Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

No, FBM, you're not an idiot, or else I wouldn't "waste" my time talking to you. And, also, because you're not an idiot, I would take the time to "warn" you about SR (you're of course free to completely disagree with, and reject, anything I say, but at least you would hear the "other side" of it). Of course, you may not really even be that interested, which would also be understandable.

I don't mind starting slow, but I'm not sure where to start. I remember that you did take the time to read some online "introductory" material on the topic, and there's a lot of that. And, of course, it's usually presented in a "smooth" way which makes it all sound very acceptable (if you're new to the subject, anyway).

So I really don't know where to start. Perhaps you could read a little and then see if it raised any questions in your mind. This is probably not the best place to start, but let me give this example, for an "introduction."

For reasons (e.g. questions raised by the Michaelson-Morley experiment) I won't go into right now, Al was trying to solve a problem pertaining to the "speed" of light. Let's take a second to look at what "speed" is.

As I'm sure you know, it's a rather simple concept, with a simple formula. Speed (S) = the time it took (T) to travel a certain distance (D). So speed is a ratio: S = D/T. So D/T might be 100 miles (per) hour. That means that you would go 100 miles in one hour if you keep going at that steady rate.

Now, just suppose I said something like this: It's 500 miles from Chicago to New Orleans. You're in Chicago. How long would it take you to get there if you go 100 mph. Easy: 5 hours. How about if you're going 50/mph? Also easy: 10 hours

Now suppose I tell you: Every car going from Chicago to New Orleans MUST ALWAYS go at the rate of 100 mph. You might say, that can't be true. a guy going taking 10 hours to get there would only be going 50. How do I answer this? Well I have two variables. I've ALREADY set the thing that "is to be determined" (the speed, 100 mph) so I can't ADJUST that. So what else can I play with (mathematically) here? Well, only T (time) and/or D (distance).

So, if I want to "prove" I'm right I could say, for example. It DIDN'T take that guy 10 hours to get there, he only thought it did. In fact his watch was running fast, and it really only took him 5 hours, not 10.

Or, I could say: it wasn't 500 miles "for him," his odometer was off. It only ticked off a mile every two miles. So, even though his odometer told him it was only 500 miles, it was really 1000 miles, and THAT'S why it took him 10 hours. You might then say, now wait a minute, you said it was 500 miles...now your just making **** up to meet your conditions. You're changing time and/or distance, just to make S, which you say HAS to be 100, come out at 100.

I would say, yeah, that's right. Would you then have any further questions?

To contrast an AST with SR:

1. Lorentz would say: Yes indeed, for reasons we don't fully understand, time and distance do, in fact, change with speed. But the distance from Chicago to New Orleans doesn't change, nor does the length of an hour. The only thing that changes is the way you end up MEASURING an hour, or a mile.

2. SR would say the distance to New Orleans DOES change. The length of an hour does change. Your watch doesn't really change, nor does your odometer. What changes is "time itself" and space (distance) itself."

You can explain it either way. One way says, for example, clocks "really do" slow down with speed. The other says, in effect, no, the watch doesn't change at all, only 'time" does (if that makes any sense). Btw, Al started out saying that clocks did "really" slow down. The problem was that such a claim was inconsistent with his premise. As interpreted today, that's not the case with SR, because the claim is that light REALLY always travels at c, not merely that (as Lorentz said) it only "appears" to travel at c, when it "really" doesn't.

Edit: I said

"1. Lorentz would say: Yes indeed, for reasons we don't fully understand, time and distance do, in fact, change with speed."

I should have said:

1. Lorentz would say: Yes indeed, for reasons we don't fully understand, time and distance do, in fact, APPEAR TO change with speed.

Yeah, Parados, I've heard that tale too. Of course the "theory" being referred to there is general relativity, not special relativity. GR, btw, claims that the speed of light is NOT always the same. SR postulates that it IS always the same (in a vacuum, for inertially moving objects, anyway).

Correct ! The only idiot/fool/axe grinder is the one who thinks that the Einstein postulate of the constancy of the speed of light (etc) is anything more than a highly fruitful axiom which generated multiple new insights and observations. The elegance of the postulate is that its counter-intuitive implications are unlikely to have occurred without it. The very idea of an imperative "must" for a scientific postulate is ridiculous. The fact that the functionality of the postulate has been so robust for over a century relative to less elegant alternatives has enhanced its paradigmatic status beyond doubt for all but a minority. That is not to say that it is set in stone and will not eventually be superceded or delimited by other paradigms partially riding on the coat-tails of data generated by relativity per se.

Don't expect a reply any time soon.

Which just happens to be virtually every person I've come across in this thread. I have made this point myself. I have no problem with the math, or using it as a shortcut in calculations (as Lorentz himself did). The problem I have is with people earnestly and steadfastly maintaining that it IS more than that, i.e., that it is a "reality."

And I really don't even care much about that, EXCEPT that in the process of trying to argue that it is "real" proponents end up making all kinds of contradictory and illogical arguments. New people buy into these, and so on. It promulgates and encourages extremely specious and subjective reasoning, and, therefore, a totally mistaken view of what constitutes "reality."

No. You are talking about "naive realists" just like you who you set up as claiming that they can differentiate between "subjective knowledge" and "ontological truth". You are a hypocrite if you think you can pick and choose between paradigms on the basis of what you consider to be "the truth".

You are a fool, Fresco, who has no comprehension of what anybody is ever saying, except as modified and filtered by your all-pervasive, bastardized subjectivist "epistemology." That, and, I suppose, whatever caprice you have adopted to "inform" your views, such as, for example, establishing an agenda designed to implement a personal vendetta against those you have decided to oppose.

Quite right! A fool for trying correct your textbook Freudian projectionism!

Heh. Why, I wonder, does it not surprise me that you want to resort to a completely unscientific set of speculative doctrines, such as are incorporated in "textbook Freud," to promote your subjectivist ways?

Your idea of both (1) "proving" that you are right, and (2) simultaneously insulting someone, which REALLY PROVES you're right, I guess.

Rave on, Fresco.

Am reading and pondering. Will get back to you when I have something worthwhile to contribute.

I'm not trying to pick on you FBM, or single you out, but this is the problem many times. You have consistently given answers such as "both are correct," when I'm sure you know, at some level, that such an answer doesn't really make sense. It's like saying the rules of logic simply don't apply to anything involving SR.

Why? Probably because you've seen enough to know what the experts have said and you don't want to sound like a "scientific ignoramus" by saying things that conflict with what you've been told. But that is the mistake: abandoning your own independent judgment in order to conform to "accepted opinion." Like Essen said:



http://able2know.org/topic/265997-44#post-5897018

In another paper, from 1971, which I did not cite previously, Essen said this on a little more personal level:



http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2007-07/msg01178.html

I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my position. I just don't see a logical problem with observers in different inertial frames having separate local times without claiming a universally objective/standard time. Counter-intuitive? Definitely. A random, wild-ass guess? No...I don't think so. But I'm still reading up on the history of SR, so I will have a better informed post later.

OK, great. Sorry to get premature about it.

That was an unnecessary bit of speculation, I think. Especially considering that I've already mentioned several times above that I'm at the limit of my understanding of SR. If I were so afraid of being considered a scientific ignoramus, I wouldn't have replied like that; I'd have cobbled together enough bits of science-literate phrases and pretended to be on a par with everyone else in this discussion. But I have a strong dislike for pretentiousness and/or intellectual dishonesty (hence my uncharacteristically confrontational beef with Herald) and I'm also leery of acting hypocritically. I know/understand what I know/understand, I don't know/understand what I don't know/understand, and try to be clear and open about it. I accept what I accept, I reject what I reject based on how it appears to me, not others. I don't suck intellectual dick. (or any other kind)

I don't see the error.

My apologies, FBM. I said that because I have asked in what sense you meant that (both are correct) and, as I recall, you didn't say that it was in a relative sense. So I thought the reason for the hesitancy might lie elsewhere.

There is certainly no logical contradiction, in itself, between these 2 propositions, standing alone

1. A claims he is stationary, and that only B is moving, and
2. B claims he is stationary, and that only A is moving.

Nor is it illogical to say: "A is right, from his perspective, and B is right, from his perspective," since those claims are qualified.

I'm still not sure why you gave the answer you gave, to the question(s) originally asked, but I'll wait to see.

I don't see any "error" in that picture either. Of course there's no way there could be. It doesn't "say" anything. I have already responded to your suggestion that conclusions drawn from such diagrams were "empirical observations" as opposed to "assumptions," however.