14

# Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:01 pm
that a man on a moving train does NOT know he is moving relative to the earth's surface, and not vice versa? Who in the world would get on a train, feel himself being accelerated, and then, once a uniform speed has been attained, conclude that the trees, stop signs, houses, etc. are moving past him while he remains completely motionless. Isn't this rather absurd?

Who would ask the conductor if Chicago stops here?

Yet this presumption is the sine qua non of special relativity theory, isn't it?

Edit [Moderator]: Successor topic can be found here
http://able2know.org/topic/276564-1

contrex

2
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:05 pm
1. What is your point here?
2. Who is 'Einstien'? He sounds vaguely Baltic or Swedish.
Butrflynet

3
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:08 pm
@layman,
Dale's friend, Marty, would probably ask that.

http://able2know.org/topic/263988-1
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:11 pm
@contrex,
Contrex, thanks for the tip, but, truth be told, I recognized the typographical error myself after reading what I posted. I have added a couple of questions to my original post, which should explain the "point."
0 Replies

layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:16 pm
@Butrflynet,
Butryfly, I looked at the link you posted, but, out of context, it didn't make much sense to me. Are you suggesting that this is not a question that should be asked?
0 Replies

dalehileman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:29 pm
@layman,
Actually Lay, a stationary ref notwithstanding, there might be an "average" speed of zero with respect to the rest of the Universe so as far as we know we might be proceeding westward at a rate of say, 60 mph. Thus when his train reaches this velocity but in an eastward direction, he has come to a standstill
layman

1
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:29 pm
Al himself knows the guy on the train is the one moving, and uses that knowledge to explain why a guy who doesn't think he's moving would have a false impression about the true state of affairs.

Why does he insist that the train passenger is an absolute fool, and then construct a whole theory around that fool's mistakes?

I don't get it.
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:31 pm
@dalehileman,
Well, Dale, that could be. but I don't see how it's relevant to my question. The question was about which one (between the earth and the train) is moving with respect to the other. Whether they are moving with respect to, for example, the Sun, doesn't enter into the question.
contrex

4
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:37 pm
If the railway company wants to move a 500 ton train to Chicago from (say) New York, they can do the math and see how much energy they need to use to do this, but if they need to keep the train still and move the world around so that Chicago comes to the train, and New York recedes into the distance, surely, the world being so big and heavy, they'd need a much more powerful locomotive, and the ticket would have to be much more expensive. Also, wouldn't any train coming the other way mess things up? And what about planes? They can only roll the world around while they are taking off? Explain that. Layman?
contrex

3
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:39 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Why does he insist that the train passenger is an absolute fool, and then construct a whole theory around that fool's mistakes?

"Al" doesn't insist on any such thing.
dalehileman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:40 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Whether they are moving with respect to, for example, the Sun, does enter into the question.
Actually though, Lay, it doesn't. I had been presuming we're off in some corner of the Universe where everything, us and the sun and moon etc, are moving westward at 60 mph

The whole point of relativity is that the question of which one is moving with respect to the other is meaningless. They're moving relative to one another

Theoretically, and I'm not sure I quite agree, an observer moving at 0.99999999……9999999 the speed of light is justified in considering himself stationary with all the rest of the Universe rushing past him
contrex

3
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:44 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I had been presuming we're off in some corner of the Universe where everything, us and the sun and moon etc, are moving westward at 60 mph

What does 'westward' mean in this context?
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:47 pm
@dalehileman,
" Theoretically, and I'm not sure I quite agree, an observer moving at 0.99999999……9999999 the speed of light is justified in considering himself stationary with all the rest of the Universe rushing past him." Dale}

(I don't know how to use the quote function).

Right, who would agree?

Suppose we put a guy on a ship loaded with fuel and accelerate him constantly for months on end, until he reaches .9999c. All that him he is seeing the earth recede into the distance as he accelerates. Then, finally, he stops accelerating, but keeps moving away from the earth at great speed.

What fool would then say that the earth moving away from him while he remains motionless?
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:49 pm
@dalehileman,
"The whole point of relativity is that the question of which one is moving with respect to the other is meaningless. They're moving relative to one another."

The "whole point" is that something meaningful has no meaning?

Go figure, eh?
neologist

4
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:49 pm
If I am misquoted by someone speaking alone inside a soundproof closet, does that mean I never said anything at all?
dalehileman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:50 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
What does 'westward' mean in this context?
With respect Con to the imaginary stationary ref. However I should add that the observation is made August 4 2026 at 3 pm, in Chicago
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:51 pm
@contrex,
"Explain that. Layman?? (Contrex)

You're making my point for me, aren't you, Contrex? I don't understand what you think needs to be explained.
dalehileman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:55 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I don't know how to use the quote function).
Click on "Open BBCode Editor," highlight phrase, then click on "Quote"

Quote:
Right, who would agree?
The fanatical relativist

Quote:
Suppose we put a guy on a ship loaded with fuel and accelerate him……..keeps moving away from the earth at great speed. What fool would then say that the earth moving away from him while he remains motionless?
The fanatical relativist
layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 02:57 pm
@contrex,
""Al" doesn't insist on any such thing."

He doesn't? Isn't it a requirement in SRT that every party in any given frame of reference MUST assume that he's motionless?

Not say he doesn't know, or that maybe both are moving, or anything of the sort.

If a guy is riding his motorcycle at a uniform speed, then he MUIST assume he is motionless for the theory to work out. Likewise, guy sitting on his couch watching you pass by on your motorcycle MUST assume that HE (not you) is motionless.

Every SRT calculation has a "preferred" frame of reference. It's always the one YOU are in (unless you're accelerating).
0 Replies

layman

0
Tue 27 Jan, 2015 03:00 pm
@dalehileman,
"Click on "Open BBCode Editor," highlight phrase, then click on "Quote"

Thanks, Dale, but I must be overlooking the place where "open bbcode editor" is located so that I can click on it.

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » Why in the world would Einstein suggest....