14
   

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

 
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:03 am
@carloslebaron,
Carlos, anyone who calls both Einstein and Feynman "idiots" and "clowns" must think that he, himself, is a super-genius.

Are you?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:14 am
@carloslebaron,
I am taking this to be an actual quote from Feynman:

Quote:
the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around."


He is certainly correct when he refers to "man who was moving." At least one of the two must be moving--they can't both be "stationary."

Quote:
he knows this, because he had to turn around."


He would know this even if he never turned around, because he has to be accelerated at the outset.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 04:59 am
@carloslebaron,
So, to sum up, Feynman said:
Quote:
the man who has felt the accelerations... is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an 'absolute' sense, and it is certainly correct."


In SR, acceleration is absolute, so a guy who has been accelerated is now absolutely moving. He cannot maintain that he is "at rest" relative to an observer with whom he was formerly in the same inertial frame of reference. As between the two, he, not "the other guy," is moving. He knows it, and we know it.

I say "we" know it, but, in truth, SR apologists generally adamantly refuse to acknowledge what Feynman states so simply.

Needless to say, if Feynman is right, the guy on the train who Al said did not know he was moving, did in fact know he was moving (unless he is an unconscious fool).
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:19 am
@layman,
Quote:
Carlos, anyone who calls both Einstein and Feynman "idiots" and "clowns" must think that he, himself, is a super-genius.

Are you?



Nope, think some more about it
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 05:56 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

So, to sum up, Feynman said:
Quote:
the man who has felt the accelerations... is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an 'absolute' sense, and it is certainly correct."


In SR, acceleration is absolute, so a guy who has been accelerated is now absolutely moving. He cannot maintain that he is "at rest" relative to an observer with whom he was formerly in the same inertial frame of reference. As between the two, he, not "the other guy," is moving. He knows it, and we know it.

I say "we" know it, but, in truth, SR apologists generally adamantly refuse to acknowledge what Feynman states so simply.

Needless to say, if Feynman is right, the guy on the train who Al said did not know he was moving, did in fact know he was moving (unless he is an unconscious fool).

He doesn't know he was absolutely moving, because there is no absolutely moving. He only knows that he stopped matching speeds with the previous reference frame and then later returned to it. You talk as though the previous reference frame was known to have been "not moving," which is not the case. All you can say is that he was absolutely moving with respect to his prior reference frame. Just stop using phrases like "know he was moving." The phrase, in itself, is incorrect. Believe me, you are not the one who is going to come along and disprove something believed by scientists all around the world for over a century.
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 07:55 am
@layman,
Quote:


He is certainly correct when he refers to "man who was moving." At least one of the two must be moving--they can't both be "stationary."


What it rules the universe is MOTION

From here, we obtain the measure called time

I will debunk your absurdity about "stationary" and the silly relativistic "at rest".

The common fallacy is that atomic clocks in outer space suffer of variation of data because time is affected by speed and gravity. And that the atomic clocks on ground do not show that difference in data because these clocks are "at rest".

Well, you must know that the earth is traveling at 70,000 miles per hour around the Sun, that the satellites are traveling merely at 17,000 miles per hour around earth, and that the atomic clocks "at rest" on earth and the clocks installed in the satellites orbiting around earth are BOTH traveling TOGETHER at 70,000 miles per hour around the Sun.

With this fact, the whole theory of relativity is proven to be a bad joke.

Time is just a concept, and as a subjective term can't dilate by causes as they are the objective motion of bodies.

I give 10 million dollars to the first in this world that proves that time exists physically.

I can state without doubts that Einstein was a poor idiot and that Feynman with his Twin Paradox explanation was a clown.

The theories of relativity are not about "how the astronaut feels with acceleration" because if this is the case, then the fact is that the astronaut feels sick and disoriented.

In order for you to vindicated those dudes, you must have to collect the prize, the ten million dollars by showing the objective existence of time.

Until then, anyone discussing in favor of the theories of relativity is a waste of his life, he has became part of lunatics who don't know what they are talking about... poor idiots.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 09:47 am
@carloslebaron,
Look up the comments of the maker of atomic clocks! (Louis Essen)
He stated that the clocks don't even were able to measure the time that precisely!!

It really is all one bad joke!

But well, you know what Hitler said: Make the LIE big enough.....
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 11:23 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
He doesn't know he was absolutely moving, because there is no absolutely moving.


Yes, there is, Brandon, at least according to the famous physicist, Feynman. Accelerated motion is absolute, he says (as does every other physicist that I'm familiar with). Just read the excerpt quoted.

Quote:
All you can say is that he was absolutely moving with respect to his prior reference frame.


And that's all I said, which was: "He cannot maintain that he is "at rest" relative to an observer with whom he was formerly in the same inertial frame of reference."

If you believe Feynman is wrong, then you should take it up with him. If, however, you have some argument or authority which you believe demonstrates that something he said is wrong, I would welcome your input on the topic.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 11:32 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Believe me, you are not the one who is going to come along and disprove something believed by scientists all around the world for over a century.


Is there anything I've said in this thread which you think is tantamount to that (i.e., disproving, or trying to disprove, something "believed by all scientists")?

I certainly don't think that's the case. For the most part I have just asked questions, and made arguments which raise doubt in my mind about the consistency of the theory, and/or of some common claims/arguments made by proponents of the theory--mainly laymen. I often cite reputable scientists, such as Feynman, for any particular proposition which I am incorporating in those questions/arguments.

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 11:46 am
@carloslebaron,
Carlos, although I can't agree with the tone of your posts, I agree with this:

Quote:
Time is just a concept, and as a subjective term can't dilate by causes as they are the objective motion of bodies.


Time is an abstact concept, not a concrete thing. Some people claim that relativity says that "time slows down." But what slows down is actually clocks, and, more generally, recurring physical processes, in the concrete sense.

To the extent that you want to employ a positivistic philosophy and say "time is only what a clock measures" (which Einstien, under the influence of Ernst Mach, did say, early in his career), then, in that sense, you can say "time" slows down.

But what time actually is is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers and scientists.

layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 12:10 pm
@Brandon9000,
BTW, Brandon, the term "absolute" can have different meanings in different contexts. As I understand it, within the context of SR, "absolute" is used as a shortcut for saying something like "perceived as such by all observers, regardless of their frame of reference."

So, in theory, every observer, everywhere, will agree that an accelerating object is "actually moving (accelerating)." They will agree, in other words, that it is not maintaining a uniform speed/direction.

I don't think you are using the term in that sense, however.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 12:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
One more observation:

Unlike some people seem to believe, Newton NEVER said there was an absolutely stationary point which we could detect. In his view, the center of all mass in the universe, would be such a point, but he freely acknowledged that we could never identify that point. For motions in the solar system, he said that the background of "fixed stars" was a good "approximation" of something "motionless."

Likewise, Al NEVER said there is no motionless point in the universe. He simply agreed with Newton that we could never empirically detect such a point.

In light of the later discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, many believe we now have discovered a motionless frame of reference. I am told that, these days, virtually all astronomers use the CMBR, in conjunction with a non-relativistic approach to motion, for their astronomical calculations.

The GPS system uses the same concepts, actually. It does not use Einstein's method of clock synchronization. It establishes a "master clock" located at the ECI (earth-centered inertial reference frame), posits that clock as being "motionless," and then synchronizes all other clocks with respect to that "absolute" frame of reference.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 12:59 pm
@layman,
I wonder if any of the scoffing blowhards who have recurring posted in this thread with hollow ridicule care to dispute this claim, just made by me:

Quote:
The GPS system uses the same concepts, actually. It does not use Einstein's method of clock synchronization. It establishes a "master clock" located at the ECI (earth-centered inertial reference frame), posits that clock as being "motionless," and then synchronizes all other clocks with respect to that "absolute" frame of reference.


By "dispute," I mean, of course, with facts and/or authorities, not by way of some unsubstantiated, unsupported, assertions which they can't or won't back up.

As a result, within the GPS framework, the tenets of SR are abandoned. The one way speed of light is isotropic in the ECI frame only, and only clocks moving with respect to the ECI clock slow down due to speed differences. This includes both clocks on the surface of the earth (which are rotating) and clocks orbiting the earth in satellites.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 02:09 pm
@layman,
Quote:
As a result, within the GPS framework, the tenets of SR are abandoned. The one way speed of light is isotropic in the ECI frame only, and only clocks moving with respect to the ECI clock slow down due to speed differences. This includes both clocks on the surface of the earth (which are rotating) and clocks orbiting the earth in satellites.


Needless to say, within that framework simultaneity is not "relative." On the contrary, simultaneity is absolute.

For the system to work, it has to be. You can't pin-point locations by light signals if there is a never-ending circularity where each clock is deemed to be slower than the other.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:30 pm
@layman,
Quote:


But what time actually is is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers and scientists.


The only thing relativists are doing is perpetuate their fantasy in order to keep Einstein's image as a genius. It's a kind of pride, something I have I noticed it in you as well.

Who wants to recognize that all their own studies and life expended on relativity are nothing but crap to the square, right?

Besides, there is a big machine making excellent profit selling mythology (theories of relativity) as if it was science.

Quote:
Time is an abstact concept, not a concrete thing. Some people claim that relativity says that "time slows down." But what slows down is actually clocks, and, more generally, recurring physical processes, in the concrete sense.


What a dump!

Read any book on relativity, their claim is that "time dilates". Lol.

How in the world, a concrete concept recognized by you will dilate because the speed of objects?

I'm going direct with you, you won't come here and paint a scenario of sweet words and flowers. No. That is unacceptable.

You see, when you apply the relativistic term "dilatation of time", then according to your personal interpretation, what you are saying is that clocks dilate because causes as speed and gravity.

Can't you see how ridiculous is your position?

I will explain you what happens with clocks in airplanes and in spacecrafts: The clocks MALFUNCTION.

Atomic clocks are very sensitive, as Quehoniaomath reminded it very well, L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of relativists because their experiments on atomic clocks. He stated that Einstein with his thought experiments and his followers were wrong and are making foolish to others and to themselves. Look, this is the inventor of the atomic clock here, he knew better than anyone about his invention. OK?

When you move the atomic clock to an environment other than the one where it has been calibrated, the atomic clock will malfunction.

It has nothing to do with dilatation of time,the clock itself., works in base of an atom (Cesium) sending signals because its vibration frequency, and these signals are received by a receptor that will count 9,192,631,770 vibrations and make a click indicating one second. This is how the atomic clock works.

When this clock is exposed to acceleration, the internal sending of signals will suffer a kind of interference. When the atomic clock is exposed to less gravity, the atom of Cesium vibrations change to a different rate.

It is a FACT that everything is affected in outer space. Our bodies, our machines, properties of metals, everything behaves different in outer space, and atomic clocks are not the exception. All this is a natural physical reaction, nothing to do with the fantasy of a dilatation of time.

Then, you finally got it, time doesn't dilate, the clock suffers of malfunction.

Quote:
To the extent that you want to employ a positivistic philosophy and say "time is only what a clock measures" (which Einstien, under the influence of Ernst Mach, did say, early in his career), then, in that sense, you can say "time" slows down.


Please stop defending that poor idiot of Einstein.

Look, Einstein thought that clocks actually "detect a passage of time". For this reason he stated that clocks can measure it. Einstein thought of time as something objective that can be manipulated by the speed of objects and the gravity of bodies.

He even invented a "fabric of the universe" including time as part of such a universal cloth... ha ha ha...

In other words, to the superfluous idea that time actually flows, he added that time can also be "flexible".

From here, thanks to his stupidity, lots of his followers have been living in a world of fantasies for more than a century.

Sadly, reading your messages, one can observe that you can be count as another follower of poor idiot Einstein.









Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 03:48 pm
@carloslebaron,
Very right indeed!!!

And how about the 'curvature of space" isn't that called an oxymoron?


Just THINK about that one folks!! space can't curve, by definition!

Yeah right, throw some tensor calculus at it and all is right in the church of relativity!!! What fools!

What a bad joke it all is! And most at school and universities fall for this hook, line....




0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:48 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

BTW, Brandon, the term "absolute" can have different meanings in different contexts. As I understand it, within the context of SR, "absolute" is used as a shortcut for saying something like "perceived as such by all observers, regardless of their frame of reference."

So, in theory, every observer, everywhere, will agree that an accelerating object is "actually moving (accelerating)." They will agree, in other words, that it is not maintaining a uniform speed/direction.

I don't think you are using the term in that sense, however.

I make no comments about what happens during acceleration, because it isn't part of Special Relativity and I don't understand General Relativity well. However, no one who is not accelerating can ever be said to be "really moving." A person who initially is stationary with respect to the Earth, but then accelerates for awhile, and then stops accelerating moving at a positive speed with respect to the Earth cannot be said to be "really moving." All you can say is that he is really moving with respect to the Earth. When I say that there is no absolutely stationary object, I mean that there is no object in a preferred reference frame which is known to be the true definition of stationary.
Brandon9000
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 06:51 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
...Al NEVER said there is no motionless point in the universe. He simply agreed with Newton that we could never empirically detect such a point.

In light of the later discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, many believe we now have discovered a motionless frame of reference. I am told that, these days, virtually all astronomers use the CMBR, in conjunction with a non-relativistic approach to motion, for their astronomical calculations....

This is false. That is exactly what he said. What relativity says is that there is no preferred reference frame that is a better definition of stationary than any other one. It says that uniform motion has no meaning except relative to a specified object. This is believed by essentially every physicist in the world. Your statement that "many believe we now have discovered a motionless frame of reference" certainly doesn't apply to physicists. Maybe one or two crackpots, but certainly only the tiniest fraction of physicists.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 01:14 am
@Brandon9000,
I applaud your efforts to get layman to "understand" he is waffling outside the mainstream paradigm. He continuously confuses ontological issues (about concepts of "reality") with pragmatic issues (about mathematical techniques for calculation). This thread touches on the philosophical issue of "the social construction of reality" which we have had elsewhere. In that sense layman (and his crackpots) are out on a social limb. It is a soapbox preachers stance for lonely mavericks in an empty market place. Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they welcome any discourse, even negative because it allows them to indulge in self-valedictory reinforcement.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 01:21 am
@Brandon9000,
I have to agree there, Brandon. Every point in space is accelerating away from every other point in space, and there is no fixed point in any inertial frame of reference to designate as stationary. This last bit is essential to both SR and GR, I think. If one is designated, it is merely as a convenience to solve a problem. Think spherical cow.
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:54:05