In July 2017, a massive chunk of ice broke off the Larson C ice shelf in Antarctica. The resulting tabular iceberg covered around 2,200 square miles—about the area of Delaware, and a tad smaller than the British county of Norfolk—and was one of the largest icebergs in recorded history to break off the continent. The event grabbed the attention of the media around the world, and was framed as yet another indication of the mounting impacts of human-activity-driven climate change. Thirteen years earlier, the climate disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow opened with a block of ice splitting off another of the Antarctic ice shelves, in this case the Larson B shelf. At the time, the sheer size of this make-believe tabular berg was mind-boggling enough to astound and shock moviegoers. But the movie-berg ended up being rather smaller than the 2017 one, coming in at a mere 1,212 square miles. Looking back, it’s sobering to realize that what was considered shockingly unimaginable in 2004 had become a pale reflection of reality in 2017.

We live in a stunning, awe-inspiring, pretty damn amazing world, with a million and one things that are just as mind-blowing as discovering aliens. And yet most of us simply don’t care.       

Fundamental Idea #1: The speed of light photons is the maximum speed allowed in our universe.  All other motion in the universe is relative to the speed of light photons and can be viewed as a percentage of the speed of light.

Fundamental Idea #2: Every particle and atom is a tiny clock that measures and creates time at its location.

Fundamental Idea #3: Motion and gravity cause those tiny “atomic clocks” to run slower relative to the speed of light.

1.     Big Pharma: The theory that pharmaceutical companies conspire to maximize profit by selling drugs that people do not actually need
2.     Global Warming Hoax: The theory that climate change is not caused by man-made carbon emissions, and that there’s some other motive for claiming this
3.     JFK: The theory that people in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy
4.     9/11 Inside Job: The theory that the events of 9/11 were arranged by elements within the US government
5.     Chemtrails: The theory that the trails left behind aircraft are part of a secret spraying program
6.     False Flag Shootings: The theory that shootings like Sandy Hook and Las Vegas either never happened or were arranged by people in power
7.     Moon Landing Hoax: The theory that the Moon landings were faked in a movie studio
8.     UFO Cover-Up: The theory that the US government has contact with aliens or crashed alien crafts and is keeping it secret
9.     Flat Earth: The theory that the Earth is flat, but governments, business, and scientists all pretend it is a globe
10.    Reptile Overlords: The theory that the ruling classes are a race of shape-shifting trans-dimensional reptiles

Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. Velocities greater than that of light have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.

This relationship may be tested experimentally, since the velocity of the electron can be directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating electric and magnetic fields. 

  

July 18, 2021 - On Wednesday afternoon, I decided to start a new discussion thread on Facebook using the comment and image I mentioned here on that day.  The Astrophysics and Physics Facebook Group is moderated, so the image didn't get posted until 6:34 that evening.  The resulting discussion lasted just two days, ending on Friday afternoon with 99 comments, 22 "likes" and 2 "haha's".



It was a terrific discussion, mostly between me and a Minnesotan named Brandon, who posted 40 of the 99 comments, and that South American college professor named Miguel, who posted 8 messages.  I posted 39 comments in response to those messages and in response to a few messages from others who posted just one comment each.

We're no longer arguing about the speed of the light, we both seem to agree it's c. We're now arguing about whether the car would see light from the radar gun blueshifted if it is the radar gun moving, not the car.

I have a radar gun. I've studied it and others, and I've performed many experiments. Einstein's second postulate is confirmed: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING BODY."

The speed of the gun does not cause red or blue shifting of the photons that are EMITTED. It DOES, however affect the red and blue shifting of the RETURNING photons when the gun is moving.

How do we determine if the car measures the light blueshifted or not from a [moving] radar gun?

Einstein's Second Postulate says that blueshifting CANNOT be done by the emitter. Therefore it can ONLY be done by the receiver.

That's not our case. Our case is the car is at rest, the gun is moving. How do we determine if the light is blueshifted in the car's frame of reference, if the car is at rest, and it is the gun that is moving? The NASA link has the car moving. Doesn't answer our question. And it holds the same if the car wasn't moving, and it was the emitter moving instead, at least from my understanding of relativity. But you seem to think the light would NOT be blueshifted from the car's frame of reference if the car was at rest and the emitter was moving.

When you start talking about "frames of reference," you are getting into mathematical models and AWAY FROM REALITY.

The car is NOT moving. The radar gun is moving. If you create a FANTASY where the car is moving and the radar gun is stationary, then your FANTASY has no basis in reality.

Radar guns work IN REALITY even if they do not work in your fantasies.

Yep, a situation where the observer is stationary and the emitter is moving, then we're asking if the light detected by the observer (the receiver) is blueshifted or redshifted depending on if the emitter is moving away from or towards the receiver. In my head, that is identical to the receiver moving away from or towards the emitter.

Only in mathematics are they identical. In REALITY and LOGICALLY one is moving at a smaller percentage of the speed of light than the other, so the "reference frames" where each can be viewed as being stationary are PURE FANTASY and NOT VALID in Einstein's universe. In a talk Einstein gave to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in 1921, he stated, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Amen to that.

Thanks for the discussion, but let's end it here.

One of the most ABSURD beliefs in physics is that all motion is relative, therefore when viewing an accident it is equally valid to say that a speeding car hit a stationary wall as it is to say that a speeding wall hit a stationary car.

And I posted this image:

That Mythbusters episode is about how a car crumples to absorb the energy of a crash.

Your claim is the same as saying that when playing pool, a fast moving pool ball will hit a stationary ball and they will both remain in place [or bounce away from each other].

In reality, of course, the fast moving ball-A hits the stationary ball-B and transfers its kinetic energy to the stationary ball-B. Ball-B then speeds away from Ball-A, which has come to a stop.

The crashing of spacecraft would be like suspending glass ball-A from a string and then throwing glass ball-B at ball-A as hard as you can. Do you really believe the speed of Ball-B won't matter, and the pieces of both balls will scatter equally in all directions? It seems like an easy experiment to perform.

I don't have time to teach you basic physics. The point remains that [your claim that] "One of the most ABSURD beliefs in physics is that all motion is relative" is total nonsense.

July 14, 2021 - That discussion thread I started on July 11 at 2:49 PM on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group is still going strong, but it's getting somewhat tedious.  It now has 28 "likes" and 2 "loves," and it has 196 comments.  The problem is that that professor from South America is still arguing that, regardless of what experiments and science papers show, motion does NOT slow down clocks, motion actually causes clocks to travel a different route through "spacetime," which results in the clock showing a different time than a stationary clock when the two clocks are compared.

Clearly nothing is going to change his mind.  I've showed him document after document that says motion slows down the tick rate of clocks, but he just finds something somewhere in the paper that he can twist to support his beliefs.  And he has also found a few sources that agree with his beliefs.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking of starting a NEW thread using this image:



The question is:  Why do you need an "ether" if all speeds are a percentage of the speed of light?  If I am going at 0.01% of the speed of light, and you are going at 0.02% of the speed of light, you are going faster than I am.  By no stretch of the imagination can you claim that I am going faster than you are.  Motion may be relative to some other body, but if the two bodies are not stationary relative to one another, one of them is moving at a higher percentage of the speed of light.  That is why Einstein stated that his theory made the luminiferous ether "superfluous."

I just don't know if I want to start a new argument on Facebook.  On the other hand, if I don't post the image and get opinions, there could be something to it that I'm missing.  And I don't know what the naysayers' opinion is. 

July 12, 2021 - Yesterday, at 2:49 PM, I started a new discussion thread on the Astrophysics and Physics Facebook group.  I started it with this image:



And this comment:

It appears that Time is a "thing."  Time Dilation experiments show Time is something that can be affected by motion and gravity.  Illusions and concepts cannot be affected by motion and gravity.  Einstein seemed to think that every atom is a tiny clock whose tick rate can be affected by motion and gravity.  That would make time the same as particle spin.  Slow particle spin and you slow time.

Time is a concept created by man, because humans cannot fathom everything happening at once.

Motion and gravity are also illusions.

Ok, you have your fixed ideas about this and I will stop the discussion here. The difference between principle and postulate is that principle is a fundamental assumption while postulate is something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument.

Hafele-Keating experiment has nothing to do with Einstein 1905 paper.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY predicts that a moving standard clock will record less time compared with (real or hypothetical) coordinate clocks distributed at rest in an inertial reference space.   

Thank you for the TERRIFIC DISCUSSION! You showed me how mathematicians are unable to comprehend Time Dilation, so they IGNORE Einstein's postulates and just make up stuff using various principles from one place or another. It is CRAZY!

In any theory in science, the postulates or principles defined are the equivalent of axioms used in mathematics. Postulates or principles are stated as true and they do not need to be justified. You are reading too much on the "which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former" words used by Einstein.

If you present two POSTULATES that APPEAR TO CONFLICT, then you MUST explain how they do not conflict. Today WE KNOW THAT TIME DILATION RECONCILES THE TWO POSTULATES. Time dilation is what the paper is about.

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

Yes, I KNOW that. But what if you have TWO POSTULATES THAT APPEAR TO CONFLICT? Then you MUST explain why they do NOT conflict as part of your "further reasoning and arguments."

The TWO POSTULATES do NOT conflict because of TIME DILATION. The paper explains how Time Dilation works.

Hi:) I have a question.
What I've known lately in school is that when light passes through a glass, light bends and somehow losses speed. (If I'm not mistaken, energy also). Then after surpassing the glass, it will regain it's original speed like wow! But how?

All waves do this.

Light specifically doesn’t loose energy by doing this. Sorta…..

There is no such thing as fully transparent matter. So some of the light will be reflected and the rest will pass through. “Speed” will depend on the medium (glass, water etc).

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/.../Optical-Density-and...

So energy is lost with respect to some being reflected and scattered

Every photon (bundle of electromagnetic energy) travels between the interatomic void at a speed of c; yet time delay involved in the process of being absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the material lowers the net speed of transport from one end of the medium to the other. Subsequently, the net speed of an electromagnetic wave in any medium is somewhat less than its speed in a vacuum - c (3 x 108 m/s).

In other words, a photon does not travel "through" water. A light photon hits an atom in the water (or air), and it is absorbed by the atom. The atom cannot hold the extra energy, so it emits a NEW photon. The NEW photon travels at the speed of light to the next atom. This process continues, atom by atom, until the energy leaves the water or air and gets back into the vacuum of space where it once again becomes a single photon that travels at the speed of light.
Photons travel from atom to atom at the speed of light. But the process of being absorbed and re-emitted as a NEW photon countless times means the light will take longer to get from one side of a substance to the other than it would if the substance wasn't there.

I wonder why people are giving different answers. That brings another question. Is science constant or it depends on the scientific view of scientists!?

Well, to start with, there is no "battle" between physicists working on Relativity and those working in QM.

When Einstein uses the word "stationary", it means the location of an observer, which considers himself at rest. A physics laboratory, inside a building, is usually an example of a stationary system. The fact that Earth is rotating and orbiting the Sun does not affects in a meaningful way the experiments of that laboratory. When Einstein writes "emitted by a stationary or by a moving body", it is a matter of logic to conclude that the stationary observer will also receive the light at speed c. If that were not the case then "emitted by a moving body" could not be true!!!

Einstein STATES that "stationary" applies to A SYSTEM OF COORDINATES, NOT TO ANY OBSERVER.

A stationary observer INSIDE a "stationary system of coordinates" WILL receive light at c. HOWEVER, a MOVING OBSERVER inside a "stationary system of coordinates" will NOT receive light at c.

That is not logic. You may well have a stationary light emitter sending light to a moving observer, which is totally equivalent to a moving light emitter sending light to a stationary observer.

NO!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! You do not understand a key part of Einstein's theory. A stationary emitter sending light to a moving observer will result in the observer observing the light to arrive at c+v or c-v.

A moving emitter sending light to a stationary observer will result in the observer observing the light to arrive at c. So will a stationary emitter sending light to a stationary observer.

Einstein's Second Postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."

That means that no matter how an emitter is moving (or not moving) the emitter will always emit light at c. It says NOTHING about how an OBSERVER will receive that light. The Doppler shift says a MOVING OBSERVER can receive that light at c+v or c-v.

This is FUNDAMENTAL physics and optics.

I think the key is that light consists of photons, not waves. You can fantasize about waves getting farther and farther apart, but when you talk about photons you are talking about something that remains unchanged from the time it is emitted until it hits something.

          At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works. There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big. Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces – electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.
          Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.
          The conflict between the two halves of physics has been brewing for more than a century – sparked by a pair of 1905 papers by Einstein, one outlining relativity and the other introducing the quantum – but recently it has entered an intriguing, unpredictable new phase.

As his own books make clear, Trump is completely lacking in empathy and has always had a dog-eat-dog view of the world: kill or be killed, and always get even. It’s a relentlessly dark view, shaped by his domineering father, Fred, who gave him a zero-sum perspective, and by his early mentor Roy Cohn, who gave him the advice, when in trouble, “Attack, attack, attack.” “The world is a horrible place,” Trump declared in his book Think Big. “Lions kill for food, but people kill for sport.” And: “The same burning greed that makes people loot, kill, and steal in emergencies like fires and floods, operates daily in normal everyday people. It lurks right beneath the surface, and when you least expect it, it rears its nasty head and bites you. Accept it. The world is a brutal place. People will annihilate you just for the fun of it or to show off to their friends.”

A 2016 Pew survey showed that 45 percent of Republicans view Democratic policies as a threat to the nation’s well-being, and 41 percent of Democrats say the same about GOP policies. And the animosity goes well beyond policy disagreements; it’s personal. Seventy percent of Democrats in that Pew survey said that Republicans are more close-minded than other Americans; meanwhile, 47 percent of Republicans said Democrats are more immoral than other Americans, and 46 percent said they are lazier.

A 2017 Pew survey showed that Americans don’t even agree about the value of a college education: while 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said colleges and universities have a positive effect on the country, a majority of Republicans and Republican leaners (58 percent) have a negative view of those institutions of higher learning.

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 was eerily clairvoyant about the dangers America now faces. In order to protect its future, he said, the young country must guard its Constitution and remain vigilant about efforts to sabotage the separation and balance of powers within the government that he and the other founders had so carefully crafted. Washington warned about the rise of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” who might try “to subvert the power of the people” and “usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

And, finally, Washington warned of the “continual mischiefs of the spirit of party,” which are given to creating strife through “ill-founded jealousies and false alarms,” and the perils that factionalism (East versus West, North versus South, state versus federal) posed to the unity of the country. Citizens, he said, must indignantly frown “upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.”

Velocities greater than that of light have — as in our previous results — no possibility of existence. 

According to British conspiracy theorist David Icke, who first published on this theme in his 1999 work The Biggest Secret, tall, blood-drinking, shape-shifting reptilian humanoids from the Alpha Draconis star system, now hiding in underground bases, are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy against humanity. He contends that most of the world's ancient and modern leaders are related to these reptilians, including the Merovingian dynasty, the Rothschilds, the Bush family and the British Royal family. Icke's conspiracy theories now have supporters in up to 47 countries and he has given lectures to crowds of up to 6,000 people.

American writer Vicki Santillano included Icke's conspiracy theory in her list of the 10 most popular conspiracy theories. A poll of Americans in 2013 by Public Policy Polling indicated that 4% of registered voters (±2.8%) believed in David Icke's ideas.

"I never cease to be dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe."