be definied at all unless" is incorrect. It should rather read "may now be defined by".
The corresponding original passage in Einstein's paper reads: wir haben bisher nur eine "A-Zeit" und eine "B-Zeit", aber keine für A und B gemeinsame "Zeit" definiert. Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden, indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß ...
A faithful translation of that passage would be: By now, we have just defined an "A time" and a "B time", but no common "time" for A and B, yet. The latter may now be defined by establishing by definition that..."
Having just read another comment of dialect's, where he refers to this translation, I have now an idea, how this incorrect translation could have come about. It could be by misreading the German word "nun" in "Die letztere Zeit kann nun definiert werden" for a German "nur". The first word, used by Einstein, means "now", while the second word means "only". The latter would change the meaning completely into that, what the incorrect translation suggests.
@@alexanderkohler6439 Yes that is what is thought. This translation error was pointed out long ago. What is strange is why it was never corrected. But apparently in papers that are treated as historic - no corrections are allowed. So, the paper just keeps getting republished with the error uncorrected. Hawking and others have republished the paper with the error.
@@rogeranderton418 Do know, when that translation error was pointed out for the first time and by whom? Apart from that, I was just wondering, whether there ever was an official translation published in a recognized journal. I think there is no such official translation. What I found instead via the English wikipedia were the following two translations: a) 1920 by Megh Nad Saha and b) 1923 by George Baker Jeffery. Translation b) contains the incorrect phrase that dialect is basing his video on. Translation a), however, is correct by saying "This last time (i.e., common time) can be defined, if we establish by definition that".
There are many German speaking scientists Roger. Then and now. I think you are clutching at straws.
I am with Newton! Time is absolute and not affected by sand flowing through an hourglass or the ticking of a clock!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! Lacking such evidence, I'm willing to write off this video as click-bait, but will keep listening as long as it doesn't head toward the already debunked MOND. I know this creator is no dummy and has provided a wonderful explanation of the metric tensor in GR for which I am grateful. However, I remain very skeptical on the current topic.
You don't sound informed. Best be quiet.
For me the real question/problem is:
-How we define the measurement of velocity (v=d/t -> that suggests that we have already defined/established
the measurement of distance and time,
or equivalently: we have the definition of distance and time).
-How we define measurement of time (t=d/v -> that suggests that we have already defined/established
the measurement of distance and velocity - that is the measure of the passage/advancement/progression of some chosen natural process / phenomenon / a natural course
to what we can compare passage/progression of other processes,
or equivalently: we have the definition of distance and velocity).
-How we define the measurement of distance (d=v*t -> that suggests that we have already defined/established
the measurement of velocity and time,
or equivalently: we have the velocity of distance and time).
It seems that any of the three (d, v, t) needs to be defined on the grounds of the other two.
I might be wrong but this 'framework' seems to be immanently/intrinsically/inherently/inevitably circular
that means there will always be some arbitrary choice of definition that would not satisfy the requirement
of absolute and total rigor.
It's about time he was wrong about something.
1. Einstein relativity says we can use the speed of light and time RELATIVE to our observation and be used as a reference frame to make it a casual.
2. Newton is saying "within the bounds of the framework these are philosophically true until disproven, but the units and measurements should not be considered constant but dynamic and special cases" which is true the constant G changes in quantum relativity compared to general/special relativity.
3. Light from the sun relative to earth is absolute since the Earth's pattern around the Sun is absolute by means of Newtons Constants.
4. Other relativity theories are... relative... so they are relative to the observation, and can be different that's the definition of the relative frameworks.
5. Most of your argument with two clocks etc require Einstein's relativity of time to argue it isn't real. "We have not define a time etc for time" is saying same thing as Newton. "We don't have a absolute time in Newton physics, but Newton used Constants this way, what if we....".
6. C² is light not moving one way but two ways, a to b and b to a, under logic if a+b then b+a, and light moves thr speed of light away from light so speed of light can be ASSUMED a constant in a special case, as in SPECIAL relativity.
The slapstic behavior really brings in views, doesn't it? That's why your (this type of) videos contain 80% bashing and 20% actual content.
The first time you brought up the issue with relativity, I really wanted to see more details, despite completely unnecessary trash talking.
For example, I wanted you to show how the idea extends to GR? Can you marry it with QM since other theories are struggling with it? But no, you only explain the same old special theory of relativity over and over again with at least 15 mins of bashing other physicists...
Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited.
The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained
through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant.
It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component
from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame.
Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less
than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars.
There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory.
There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector.
If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star,
relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body.
There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening.
Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because
of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system.
A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work.
The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity.
In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data.
An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven.
Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending.
The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor.
General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
I see your point, but for now, both Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) are working perfectly and have been experimentally verified. Newton’s theory of gravitation was once considered a 'theory of everything,' but after Einstein, we now know it is part of a larger framework. Under everyday conditions with normal speeds, SR reduces to Newtonian mechanics, and similarly, under weak gravitational fields, GR reduces to Newtonian gravitation.
Most scientists are aware of this. The question is, if our devices, like GPS, utilize these theories and experiments continue to verify them, why bother challenging them-unless a scenario arises where we need to address these issues, such as in efforts to unify GR and Quantum Field Theory (QFT).
Raising awareness is good, but attacking Einstein seems unnecessary and even a bit disrespectful.
The Ptolemaic system works perfectly fine for predicting motion of the planets & stars, and one can always add more epicycles if needed. So by your logic, why bother challenging it? 🤔 That seems disrespectful to Ptolemy.
As a side note, Einstein is neither the great genius nor character he has been made out to be. Every "discovery" in his 1905 paper and subsequent E=mc^2 paper had already been made elsewhere, and he straight-up plagiarized ideas and concepts and mathematics from other thinkers and physicists without giving them credit. Indeed, all he did was put a new philosophical spin on a pre-existing mathematical formalism -- and a wrong one at that. (And his discovery of GR was also not so original as you've been led to believe.)
The truth is the truth, irregardless of whose feelings it hurts!
I understand your analogy with the Ptolemaic system, but the difference here is that relativity has undergone rigorous experimental testing and continues to be validated by devices we use daily, such as GPS, which accounts for both SR and GR. If there were substantial problems with the theory, we would expect to see evidence by now, similar to how the Ptolemaic system's flaws became apparent over time.
Regarding Einstein’s originality, it’s true that science builds on the work of others, and Einstein was influenced by thinkers like Lorentz and Poincaré. But what made Einstein stand out was how he unified these ideas into a revolutionary theory, particularly his insights on spacetime and gravity. While Hilbert developed field equations around the same time as Einstein, it was Einstein’s understanding of gravity as spacetime curvature that fundamentally reshaped our view of the universe.
Science always leaves room for improvement, but right now, relativity works extremely well within its domains, and dismissing Einstein's contributions seems unfair given the lasting impact and continual verification of his work I think.
@@fraoltirfessa4951 When Einstein got rid of the space medium thus rendering it null and void, he replaced it with the reified ('realified') abstraction "spacetime", enabling the "void" to be treated mathematically _as if_ it were something real. In order to accommodate this newly invented "no space medium" doctrine, he invented, out of whole cloth and by fiat, absolute invariance of lightspeed in all inertial frames. Thus was set in stone an *inverted paradigm* that far outstrips the Ptolamaic inversion in its ramifications.
This inverted model, using the modern equivalent of equants, deferents and epicycles, has "worked" spectacularly well... up to a point. There it falls on its face confronting the 'Big Issues' in physics like the *causal mechanism* of gravity, quantum gravity, QM/relativity conciliation, dark matter/dark energy etc. Pursuing Unification under this inverted model is like chasing the rainbow. The harder it's pursued, the more doggedly it recedes from grasp.
@@dialectphilosophy "The truth is the truth, irregardless of whose feelings it hurts!" That appears to be the only truthful sentence in your comment. Everything else in your comment is just deceit and distortion. For instance, take your comment on Einstein's 1905 paper. Einstein's original discovery (not "discovery") is contained in paragraph 2 of that paper were he introduced two simple principles. He then showed that these two principles were already sufficient to deduce all the equations in the subsequent paragraphs 3-10 in an elegant and simple manner. He is not being praised for the equations in paragraphs 3-10, which were indeed partially known before, he is being praised for finding precisely those two principles in paragraph 2 and making them the starting point for all subsequent deductions. Whom did he plagiarize with respect to these two principles? Lorentz? Certainly not. Lorentz himself attributed the principle of relativity to Einstein, as it definitely was Einstein, who introduced it first in his 1905 paper leading to a revolutionary change in perspective in explaining phenomena in electrodynamics and other areas of physics.
@@alexanderkohler6439😂😂You really think you can convince him??😂Forget about this
Instead of bashing modern physics, using that time instead to show how your theory works better than previous theories is much more a better use of time. Someone who has a new theory shouldn't go around shitting on everyone else, they should demonstrate their knowledge and convince them that this is the right way...
Exactly. This guy is heavy on dissing and VERY light on showing us his own mathematical frameworks.
Your comment isn't without Merit. What isn't particularly obvious is that dialect is moving towards something that will shake up physics, and I know where they're going with this. Physics is very much a bureaucracy, and I have seen with my own eyes how physicists and mathematicians, who worked on my project in the 1990s, were exceedingly careful to protect their reputations by keeping their work very secret. I also got bashed over the head often by the physics community while simultaneously the very members of that Community were working secretly towards what I'm quite sure dialect is going to reveal. So there's actually something more going on here, and dialect is treading very carefully and very thoroughly. But rest assured it will be tied together in a way that will be essentially, I hope anyway, irrefutable. I possess one key piece of the puzzle perhaps, and experimental device which I hope one day to build. But I'm getting up there in age myself so I hope to find someone interested in taking it on. It's fairly simple too.
Again, Dialect is taking the line upon line, precept upon precept route. Go look at the other videos and you can see where they are going (IMHO).
@@chalichaligha3234
You are most definitely on the right track. I'll leave it to dialect to finish it out, but an Aether with no inherent inertia is what we came to. Inertia becomes an upper level phenomenon. We were even able to calculate the size of individual ether particles.
@@chalichaligha3234
You got it! The Aether is simple, and follows very simple rules, and as the Aether interacts with itself things emerge. There could be an enormous number of emergent levels before we even get to where we have inertia. That part of of course is unknown. The device I want to build is essentially an Aether fan.
I hope I answered your question. There are many astonishing consequences of what we came up with. For instance you could travel faster than light. But not really! What you can do is move The Ether out of the way.
You can't go faster than the speed of light, but you could make the speed of light go faster.
The speed of sound was once thought a barrier too.
I have a personal simple definition of time (as in spacetime) : how many interactions a particle makes between 2 displacements.
In a dense environment, statistically, a particle will interact most of the time and will therefore hardly move at all.
And since it will move less often, it will find it much more difficult to extract itself from this environment. This brings out the gravitational attraction effect.
Conversely, in a vacuum, only the Higgs interaction can prevent a particle from moving. This brings out the intrinsic inertial mass of the particles.
Interactions other than the Higgs change the state of particles. In a dense environment, the state of the particles changes very often and the system evolves quite rapidly. In an empty environment, the state of the particles changes very little and the system evolves rather slowly. This brings out the relativistic effects of time.
When we increase the amount of movement of a particle, we reduce the amount of interaction between that particle and its environment. For a complex system (such as a human), this means that we obtain very little information about our environment and therefore about the distances actually travelled. From the point of view of a photon, its environment is limited to the two points of its interactions: in other words, a flat universe. This brings out the relativistic effects of space.
I guess you get the global idea.
So in essence you are just complaining that Einstein assumed that light speed was the same in every direction? The one way speed of light problem is already well known and Einstein made it clear that this was just an assumption. Also I think everyone in physics knows that measurements aren’t the same as the physical concepts they try do describe. It’s the core idea of science that alle we can do is make measurements that can disprove theories but can never actually prove them, that’s the principle of falsification.
You are missing the point. If you use light as a measure that you can't get to a valid answer. Light is tied to our perception of reality (ie the measurement) and cannot be divorced from it. So ask yourself how are you going to measure anything without using light?
That is the principle of falsification á la Karl Popper, that we can never prove anything. But his view was partly wrong, because of course we can prove things. "I know for certain that I know nothing for certain" is a logical contradiction and should be tossed out. Read Leonard Peikoff.
@@WilliamRoosa-h3f it might not be the perfect tool for measurement but it’s the best we got. To rule out external interference we have agreed on experiments having to be repeatable and continuously tested.
It's more about time dilation than one or two way speed of light.
It's been described that falling into a black hole since your clock stops your time stops and somehow you get to see infinite time in 0 time... Like the velocity is somehow also tied to the clock's tick rate...
@virtueman1 You don't understand he never said we cannot proof anything he said If something is Unfalsifiable it is not Science
If you don't agree with Karl popper then you have to abounded Science because he actually Gave his Falsification test for protection of Science from David Hume's Casuallity Argument
Also you cannot proof you cannot be certain about anything because it is self contradictory
But there is no doubt That Newton's Absolute Time is A Philosophy like Plato's Theory of Form not Science
Finally one site that debunks Relativity.
I am working on that about 22 years, I was focused to understand what could happen when we start to relate general relativity and restricted relativity and found out that these 2 de facto contradicts themselves.
Then I tried to take what restricted relativity is telling and bind more accurately with Newton's theories. I am starting, very slowly since I am self taught, to define something.
I just found that the universe embraces a major paradox, I found that the space's curvature is flat due to the conflict between flat and hyperbolic geometry. This leads to a dramatic change of perspective of the universe itself, where because of this mass tends to become energy and energy tends to become mass leading to a uninverse where Big Bang and Big Crunch are superimposed.
Just rewatch again all the video with this in mind and maybe some more ideas will come out. My idea is that light has a mass, but since it travels in a broth of energy it converts instantly to energy acting as a waveform. My idea is to change the idea of curved spacetime to a flat one, where even light has very impalpable fraction of time that acts as a mass. And this is compatible with restricted relativity's formula.
My friend, you instinctively and logically is accepting correct assumptions. The problem is there where even OM is rejecting the postulates of GR. Of course Space is flat, because the weakest force in the Universe (Gravity) cannot affect and bent Space. Space can be bent on microscopic scale from the strongest force - (SNF). You need to start building your model with correctly formulated fundamental elements. You can find them in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
@@valentinmalinov8424 Please help me, I was thinking about a flat space that is the result of both hyperbolic and round space that in the microscopic scale are in contrast and fight eachother. This then leads only to an apparent flat space that swings very fast the more the scale is microscopic. To me this could be compatible with quantum theory's experiments. What do You think about?
@@lairbox I am not sure to which quantum experiments you are referring, but there is a great inconsistency with the Standard Model, where the properties are cherry picked to sweet the desire result. You should start your considerations with a correct understanding that Space is a Physical Medium. - Just click on Wikipedia - "Vacuum Energy" and you will find that QM has found that Space posses 10
sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.
Great question. Unsure about the answer. But thanks for opening this up.
A lot of ppl here dissing this video. You ppl are terrible listeners. Dialects' criticism of current physics is what scientists do when they spot a real issue. Science is as much a philosophy as it is a tool. Language MUST be accurate. Communication needs to be useful, and not even Einstein was flawless. All the players of our understanding of physics need a thorough review when we've hit the science wall.
@@Sho-ryu-kame The issue is he is not pointing out an empirical issue, he's pointing out a philosophical issue. There is no difference in measurable prediction between the two models, only a notion that one has absolute coordinates and the other doesn't. Now it may be the case that it becomes an empirical issue if we can actually measure the difference between the models, but until that happens he's basically arguing about levels of generalization for metaphysical reasons.
(I be less annoyed if it was for epistemological reasons but metaphysics is impossible to argue with)
@@zyansheep exactly. And he frames it as a simple matter of fact and not a philosophical discussion
Ok how do people misunderstood what he said.
@@zyansheep Routine data collection can be done without considering philosophy, but trying to evaluate a theory or construct a new one does require scientists to actively address some areas of philosophy, most notably epistemology, but sometimes even metaphysics. Logical positivism is about as indefensible as anything gets in philosophy and is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of science. In recognition of the problem of induction, the theory laden nature of observation, etc. It is necessary, but not sufficient for a theory to be mathematically consistent and be able to make accurate predictions. But this isn't pure math. We're talking about the real world and the math needs to mean something in order to say something about the real world. If you just point to the math and say there is no meaning, then all you did was curve fitting, not science. Epistemically, this creates problems far beyond the scope of the comment section, but is discussed at length in the philosophy of science. Science is not whatever you do acquire grant money and otherwise advance your career. Science is a body of knowledge that describes the real world. That's not the same thing as what mathematics is.
🤭 You can not do science without a philosophy of science. Period.
Just for chuckles, lets try a slightly more complex gedanken, using two ships. Each carries a laser identical to the other. Pick a spot out in deep space as Base and call it point X. Have a third identical laser, all three matched in frequency(/wavelength), thus establishing simultaniety for all three. The third laser is fixed in place for reference, the other two are aboard the ships. Now fly the 2 ships outbound in opposite directions, both at the same speed and for the same distance. At a preset time, they both decelerate, stop and make U-turns, then begin the inbound leg toward Base with their lasers turned on. Both lasers are trained on Point X during the inbound run, and the ships _do not decelerate_, but rather fly on past X at the same time. Then they decelerate, make U-turns and return to base. At Base during the inbound run, the ships' lasers were being compared in frequency and phase and with the fixed (reference) laser, `and` results recorded. If all three remain identical, that means lightspeed IS invariant per Mr. Einstein's edict. But if there is variance, that means it's not. And the experiment should be redone on at least two more axes, to get an idea of the variance's directionality.
Honey, wake up! New Dialect just dropped.
At last, someone understand what I was telling my friends about Einstein's relativity is wrong because of the main factor that we cant, for the moment, perfectly define what is time in space. Even if its the best theory that we have for the moment indeed! Thks to your video! It helps some of my friends to understand what I was saying! 😊
This channel has some excellent video explainers (like the one for the metric tensor), but the rest of the videos are just vacuous metaphysical contrarianism trying to appeal to an audience that doesn't understand the argument (which is actually badly presented or even not there, despite the nice graphics and interesting quotes) and that loves to hear about some secret knowdledge that disproves the mainstream because "physicist never thought DEEEPER".
The most fundamental mistake of this and other videos in the channel is to think that science is concerned with onthological truth and not only with epistemic truth. Even if your philosophical standpoint is that physics is describing true actual independent reality in some way, that is irrelevant for the scientific process. For example: Kepler said that planets trace elliptical orbits. How can be obsolutely sure about that? Maybe it just so happened that when looking for the position of the planet each time it was in an ellipse, each observation corroborated that. But perhaps between datapoints the planet went to Andromeda and back just in time for the next observation to be made. We would have to make a continuous observation. Not only that, but we would also need absolute knowledge of these measurements (no uncertainty) wich is impossible in physics. So you could always say that actually in reality they don't follow ellipses. But does that matter to science? No. What matters is that the model of an ellipse not only explained the observations withtin the margins of error but also makes predictions that are parsimonius and allow to test the hypothesis. If you are willing to expand the hypothesis space to the idea that actually the planets just happened to be at points that are part of ellipses, each and every time they were observed, but then they go crazy and do all kind of weird things between observations, then you are doing this:
1) Not allowing for specific predictions: since expanding the hypothesis space allows you to avoid been falsified by the next observation by moving the goalpost. This happens with string theory recently, where you have a family of theories that allow you to always state that everything is made of string regardless of the results of experiments. Or similar to what happened with epicycles in ptolemaic astronomy, which would always adapt to fit the observations without any risk of been falsified.
2) Not making a parsimonious description of nature: instead of understanding underlying patterns that would allow to compress the information of all the observations into simple causal relationships you would be describing the observations alone. Science would be a chronicle of measurements and never actually allow for any understanding of nature, which would again make predictions futile, since anything would be equally expected/unexpected.
3) You would be destroying the copernican worldview that gave birth to modern science: Nature would be conspiring to please a specific kind of observer in an extremely specific way (in sucha way that the observer would be tricked into thinking planets move in ellipse when they don't). It would be extremely antropocentric to state that each time someone looks at the sky, the Moon comes back quickly from its complicated travel path trought the universe just to sit in the exact place that the observer would expect from a specific simple model of the moon moving in an elliptical orbit. And if not extremely anthropocentric then we would have to accept that our observations are an extreme serendipity, such an improbable situation that the purpose of science as "a way of making predictions of future observations" would be completely defeated.
No, we don't care what the planets actually onthologically do (many physicist will believe that they literally do what the models say they do and other will believe that the models aproximate some the observations and not reality, but science as a whole is agnostic). We only care that a simple mathematical model can describe the observations and produce unique falsifiable predictions. There is no place in the scientific method where you will find a step that guarantees to be adressing onthological truths, only epistemic, and that sufices, because ultimately we only care about the prediction that the airplane I'm boarding will be able to fly or will crash because it didn't met the predictions of our hydrodynamic model, and not if the actual turbulence flow model is the ground truth that God wrote in stone. Usefullness is the core of science like it or not, if science is telling the absolute truth is irrelevant. And all the philosophical theoritician mumbojumbo regarding any non-observables has no impact in the success of a scientific theory not it tells us anything about reality. It's simply platonism, not science.
One can see that the author of the video is totally unaware of this (even if mentioning Leibnitz briefly) as in several parts of the video, where it seems that Einstein failed to understand what the onthology of time is or is not, when in reality that is completely irrelevant (and inaccesible) to science or Einstein. You can also see this biased aproach and the unwillingness to accept that science is not the pursuit of the absolute unmovable truth by how he actually missinterprets quotes from Newton, for example. When in 5:28 Newton says "sensible", it doesn't mean "acting on good judgment" as the video implies but "sensible" as in "with the potentiality of been captured by the senses or instruments that can yield readings that can be sensed" (or casually connected in such a way that the information is accesible to the observer). Playing with the meaning of that word is one of the tricks of this video.
@10:10 you are so horribly revisionist dude. Read Einstein! He took "light" to be an idealization, so was in conformance with Newton. He, more than you it appears, understood actual physical light rays were not his ideal concept. We can do the same, say, to formulate the Klein-Gordon and then Dirac Equations, using _plane wave forms_ to deduce the operators for time and space translation. No one ever is suggesting that perfect plane waves are real.
@11:00 "time stops at the event horizon" is just conventional loose language. Again, no self-respecting physicist means by that that time vanishes, they just mean a distant observer cannot use measurements on the horizon to make a clock, but someone passing through the event horizon can. Same with the Big Bang, where "time stops" is only a manner of speech. If you assume CPT symmetry then the Big Bang is conformal and there is an analytic continuation and everything becomes massless, so matter cannot be made into a clock, but time has not vanished. Yes, you are right, people _should_ say "observed clocks stop" or "tick ever more slowly" according to coordinate time, whereas proper time is still all there intact.
@@Achrononmaster Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited.
The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained
through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant.
It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component
from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame.
Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less
than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars.
There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory.
There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector.
If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star,
relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body.
There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening.
Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because
of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system.
A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work.
The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity.
In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data.
An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven.
Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending.
The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor.
General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
Measurements made without any background reference frame is what Einstein calls 'relative'. Going past Newton we find Galileo defining the 'principle of equivalence' on which Einstein's relativity rests, solving the problem of 'reference frame', as Einstein discovers that outside the light cone one fails to pin a reference frame, so simultaneity cannot be established.
The real problem is when Carlo Rovelli fails to formulate the theory of quantum puzzles of QM based on 'relativity', where there is no light cone and everything is simultaneous in QM.
People here saying you're wrong just because you're contradicting Einstein without even analizing the logic and the documentation you give, are not realising that they're doing the same thing Einstein hated at his time: blocking rational thoughts in favour of historically important figures posed as dogmas, which gave himself trouble in his years of pubblication.
Even though relativity came far with its predictions, it's not perfect, and everything should always be able to be doubted.
Keep up the good work
You're the only channel who's not afraid of saying what you think. Don't listen to haters
I'm so glad someone is calling this out. everything that is 'special' or 'weird' about relativity is only that way BY DEFINITION ultimately! its just because of the ridiculous coordinate systems and assumptions that are made beforehand, like you pointed out.
I think the whole idea of light as having any significance as some kind of 'causal agent' should be reexamined. it's nothing but the boson for 1 of the 4 fundamental forces. there's 2 (or 3) others, and there's absolutely nothing special about the electromagnetic boson as opposed to the others
Don’t all bosons travel at the same speed though? The speed of light.
@@timjohnson3913 oh you mean all bosons travel at the speed of the graviton? like i said, you're specifically choosing the electromagnetic boson as something special, by definition
That seems to be the time. Since all "bosons" tick the same (by analogy of a bouncing ball, which needs to cover more distance as it travels through space, thus each click goes slower) any other physical result comes slower. You age slower, chemical reactions are slower, physical effects are slower.
Thus this is time for you, and for all intends and purposes its real. For any moving object or under gravity we assume that this "boson" ticking clocks are the ultimate mechanism of time.
My small input as an Astrophysics and Cosmology graduate:
Time is not defined as the passage of light between two points in space in General Relativity, causality is. We use light in Einstein's equation because light travels at the speed of causality, causality itself being the letter or the constant called c in the equations , but any elementary, massless particle ( the quanta of their specific fields) will travel at the speed of causality c, this was what made Maxwell's breakthrough so relevant and important to Relativity as well, he proved that Electromagnetic waves can only propagate at a specific speed, the speed of causality. Einstein just chose light, or photons in particular as one of those elementary particles from which to attach a measurement because they travel at the fastest speed permitted by the universe in terms of cause and effect. Events sometimes can ocurr in different order as long as they don't have a cause and effect between them. The term "speed of light" has been used as an easy explanation in general media to refer to the speed of causality, but c is not the speed of light exclusively. Any other deductions that stem from this statement are fundamentally wrong since many experiments have proved that c is actually the speed of causality.
And I'm not trying to be a hater, just to clarify some stuff and some many common misconceptions.
Hey there, thanks for watching, and for your input! You're correct to point and clarify that it is not only light in a vacuum which is capable of traveling at the speed of causality c, and we greatly simplified this point in the video.
However, in his SR paper, Einstein does explicitly define time as the displacement of a light in an inertial frame divided by this speed c. Since GR adopts the definition of an inertial frame that SR posits, this is likewise how (local or proper) time is defined in GR. Regardless, even if one replaces "light path" in Einstein's paper with "path of elementary, massless particle", all the same problems of acausality persist; only now the scope is widened, since not only must the displacement of light through internal frames be regarded as a brute postulate, but so must the displacement of any and all massless particles.
I think that you misunderstood Einstein Theory of Relativity, I suggest you to look on the book by Max Planck
"WHERE THE SCIENCE GOING" in the chapter VI
" From Relative To The Absolute" and you will see the whole Einstein Theory Of Relativity purpose, Relativity confirms more dip the absolute and other things is that Einstein was against the quantum mechanics because of his Positivistic ' subjective' nature, Einstein was fanatic of Objective Reality. Thanks
What Einstein got wrong is that motion is Absolute to the frame of reference.
What Einstein didn't understand is what a frame of reference is. Ow how to identify one.
Light travels in its own frame of reference, independent of its source. That's TWO frames of reference. With electronic clocks, you've accelerated one frame but not the other. Time-dilation is strictly limited to the clocks frame of reference. The clock's motion doesn't translate to the observer's.
This is shown by Nasa's flight log data. During lift-off, astronaut's experience accelerated heart rates while the onboard clock is ticking slower. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. How fast you go in the space frame does not translate over to the time frame.
@@stewiesaidthat First, "motion is Absolute to the frame of reference"? This is a clear misunderstanding of Einstein’s theory. Relativity is literally based on the idea that motion is relative, not absolute, and that everything depends on the observer’s frame of reference. There is no "absolute motion" in the theory-Einstein himself proved this through the idea that there’s no universal or preferred reference frame. If this person thinks otherwise, they’ve fundamentally missed the point.
Next, the claim that "Einstein didn’t understand what a frame of reference is"-well, that's ironic. Einstein defined the modern understanding of reference frames in physics. He understood them quite well, thanks. The idea that light travels independently of its source was actually one of Einstein’s big insights in special relativity. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames, but this doesn’t mean the frames are absolute. Light’s constancy is relative to the observer, no matter their motion.
Now, the bit about "two frames of reference" and time dilation-yes, time dilation happens because of the different reference frames. One clock accelerates relative to the other, and this relative motion creates time dilation. But the claim that “time dilation is strictly limited to the clock’s frame of reference” is false. Time dilation happens between the moving clock and any observer measuring its time-it’s not restricted to the clock alone. This is why astronauts in high-speed orbits experience time differently from those on Earth. We can observe this difference from different frames.
As for the heart rate and clock ticking argument-astronauts' heart rates increase due to g-forces during lift-off, but this has nothing to do with the clocks themselves or time dilation in the relativistic sense. The clocks on board are affected by their velocity relative to the Earth (special relativity) and their proximity to a gravitational field (general relativity), not by how fast someone's heart is beating.
Finally, "how fast you go in the space frame does not translate to the time frame"-uh, what? This is a confused statement. The whole point of relativity is that space and time are linked in spacetime. Motion through space does affect time, which is precisely what time dilation is about.
🍎🍎
If you can’t present an experiment (even a sensible thought experiment would do) for which SR and GR make wrong predictions but your suggested alternatives make correct ones, all of this is essentially vacuous bla bla. I wouldn‘t be so harsh if you wouldn‘t keep claiming that Einstein was “wrong”. If he was, prove it, and if you can‘t, stop making such claims.
I always gain new perspective from watching your videos. Thanks!
Again a mindblowing video from Dialect
I think that what is being referred to here is *absolute time* . Saying that time stops at the event horizon implicitly means *relative* time, not time for all observers in all systems everywhere, i.e., absolute time. Relativity implies that absolute time does not exist, or that if it did, it would be impossible to measure from within any system. So, to say you’ve measured relative time is not to erroneously claim you’ve measured absolute time. Which is not to say that Relativity doesn’t lead to contradictions. But then again, quantum physics is founded on contradictions. No wonder Einstein was fond of Gödel. I wonder if he ever read Whitman: “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself.”
Hmmm. I get that Einstein's two-way speed of light assumption was probably just there to make the theory slightly more elegant to write down, but whats the actual _rational_ argument for _not_ making this assumption? Is it simply an epistemic heuristic saying that one should always generalize theories as much as possible in order to make it easier to generalize current theories into newer theories given newer observations? If so, I guess that makes sense, but I don't know if I like the framing that "oh Einstein made this one assumption and *RUINED* future theoretical efforts!!1!". The metaphysical arguments of true vs measured notions of time are kinda epistemically meaningless in my eyes... I think the argument would be much stronger if you actually delved into the socio-cultural epistemic effects on theoretical developments that come from teaching Einstein's assumption vs teaching without his assumption. (You might need to read up a little on patterns of discovery in science tho lol)
rotational speed of polar bear is a fraction of the speed of a jaguar in Amazon forest. Similarily Earth rotates the sun, which goes around glactic center, which seems to go towards great attractor. All this in space, that we don't currently know what it's exactly "made of". So measuring the speed of electromagnetic radiation in this moving trainwreck is not a matter of crackpot simplification when what you are doing is exactly that: "looking into the rabbithole" and seeing what is it all about. Wonder if one could measure this in LIGO somehow in those long vacuum tubes and what would be margin of error there...
I think Dialect is making epistological argument that a new theory should, if possible, not make any assumptions about some concepts that aren't applied to any other concept. To be specific, Einstein assumes (or at least isn't bothered to define) that the passage of light is itself equal to abstract concept of time, and time has never before been equalized with some physical process because it it primarily abstractly defined concept. Dialect is arguing that it isn't invariance of the speed of light that causes length contraction and time dilation, but the other way around, and those concepts should be derived from the known laws and mathematics of wave mechanics, and Dialect claims to have a theory that does exactly that (watch some other videos on the channel). And in that theory 2-way speed of light isn't the same as 1-way. I'm not sure that similar theories hasn't been researched by science community, I'm not the specialist on the matter.
If Dialect were to look into Kerr black holes, frame dragging, and ergospheres, they'd realize that GR has no issue with a two-way speed of light. Only SR had an issue with it, so the point is moot as we already know SR is wrong.
What an amazing video! :-)
17:37 "it is impossible to know if two clocks are ever synchronized" Are you sure about that? If you take two atomic clocks and connect them with a wire, then can you easily know exactly how many attoseconds or even more they differ, and then synchronize them. Now can you move one clock until the wire is stretched out and redo your synchronization. To make sure that you are still right, can you use the "blink" (sorry can't remember the word) in the universe, that is even more accurate than any atomic clock we possess. In that way can you adjust for gravity, height, différance in earths rotation and so on.
No Einstein, no GPS.
nice one
The GPS system is actually a good news-bad news for Einstein's relativity. The good news is that GPS demonstrates that time dilation is a real physical phenomenon and can affect clock rates during both induced velocity and changing gravitational positions.
The bad news is that it disproves Einstein's proposal(s) for how time dilates, since relativity would not allow clocks in relative motion to be be synced. The GPS system can and does sync just fine by altering the satellite clock (frequency generator) to compensate for the fact that it runs at a rate different from clocks on the earth's surface.
@@chriskennedy2846 GPS衛星發射攜帶時間和位置等訊號的電磁波後，除了機器自身的線路延遲及地球磁場宇宙射線等因素造成的時間誤差外，還有電磁波從發射到接收器的傳播時間誤差。因此，不能證明時間的流逝因速度而有所不同！
LMAO, the math to make GPS work was already there long before Einstein's SR.
GPS does not take account of special relativistic time dilation due to motion but only of gravitational time dilation.
If the time between two events in one frame is different than the time between them
in the other frame and that difference is not always consistent, doesn’t that mean we
can’t use the time between events from two frames to determine the time dilation?
So why is it that the time dilation formula is derived using just that by comparing the
time between events in one frame (the events of light hitting the mirrors) to the time
in the other? So doesn’t that mean that we can’t trust the time dilation formula
especially since for instance the relativity of simultaneity states that two events can
be simultaneous from one perspective but not simultaneous in the other which would
mean that the time dilation here is infinite time to zero. In fact, time dilation can be
derived to have many different formulas depending on which direction of light you
are measuring the time dilation from. For example, if you imagine light is traveling
right and a moving object is traveling right at speed v. The moving object will see
light has travelled a distance of c-v when 1 second passes for the stationary
observer since light travels c distance in 1 second. That means c-v seconds must
have passed for the moving observer when 1 second passes for the stationary
observer since the moving observer has to see the light move at speed c. This
means you can say time dilation formula is t' = t x (v-c). If you consider a light moving
to the left instead of light moving to the right the formula would then be t' = t x (v+c)
instead. And if you have another angle of light you will get a more different formula.
In the actual derivation of time dilation. Light was traveling up and down between
mirrors in the moving perspective. We can simplify this as light only moving up in the
moving perspective since same distance will be travelled either case. That would
mean form the stationary perspective light is traveling at an angle which has an x
component equal to v (the speed of the moving observer). If we calculate the time
dilation for the angle of light that has an x component equal to v we get the time
dilation formula we all know. Of course, none of the formulas (including the actual
time dilation formula) accounted for length contraction. To account for length
contraction, we must use the Lorentz Transformation formula to get the time and
space coordinates of light form both the stationary and moving perspectives. Even
with the Lorentz Transformation formula you will get a different time and space
coordinates of light depending on the angle of light. The light moving to the right, the
light moving to the left, and the light moving at angle such that x component is v all
will have different time and space coordinates. The reason this happens is that time
dilation is not reality and special relativity is a flawed theory.
This is terrible and you have clearly misunderstood the whole thing about light. When einstein talks about light, he talks about something that just moves at the speed of light not the actual physical concept of light. He then imagined his thoughts experiments according to that idea. Its nature and how it interacts with the enviroment doesn't really matter. Not only that, but just because light is mentioned in that specific thought experiment, it doesn't mean that this only has to do with light or clocks. You can have a human next to the mirror contraption and say that for that observer, the person dies of old age after N bounces. Then the same thing should happen for an observer moving with respect to it. For the latter the bounces will be less frequent and thus the man is going to age slower. Einstein was unorthodox accorisng to Newton but he is still right and a video on youtube about special relativity won't just kill an intuition that has been around for 100 years now just be philosophizing
18:25 Perhaps one of the most beautiful lines ever written in a physics paper. Making the motion of light a matter of convention, it marks the fundamental change of paradigm on space and time. To me the one way speed of light "problem" suggests that there is no such thing as motion in space. That space is a construct we make to organise information of the events once they are measured by us. We can't know the speed of light because such speed does not exist, and can be arbitrarily chosen in such a way that physics looks simple.
This is why there is no satisfactory explanation for it being the same for all the observers. Because it's a mere convention. All Minkowski's geometry is a convention.
"Because it's a mere convention. All Minkowski's geometry is a convention." I guess there are some of us that question the foundation of those conventions, and how it relates back to nature.
"Off by One" may not seam a problem under most circumstances, but at the extremes it can be the difference between 0 and Infinity.
Dialect is becoming crazy😂
You should appreciate Einstein more. Physicists create theories with assumptions best suited for their time.
Einstein's thoughts are deep, he discusses the problem of absolute space in his book "relativity" in an appendix.
Bringing up his last position in his class is cheap.
Fun fact: one of his teachers went out of his way to hire students from the engineering department as assistants, simply to have an excuse NOT to hire Einstein! 😂
@@dialectphilosophysince when are you a hater
Zeno's paradoxes make the concept of matter impossible.
What is substance? What is solid, firm, impenetrable? What is the one, very own, individual?
The idea is floating around that matter must be absolutely solid, at least at its smallest core. Zenen, however, has highly relevant, massively confusing objections to this:
If something were fulfilled in the deepest space, if it were massive at the point which is still completely dimensionless, so to speak, which would be the basic condition for massiveness in space, then it would need an infinite number of such massive points to obtain even the smallest volume. However short the distance between the points may be, it is still not a distance. So there must be a void between the points, or the whole concept of space is a dead end anyway.
Plato drew the consequences from Zeno's paradoxes and declared everything that exists to be identical. His pupil Aristotle also gave up the idea of matter in space and only wanted to consider 2D flat structures to be real, “structures that could at most arch into the third dimension and could only form something similar to a volume if they were combined together.”
Others, such as Heraclitus, have approached the ultimate validity of elementary substance from a different angle. “Such a substance must be completely homogeneous in itself, it must not also contain different things.” But not containing any details also means complete paradox. It is something, but this is without any granularity, melts between your fingers and yet must muster the strength to cohere with others.
In the face of so many principles of exclusion, however, we must not lose our compass, because in order to understand a world of reactivity, there must be something in front of us. There must be a remote effect which, as we now know, must be able to leap over a distance without this concentration having to be built from voluminous primordial substance. Are there therefore necessarily concentrations that can act like substance and is there also a void in between, places where no effect is possible?
No, the void does not exist, there are only strong concentrations and weaker ones that hardly trigger any effects. As we know today, there is this fluctuating vacuum in which there is a lot going on, but these movements are completely undirected and their strength is purely random. Brownian molecular motion and more simply known as heat.
A duality of a something surrounded by a nothing, such a thing does not exist and is not absolutely necessary.
“There is no such thing as nothing” - the pre-Socratic naturalists agreed on this.
Nothingness is the term for the non-existence of something.
There are no potatoes, but there is nothing purely as a concept, nothing more. At the time, this realization had blatant logical consequences. If nothingness does not exist, then the world has not emerged from nothingness and cannot be nihilated back into a non-existent nothingness. No emergence is therefore also no annihilation possible. The abstract, non-representational, incorporeal wholeness stands there unalterably, forever and ever eluding all fateful influences precisely because of its untouchability.
Instead of assuming the existence of space, we should be talking about an interlocking, a continuum of the in-formed.
There is no emptiness of space, nor is there a fullness of space insofar as mass cannot be full at a point.
It is therefore only a question of extension, of overcoming isolation, of separation from one another.
The explanation of the concept of time makes sense the other way round.
On an imaginary timeline from past to future, the now must also be present in the shortest moment. The now cannot disappear only to be reborn later on the timeline.
The point in time that the now must have profoundly fulfilled in order to exist behaves just as paradoxically as the point in space; you can arrange as many dimensionless points in time in succession as you like, but there is still no extending timeline. But the now does not need a timeline either, it simply has to remain present. It is enough for the now to remain in dimensionless instantaneity. Now is always. Everything passes, but the now remains.
Those pre-Socratic elementary philosophers attached great importance to the fact that the primal elemental substance, which must be uncreated, must also remain beyond any transformation. A difference between being one way before and being completely different later, possibly aged or worn out, such subtleties cannot represent the essence of the uncreated.
It is called prima matter, that which existed before all fatefulness, which makes it possible for a changeable formation process to take place. The methaphysical literally determines what happens. This creates compositions that can all diverge again. However, the quantity of basic substance units does not change, nor do their properties. They come and go and sometimes stay for a while, but all connections are ultimately not permanent, even if many have come together in a black hole.
Conclusion:
Wholeness togetherness takes place in dimensionless instantaneity. Disintegration into multiplicity and diversity is completely impossible. There can be no isolation, only a lack of reaction. Any form of activity cannot be present in that prima matter, which rests perfectly within itself, is in hermetic unity.
So that what we perceive as concentration is in reality not an individuality, but quite the opposite, an amalgamation of everything into a single entity.
Thus the all-connectedness, the total interconnectedness with all, is the only essence of matter that causes all properties. Seen in this way, there are no laws of nature but only properties of its participants.
The search for matter itself therefore starts in exactly the wrong direction from the outset and a radical turnaround must ultimately be made.
It is not the part itself that is to be discovered, but a union of the many around it.
A 180-degree turnaround is needed to make sense of this miraculous thing called matter.
The One is a union of all and this One is also included in all. It is about nothing other than maintaining unity, because a separation from each other would be an activity and such an activity cannot possibly have taken place. This nature of prima matter is preserving wholeness and is not progressing.
Listening to Dialect one understands what a narcistic personality means.
In my experience with these comments, many of the participants have been speaking with a good deal of unjustified confidence. So far, I've commented 5 or 6 times, and what has often happened is that either the conversation stops or the commenter deletes their comment. I would suggest that people inspect their biases. This is meant to be a scientific debate, not a religious one. If something someone says in these comments angers you, assuming they didn’t have a hostile tone, that reflects a problem with your reaction, not with what they said.
For example, if I point out that our symbolic systems should not be confused with reality, and that causes cognitive dissonance in you, that should be a clear sign to reevaluate your beliefs. Science is not a religion, and we don’t get to act like religious people when confronted with evidence or arguments that challenge our views.
Shouldn’t science be about questioning our assumptions, or are we more comfortable just echoing what we think the majority believes?
edit: It seems like some are more interested in echo chambers and quick dismissals of anything outside their bubble, regardless of the merits of the argument. What’s even more absurd is that many of the people doing the dismissing haven’t done the research themselves or read the papers-they’re just echoing someone else’s interpretation of the work. Yet, they feel qualified to dismiss logically sound arguments. I reject such dismissals because they often represent a failure to engage with ideas on their merits and instead rely on vague, poorly defined terms and appeals to authority that do nothing to further meaningful discourse. It also reflects a superficial understanding of both the subject matter and the nature of inquiry itself. It sidesteps the real intellectual work of examining the strengths and weaknesses of an argument and promotes intellectual laziness. This mindset doesn't seem so different from religious dogma-"My authority X said Y is true, so questioning it is heresy." I’m not going to bother responding to dismissive comments like that. If you disagree, address the specific points or be ignored.
@@lepidoptera9337 That’s an empirically overstated claim. While modern physics has been validated by two centuries of observational data, this doesn’t imply that the models reflect some absolute or objective reality. For example, I think it is crucial to highlight a common logical mistake that even the greatest minds in both scientific and spiritual fields often make. This mistake centers on the assumption that our symbolic systems can reflect some sort of objective or absolute X, where X could be truth, reality, time, consciousness, etc. To be clear, I’m not denying the existence of these absolute concepts-denying that could lead to a paradox. Instead, I’m saying the reasoning behind such claims is flawed, and the debate (for or against) risks becoming incoherent. Gödel's incompleteness and Tarski's undefinability clearly demonstrate the limits of formal symbolic systems.
It might be useful to distinguish between tenable and untenable theories, and to further separate those concepts from usefulness. By "untenable," I specifically mean a theory that cannot be defended against reasonable objections, whereas a tenable theory could be. The idea that we can somehow capture and convey some absolute X and verify it without using further symbolic representations is untenable. However, the idea that our symbolic systems can sometimes capture causal properties relative to the system of symbols itself-rather than reflecting any objective causal reality-is tenable.
Basing the speed of causality on time and light is untenable but useful, whereas basing time and light on causality is both tenable and useful. Time and light are emergent properties that arise from more fundamental causal structures.
Lastly, a statement becomes dogmatic not because it is true or false, but because it is presented as incontrovertibly true. Science should always be open to inquiry and revision-no theory should be treated as beyond question.
@@lepidoptera9337 And that was a dismissive response to a logically sound argument. If you wish to disagree with me, I ask that you engage with the argument itself rather than making hand-wavy dismissals. From this point forward, I will not respond to short, dismissive comments. The same applies to anyone else who wishes to comment: I will not engage with rhetorical or fallacious arguments. This is meant to be a reasoned discussion, not a rhetorical or religious debate.
@@lepidoptera9337
What kind of answer is that? You know that, in all this context, where many people with knowledge discuss the matter, your comment shows quality of absent mind! 😅🤔
@@ft7339 We can apply Bayesian reasoning to assess the likelihood that someone claiming to have a PhD in physics is engaging in this type of behavior.
Demographics: Typically, the minimum age for obtaining a PhD is around 22-26. Younger individuals are statistically more likely to engage in certain online behaviors like shown here, but this tends to decrease with age and education. Higher education, especially at the PhD level, often correlates with more focused and thoughtful discussions.
Behavioral Patterns: The way someone engages in a conversation can provide clues. Someone with a PhD might be expected to engage with specific arguments or evidence in a constructive way. Certain casual behaviors, like using smiley faces in serious discussions, could suggest a different context or level of engagement.
Based on these observations and the nature of their comments, it's reasonable to conclude that it is less likely than not (
We can apply Bayesian reasoning to assess the likelihood that someone claiming to have a PhD in physics is engaging in this type of behavior.
Demographics: Typically, the minimum age for obtaining a PhD is around 22-26. Younger individuals are statistically more likely to engage in certain online behaviors like shown here, but this tends to decrease with age and education. Higher education, especially at the PhD level, often correlates with more focused and thoughtful discussions.
Behavioral Patterns: The way someone engages in a conversation can provide clues. Someone with a PhD might be expected to engage with specific arguments or evidence in a constructive way. Certain casual behaviors, like using smiley faces in serious discussions, could suggest a different context or level of engagement.
Based on these observations and the nature of their comments, it's reasonable to conclude that it is less likely than not (
The idea that light travels at the same speed in two different directions has not yet been proven.
If light is the fastest thing, then in principle, it is not provable, but a convenient assumption.
It's the simplest idea. It may not be proven but it is useful regardless of the fact. The assertion that light speed is anisotropic hasn't been proven either, is apparently impossible to disprove (since the testable two way speed case is equivalent to the isotropic light speed) and only serves to complicate the theories that rely on it.
It has actually even been disproven by rotating black holes and observations of frame dragging around Earth.
@@PerpetualScience citation please
Newton.
Excellent video from crackpot. Even if you could get away with a SR-equivalent theory with horrible anisotropic equations and observer-speed-dependent 1-ways speed of light in the classical case, the fact that we live in a Minkowskian geometry is proven definitively by the predictions of the standard model. The decay of muons is perfect proof that time dilation is a real phenomenon and not an illusion. In fact, there is no mechanism, no clock, inside the muon that could explain its duration when it arrives at Earth at high speed. It is a fact of quantum mechanics that there is no cause for muon decay.
The anomalous magnetic moment calculation & experiment of the electron is yet another spectacular proof that SR is the correct theory to describe the symmetry of space-time.
As Minkowski said, ‘Space of itself, and time of itself will sink into mere shadows, and only a kind of union between them shall survive.’
Newton absolute space and time is false, get over it, it's been 120 years now.
Actually there is no definite proof for the muon decay being influenced by 'time dilation' by srt. It could also just be that the more energetic the particle, the less fast it decays. It is all circular reasoning there and does not proof shit.
Newton's absolute time and space reigns supreme. And all theories denying these simple facts are metaphysics just like Tesla said. Modern physics is a complete joke.
@@michaelpieters1844but Spinoza makes so much sense - for a moment - and then one has, at least, at least.. go to sleep, sometime...
@michaelpieters1844 You can't just make things up.
The LET is a theory of classical electrodynamics. Lorentz's aim was to have an electromatic theory that could explain all observations. This was a fairly popular paradigm at the beginning of the 20th century (the fact that all physics was reducible to electromagnetism). Even mass was thought to derive from electromagnetism. In this theory, the contraction of lengths is dynamic, i.e. it is the reorganization of EM fields that explains this effect. In this theory, the ether is the only reference frame in which objects at rest relative to it are not contracted. The problem is that Poincaré shows that this ether is not detectable, that even an observer moving relative to the ether will see objects (at rest in the ether) contracted due to a problem of clock synchronization. All this is ad-hoc, but that's not the problem.
Special relativity has a completely different physical content. The effects of length contractions are kinematic effects. It is the fact that objects move in a Minkowski space that explains these contractions. The very structure of space-time explains Lorentz symmetry. And the undetectable ether disappears.
Now why was special relativity preferred to LET? We could talk about aesthetic arguments, Occam's razor, etc. But the important point is the development of quantum mechanics. QM simply destroyed the classical vision and the possibility of explaining everything with electromagnetism. Lorentz's naive version of the electron was shown to be false and special relativity has since been overwhelmingly accepted. Indeed, even if SR and LET make the same predictions classically, LET is not compatible with QM and is therefore FALSE. Classical electrodynamics is only an approximation and cannot be the fundamental theory.
Mansouri-Sexl's theory is completely equivalent to Lorentz's and therefore wrong (the latter also recognize that special relativity is a much better theory, for other reasons).
@@OliveVerte-d9mYou do know that Einstein’s relativity nonsense has never been validated. No experiment to date has shown a link to acceleration in space va acceleration in time.
Lead 210 decays into lead 206 when it's mined. Why is that? Because motion (time) is absolute to the frame of reference. Place objects in a freezer. Time is slowed down. Remove from freezer, time speeds up. Same with lead. Lead doesn't decay in the ground because there is no place for the energy to go. Once it's mined, that energy is released it escapes the frame of reference.
Your muon example is completely bogus. You are taking the average and applying it to the whole. Muons are created when radiation from the sun accelerates charged particles. Each muon has a different energy value and a different creation point. Plus it experiences a different environment - atmospheric pressure/energy.
Modern physics is stuck on stupid because of what the alternative entails.
F=ma. Force comes from Acceleration. Where does Acceleration come from then?
Two possibilities. A creator god (Genesis) or an infinite universe (Giordano Bruno). Modern physics scoffs at the Bible and Bruno was burned at the stake for his infinite universe theory.
Newton's gravitational attraction nonsense. Einstein's relativity nonsense. They exist because you can't handle the truth.
@@OliveVerte-d9m I didn't block you. I think my comment just disappeared. I am aware of LET vs SRT. Both are wrong.
Thanks!
Bravo! Just donated superthanks. Your series have been mind blowing. I agree that perhaps as mortals that live inside space-time and have chemistries for brains, or even our instruments like computers that live inside space-time. That we will never know. Science had been super arrogant to think that it is possible to seek real truth.
You have completely unraveled that illusion. This is not a small feat.
It's turtles all the way down, If you know what I mean. Since we're limited by our mortality and our physical presence, we will never know what lies behind existential reality. A two-dimensional being can never hope to explain, understand, control, and acquire power from the third dimension. It's exceedingly easy for that two dimension being to explain away that the third dimension doesn't exist or is a pure hallucination of their version of "Lorentz's Ether".
It's the same for an ice planet with very thick ice and liquid ocean. A sentient fish civilization under it will have theories that makes perfect sense for them, that all living things must live underwater, since their entire lives they do not know anything else. They may not even have any theories of black hole because they can never leave. They might even think their world ends at the ice border. Their version of the Ether is basically the rest of the universe.
I am using the term Ether as an "unknowable, unmeasurable" thing : at least with our current technology.
The problem, as you said, is if we measure all scientific progress using relativity, then we basically establish a understanding framework where true space and true time cannot exist, and then we base all our scientific theory from that point on. It is the same as the fish or the 2D beings. By accepting it, we have basically given up trying to search for anything beyond.
So many things about science are suddenly showing up as limitations. We can't know if there's something before the Big bang, or if the Big bang itself is at risk. We can't know if there's something smaller than our smallest quantum theories. We can't know if physics is the same inside the event horizon. With quantum erasers, we've shown that causation can go backwards in time. So many holes, not temporary holes, but permanent ones that we know we CANNOT KNOW with our current observation techniques (or ever) and current way of collecting information.
Everything seems to suggest that it really is The Matrix. It just depends on how big you think the Matrix is. It does mean that maybe there is something just behind the Matrix and unfortunately we cannot see it.
Very well written, and insightful! Our quest for knowledge often leads to revelations about the limitations of such pursuits. "We know that we know nothing" yet we must ultimately keep on inferring, all the same...
Thank you for your support, and stay tuned!
It's ALL about the Einstein bashing to attract EU folk. The only thing missing is the Tesla brown nose'n. IMO it's a rather douchey way to go about things if you really want to be taken seriously. Just put FWD your superior ideas so they can be examined FFS.
Maxwell electrodynamic theory is Galilean invariant. Check Hrvoje Dodig work on Galilean non-invariance of Maxwell equations revisited.
The queen of electrodynamics is Ampére's Force Law which was deduced from experiments and can be obtained
through Weber Electrodynamics which is also Galilean invariant.
It is superior to Lorentz Force which was just theoretically assembled together by Lorentz using one force component
from the stationary frame and another part from the moving frame.
Lorentz force does not conserve linear momentum. Ampére's force conserves linear momentum.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not give a null-result but obtained a velocity of the Earth that was much less
than what was assumed in a time when mainstream science claimed the sun was fixed relative to the nearby stars.
There are no positive detections of special relativity in the photon sector, only null results 'confirming' the theory.
There is no experimental evidence for the invariance of the speed of light with regards to the observer/detector.
If there is a relative velocity present between the Earth and a nearby Star,
relativity claims the light of that star has a relative velocity c with respect to both the Star, the Earth and any other moving body.
There is no experimental evidence for Lorentz-Fitzgerald length contraction.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic stellar aberration.
There is no experimental evidence for relativistic source brightening.
Classical Sagnac effects contradicts Special Relativity but mainstream science claims relativity does not apply because
of the rotating equipment to be a non-inertial system.
A first order timing correction due to Sagnac effect is required to make GPS work.
The fact that it requires such a correction is in direct conflict with Special Relativity.
In their famous 1972 paper Hafele & Keating did not publish the original test data.
An analysis of the original data by Kelly tells relativistic time dilation is not proven.
Einstein and Arthur Eddington predict a 1,70 to 1,75 arcseconds radial displacement of light due to gravitational lightbending.
The correct calculated value according to Einstein's theory is in fact 1,1 arcseconds, as calculated by Charles Lane Poor.
General Relativity can not predict both the radial as the direction of gravitational lightbending, given the experimental data.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the perihelium of Mars.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Mercury.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the node of Venus.
General Relativity can not predict the discordance in the eccentricity of Mercury.
@@michaelpieters1844 exactly ... nom nom
If clocks slows when traveling at high speed, but time itself doesn't, then how come we ovserve inceased half-life in unstable particles coming from space or in particle accelerators, when these particle are moving in speeds close to C, in exact accordance with Lorentz time trasformation?
BTW, this is measured with clocks in rest, or better yet at setup that involve the particle having to transverse a distance to a detector, which is considerably longer than distance that could be transversed at low speeds, i.e. without referring to clocks at all.
While initially i really liked your videos, more and more often they become nonsense.
Sad
Imo its not nonsense, its philosophy, and philosophy is good thought practice disguised as nonsense.
@@zyansheep he is misrepresenting Einstein and modern physics. He also made totally false analogies.
This video is bs
We got High quality Crackpot theories.
@auseryt why is it BS? I see a lot of comments dismissing the video without explaining what has been misinterpreted or why what dialect is proposing is nonsense or BS. Without any effort to explain this, it is you, sir, who spouts the BS. At this presenter has fully explained himself even if he is wrong. At least there's a potentially engaging discussion on the horizon. Be apart of it
@@grahamzibar i did explained why in an answer to another comment
A brilliant video and I agree with your point to question relativity. Time is not an actual invariant but a measurement, the very foundations of relativity need to be re-cognized. Another important point is the limitations of the geometric framework used that assumes isotropy.
Some further thoughts on this:
Einsteinian Time is Relative and Measurement-Based
Time as a Dimension in Spacetime
In both Special and General Relativity, time is treated as the fourth dimension, inseparably linked with the three spatial dimensions to form a four-dimensional spacetime continuum. The structure of spacetime is dynamic, influenced by the presence of mass and energy. Gravity, in this context, is not a force but the curvature of spacetime caused by mass.
Einstein made the speed of light the universal speed limit and an invariant for all observers. This invariance means that time and space must adjust to ensure that the speed of light remains constant across all reference frames. This leads to effects like time dilation, where time slows down for objects moving at high velocities relative to an observer.
Time in Einstein's theory is inherently relative-it depends on the observer's state of motion and the gravitational field they are in. It is fundamentally a measurement of the sequence of events, shaped by the geometry of spacetime. Time here is a parameter that helps measure the interval between events but is not considered an absolute entity.
Limitations of Relativity's Time
Time is Not Absolute: In relativity, time is not a universal constant. It can stretch or compress depending on the observer's frame of reference. While this explains many observed phenomena, it leaves time as a variable dependent on the speed of light, leading to questions about its true nature.
Emergent Nature of Time
Time as a Measurement vs. Time as an Emergent Property
Einsteinian Time: Time is a coordinate, a measurement of intervals within the spacetime continuum. It is relative, dependent on the observer's velocity and gravitational field, and is directly linked to the speed of light as the limiting velocity.
Einstein's Gravity: Gravity is the curvature of spacetime caused by mass. It dictates how objects move and how time flows. In this view, the universe is a dynamic stage where the geometry of spacetime evolves due to the influence of mass and energy.
Reality Beyond Temporal Constraints
Einsteinian Perspective: The universe is a four-dimensional spacetime, with time as an integral part of the structure. Events are located in spacetime coordinates, and reality is understood through the lens of how spacetime curves and evolves.
time is not an inherent dimension as in Einstein's relativity, nor is it a mere measurement. Instead, it is an emergent property.
Heart me 🥵
You put a valid doubt but is simpler to understand if you apply Lorentz´s factor as a scale value. For example, in time don´t change the speed of the handle, keep it constant as the universal passage of time is; just change the scale of the dial. When a 50% of time dilation is present, imagine the dial from 0 to 6 (not in twelve units); for a 75% of time dilation the dial will only contain 3 units. Of course, at the speed of light the dial will have the same value all over. Meanwhile, the handle follows the universal passage of time, the value given by the clock will show zero change, always the same value. By using the scale change it´s easier to understand. For the length contraction, just imagine an engineer or architecture ruler, the value indicated depends on the scale selected. The ruler length does not change or shrink, just the values are different because the scale is changed (very important, no space is missing when the contraction is applied!). You can read more of this in a paper named "A new interpretation of special theory of relativity" DOI: 10.21275/SR23918031232 hope it will inspire in this important questioning that you are presenting. Regards
You’re like the conspiracy theorist of physics, lol
Discrediting is the province of those who cannot debate. Have a great one!
Do you even understand what a conspiracy is? At no point in time, has this channel proposed that anyone is involved in a conspiracy to do anything.
Like their channel name implies, they are using dialectical reasoning to try to understand and present the ontological arguments of physics.
That is a commendable endeavor that should be encouraged and supported whether or not you agree with the hypothesis presented. So far, every video has been presented with transparency and accountability.
Clocks are sensible measures of time, e.g., clocks (or shadows or grains of sand) can be sensed through a human eye even if time itself is insensible. We have five senses; that is what Newton mean by "sensible." I agree that our language is a big problem here, but elementary students know that in reality there are no perfect vacuums, and that light is slowed when passing through different media, like a glass of water. The main idea is that causes always precede effects irrespective of one's inertial frame of observation. No inertial frame is special; nobody has their own, special physics. Thanks, Copernicus.
I would advise a little bit of modesty here. Last time I checked Einstein made many predictions which were confirmed with experiments, so far Dialect made none. You guys may still be right though. Just prove it. You don’t need to discredit anyone. Be constructive.
Einstein didn't proof anything it was sciencentist in later life using twisted form of GR to make it work
Newton FTW
This channel is not serious