Is Relativity Wrong About Gravity? - Dr. Henry Lindner, DemystifySci +422

Listen to DemystifySci at all podcast locations: https://anchor.fm/demystifysci Our book, Paradox Lost, is now on pre-sale! https://buy.stripe.com/7sY7sKdoN5d29eUdYddEs0b Listen to our music everywhere, download at Bandcamp, or pick up a record here: https://demystifysci-shop.fourthwall.com/products/vinyl-lp-secretary-of-nature-everything-is-so-good-here

Great video! Although I have a couple of comments: 1. I missed mentioning the justification of Mach for only caring about observables. It is because the Scientific method only allows us to prove or discard theories by such observations. The Scientific method does not allow you to prove a theory by reason only, and that's why all positivists cared only about what is perceived by the senses, i.e., what can be measured and proved correct. 2. Regarding the Twin Paradox, relativists won't simply tell you that acceleration is absolute. They will tell you that it is absolute and you can always measure it locally with an accelerometer. What they avoid explaining is that an accelerometer always measures acceleration with respect to an inertial frame of calibration. That means that they switch the question from "Am I accelerating?" to "Have I corrrectly calibrated my accelerometer to measure accelerations with respect to a true inertial frame?". The latter would require knowing what an inertial frame is, which is the same as being able to measure it through inertial forces, so its a circular argument. 3. Einstein never claimed that SR could handle accelerations (unlike relativists claim today). He said it very clearly in his paper "On the relativity problem" and never thought that accelerations were absolute. 4. Im pretty sure the Twin Paradox also occurs in Lorentz aether theory, at least operationally, because its mathematical formalism is exactly the same as SR. In other words, it gives the same predictions just by looking at the math; if time dilation had a function of acceleration inside such that acceleration wrt the cosmos gave 1 and no acceleration gave 0 (no time dilation), I would agree that Lorentz's theory solves the paradox. 5. ... I will continue...

Apparently, Berkeley CA, and therefore UC Berkeley, _is_ named after the Bishop.

Really appreciated all the insight and dialogue from all sides in this interview.

I've been talking about flowing space for years

Fascinating discussion on slowing clocks

@48:00 It always seemed to me that inventing the idea of light quanta being particles was convenient for Einstein because it freed Special Relativity from the need to acknowledge a physical medium.

I love how little we know

1:32:33 How do you know that the PG coordinates are the preferred frame coordinates when we can’t measure the one way speed of light, which is required to determine which frame is preferred?

Tesla viewed that the energy within matter was sourced from space.