Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@Quehoniaomath,

Thanks Que for that link, which I'll peruse when I catch up with my yardwork

Quote:
Okay, but pray howso

Quote:

pray???

Sorry Que, it means "please"

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

That's really a good Q, Lay, one I've pondered

Dale, I can't see where you answered the question (which was strictly hypothetical to begin with). Since it's hypothetical and conditional, you don't need any facts to answer it. It's just in the form of a Q which asks: IF x were true, would that mean y is true? Therefore, you don't need to know, or have any opinion about, whether x is "really" true in order you answer the question.

Example: If you are taller than Joe (which you may not be) would that mean Joe is shorter than you?

Again the question was: "If there was a motionless frame, but no one could detect just what and where it was, would that mean it wasn't "really" there?"

a. Yeah, that would simply mean it's not really there.
b. No, it could still really exist, even if we didn't know how to pinpoint it.
c. I am undecided about the answer.

Can you pick one from a, b, or c?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Again the question was: "…... would that mean it wasn't "really" there?"

a. Yeah, that would simply mean it's [probably] not really there

However as I said, the Twin Par-Con might serve as "evidence" of a sort

I'm not your adversary, Lay, just poking at the how and why

I keep hoping somebody will send a link to these threads to a science thread where we hope somebody really has the answer

If indeed there is one

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

a. Yeah, that would simply mean it's [probably] not really there

Ok, good. Now we have a starting point.

I want to explore why you would say this. It seems to assume that anything humans don't know, or can't see, doesn't even exist.

Let me ask you another question: If we have no way of knowing how many people are on Samoa Island right now, does that mean that such a number doesn't exist?

1 Reply

Quote:

My old (in affection, not alas in wisdom) friend Professor Lyttleton
(January 8) has got everything wrong — even the point at issue. I have carefully avoided the 'clock', or 'twin', paradox (in which Paul, after space-travelling, rejoins Peter), knowing from experience that Paul's reversal of motion can be misused ad lib, to meet any need. In the present discussion Paul moves on, undeviating, into the intense inane.
Suppose clocks A and B move along the same straight line at uniform
speeds differing by 161,000 miles a second: we call A 'stationary' and B 'moving', but that is merely nominal. At the instant at which B passes A both read noon. Then, according to special relativity, at the instants when B reads 1 and 2 o'clock, A reads 2 and 4 o'clock respectively. Of course, A is not at B to allow a direct comparison, but Einstein's theory is based on a particular process for finding a clock-reading for a distant event, and it demands these values. Einstein himself made just this calculation, but using general symbols instead of these numerical values, and concluded that since B recorded a smaller interval than A between the same events, it was working more slowly.
But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B (still 'moving') for the
readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A (still 'stationary') he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion: he did not do this, so missed the contradiction. I invite Ray to fault these calculations, or convince your 'gazing rustics' that each of two clocks can work faster than the other. I do hope he will not disappoint them.
Regarding the immeasurably less important clock paradox, Lyttleton is
again wrong in saying that I have denied asymmetrical ageing for many years.
Fifteen years ago, when I believed special relativity true, I indeed thought it
impossible, but I soon discovered my error, and for more than 13 years have held the question open. Had we but world enough and time, or wings as swift as meditation or the thoughts of love (since I too like invoking the English, and even the Irish, poets), we could indeed make a direct test: as it is, we must await a valid determination of the true relation between the velocity of light and that of its source. Despite the mu-mesons and their kind, I think asymmetrical ageing extremely unlikely, but that is an opinion; the falsity of the special relativity theory (not necessarily of the relativity of motion) I regard as proved.[/size]

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

….Dingle has steadfastly maintained…...Paul goes on a journey leaving Peter to stay at home, then when Paul returns he will still be exactly the same age as his brother

I'm under the steadfast impression that Dingle's assertion has many times over been disproven by actual measurements

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=proof+moving+clocks+run+slower+than+stationary

What we need, Que, is an honest-to-god expert, apparently lacking hereabout else we'd hear from 'em

Edited to remark that reading Wiki casts doubt on Einstein's waffling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

……although by no means refutes the results of many experiments, eg

Quote:

In 2010 time dilation was observed at speeds of less than 10 meters per second using optical atomic clocks connected by 75 meters of optical fiber

3 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Dingle said:

Quote:

But if he had similarly calculated the reading of B (still 'moving') for the readings 1 and 2 o'clock of A (still 'stationary') he would have got 2 and 4 o'clock respectively, and must have reached the opposite conclusion...

This is somewhat ambiguous. He says B is "still moving" and that A is "still stationary."

If Al did his calculation based on that assumption (i.e based on the assumption that B is the one moving) he would NOT have reached the "opposite conclusion." He would have reached exactly the same conclusion, i.e. that B's clocks are running slower than A--which is what A said.)

But, of course, Dingle is assuming that Al is applying his own formula in the manner dictated by SR. SR dictates that, this time around, he MUST treat B as "stationary," and A as "moving."

So, with that in mind, Dingle is right. He will reach the "opposite conclusion." He HAS to, because he has now made the opposite assumptions about who is moving.

As every physicist will concede, each clock cannot be running slower than the other. It is logically impossible. And that's what Dingle is pointing out (and complaining about).

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I'm under the steadfast impression that Dingle's assertion has many times over been disproven by actual measurements

You are right, Dale, but even Dingle doesn't state that as a "fact." He says:

Quote:

I think asymmetrical ageing extremely unlikely, but that is an opinion; the falsity of the special relativity theory (not necessarily of the relativity of motion) I regard as proved.

He's saying that even if his opinion about that is wrong (and it is) that has no bearing on the problems with SR that he has identified. He's right about that.

1 Reply

read the rest of his book. will sure clear things up.
This is the problem wih only showing a part.

it was an amuse Wink

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Dale, I asked you a question right before Q made his Dingle post. Did you see it?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

He's saying that even if his opinion about that is wrong (and it is) that has no bearing on the problems with SR that he has identified.

Thanks Lay for that quote. I was about to give up: every time I tried a different Googling I'd get a half-million different answers

What is it, then (please save me the search), that he's saying and does it explain Que's many objections

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Dale, I asked you a question right before Q made his Dingle post. Did you see it?

God Lord mercy Lay, forgive an old fella. Instead could you just simply repeat the q

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Edited to remark that reading Wiki casts doubt on Einstein's waffling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Not sure what doubts you're talking about, Dale but there is a part of that page which reinforces what I've said (and which Feynman, who I quoted) said. It relates to the "preferred frame of reference" issue.

Wiki talks about what Paul Langevin said at an early date, to wit:

Quote:

The asymmetry that occurred because only the traveler underwent acceleration, is used to explain why there is any difference at all, because "any change of velocity, or any acceleration has an absolute meaning".

Accelerated motion has an ABSOLUTE meaning is SR. Therefore we know that the travelling twin was the one moving, because he is the one who accelerated. SR says it is the MOVING clock which must run slow. Therefore it is the twin's clock which MUST run slower, per SR.

Two things:

1. SR could not possibly say this if it really was "impossible to know who is moving."
2. SR could not say this if the travelling twin was correct in his contention that HE was not moving, but that, instead, the earth twin was.

Therefore the earth twin is right, and the travelling twin is wrong.

That alone makes the earth frame the "preferred frame" is this problem.
It is the "preferred frame" even if the earth is also moving with respect to other objects (such as the sun).

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

God Lord mercy Lay, forgive an old fella. Instead could you just simply repeat the q

I could, Dale, but it seems it would be less messy if you just scroll up. It is the post IMMEDIATELY before his Dingle quote.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

What is it, then (please save me the search), that he's saying and does it explain Que's many objections

1. What Q is "objecting to" is unclear to me, and is irrelevant, so I won't address that.
2. The excerpt I posted was taken straight from Q's post (not from some other place on the web).
3. That said, I have read Dingle entire paper before. I have already summarized what he is saying in my response to Q.

He is saying it is logically impossible for each clock to run slower than the other, but that is what SR appears to require.

Beyond that he says (elsewhere) that if one has any viable method of deciding that it is the twin's clock or (in another example Einstein used) the clock at the equator that run slower, then motion cannot be truly be "relative" as Einstein's theory claims.

With respect to the second point, it should be noted that SR itself does NOT say that "all motion is relative." It says that accelerated motion is absolute.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:
a. Yeah, that would simply mean it's [probably] not really there

Quote:

Ok, good. Now we have a starting point.
I want to explore why you would say this. It seems to assume that anything humans don't know, or can't see, doesn't even exist.

I'd rephrase it: The less evidence for something, the less likely; no evidence at all, least likely

But the Twin Paradox (and now I believe I'm agreeing with you) seems to constitute evidence for the "preferred" frames. I'm just surprised that our SR bunch hasn't come up with a clear answer

…that's one intended for your Average Clod (me)

Quote:

Let me ask you another question: If we have no way of knowing how many people are on Samoa Island right now, does that mean that such a number doesn't exist?

Guess not, but how does this apply to something I've said

I'm on nobody's side here so you'll have to forgive me if my q's aren't clear either

4 Replies

@dalehileman,

Wiki also says:

Quote:

Neither Einstein nor Langevin considered such results to be literally paradoxical: Einstein only called it "peculiar" while Langevin presented it as a consequence of absolute acceleration.

Einstien and Langevin are right. The results are by no means self-contradictory.

But THAT is not what the "paradox" is even alleged to be, so what wiki says is just a complete non sequitur. It does not even address the real paradox.

1 Reply

@layman,

Wiki itself now incorrectly states what the alleged paradox even is in it's introduction. But that has changed. It didn't used to phrase the paradox the way it does now. NOW it says:

Quote:

...each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly.

There is nothing paradoxical about the fact that two different observers, ONE OF WHOM IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG, reach different conclusions.

The real "paradox," as wiki formerly acknowledged is this: You cannot get an absolute answer from a relative theory. Yet SR gives you an absolute answer. But SR also claims to be a "relative theory."

Those two propositions are in fact both contradictory and irreconcilable. But even those conflicting claims are not literally "paradoxical." That's because they are not both true. Hence they merely constitute a contradiction, as Dingle (and many others) pointed out.

In order to constitute a true "paradox," both claims would have to be true. They aren't. SR is not internally inconsistent at all. The contradiction is external. SR adherents contradict their own theory when they makes such claims as "it's impossible to say who's moving" and/or "both clocks are correct."

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I'd rephrase it: The less evidence for something, the less likely; no evidence at all, least likely

Well, Dale, I know what you're saying, but I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise.

I could probably think of many examples, but here's one: Suppose I say: " As far as we know, every physical occurrence has a physical cause." And suppose you agree.

Now suppose that there is an occurrence for which science can "find" no physical explanation. There is no (known) evidence of it's cause.
Would we therefore conclude that it has no cause? I don't think so.

Of course a second issue arises, the way you put it. To wit: What counts as "evidence?" Only what we can "see?" Suppose I say "all men are mortal." Suppose you say: "You can't KNOW that. I haven't died yet. You can't say I'm going to die until you actually see me die."

I would say: It's not only what you "see" that constitutes evidence.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Guess not, but how does this apply to something I've said

You have modified your answer, but it applies to your original answer in this way, as I see it.

If you say that, because we can't detect x (it could be anything, it your case it just happened to an "absolutely motionless frame of reference"), it is "probable" that it doesn't exist, I think (as I said above) that's just wrong as a general proposition.

As an example, for millennium we had no way of "detecting" atoms. Democritus had a theory dating back to about 300 b.c. saying atoms existed. Yet we never detected them, for centuries. Obviously that didn't prove that they "didn't" exist. Nor did it prove they "probably" didn't exist. It merely proved that, even if the theory was correct, we had no way of verifying it.

The same thing could be said about "germs," and many other things, which were posited long before we had any means of knowing they were true.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know