Then Einstein came along with his SpaceTime nonsense and started convincing people that it's this "thing" we're moving in, and you can in theory go faster or slower or backward...
Post
Remote status
Context
3Then Einstein came along with his SpaceTime nonsense and started convincing people that it's this "thing" we're moving in, and you can in theory go faster or slower or backward...
@cjd Your explanation of time from 100 years ago seems circular but I'm not sure I can phrase it better. It's fundamental under either model.
The interesting thing about physics is the predictive value. Einstein predicted things that were later observed. So is his model closer to /reality/ than previous models? Maybe the universe updates it's rendering method based on perception of how it works.
That guy is not a great presenter but he makes the most of his abilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykObAiS4ugg
Absolutely true, and a lot of people who dis on him sweep this part under the rug. But most of his really useful work was on Special Relativity, and General Relativity is more just "cute math".
Lorenz argued that light is a wave which travels in a medium. That was famously impossible to measure, but Lorenz countered that you can't measure it because whatever you're trying to measure it with is likewise effected.
Einstein eschewed this, saying if you can't directly measure it then it's not real and you shouldn't spend your time talking about it.
Generally speaking this is good rule, but in this case, assuming:
1. There IS an aether which we're traveling through at some speed
2. Light cannot exceed C in that aether
3. Atomic orbits are likewise bound to C in the aether, and
4. Every physical process you can imagine building a clock from is likewise linked to the speed of atomic orbit, and therefore C
Then we can have a Classical Physics explanation for both Time Dilation and Lorenz Contraction. Time dilation is simply the effect of atomic orbits (and therefore, clocks) slowing down as you travel faster in the aether, and Lorenz Contraction is just the effect of atomic orbits becoming squeezed for the same reason.
@cjd Thanks for the explanation. I don't know enough to continue this directly but speaking in more general terms there are always underlying assumptions maybe in several tiers and models leave out variables or put a constant in place of a string of variables that's constant enough.
In terms of observation this can also be flawed. We have a model which predicts things and so we try to find them.
I don't know how well that translates to physics.
Replies
1A lot of the physics downstream of General Relativity goes into Neil-deGrass-Tyson-esque "when you think about it, the universe is really just one big fish bowl" kind of "pass the bong" nonsense.
The math matches the experiments (for the most part), but it does NOT give you any kind of useful intuition about how the world works.