Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Quote:

Yet most people seem to think they are one and the same.

Still setting up your own straw man ? Any scientist (bar a naive realist) would know that axioms such as Einsteins postulates were not facts in the layman's sense (ho ho) of being of an observer independent "reality". They are functional constructions which "work" to a greater or lesser extent in generating and predicting "data". Concepts of "explanation" cannot be separated from elegance of exposition and predictive power. They have little to do with traditional (and philosophically problematic) concepts of "causality" or "common sense". Elegance, like beauty, may lie in the eye of the beholder, but like it or not, the consensus is that Einstein had the edge.

NB Etymology of "fact"...facere LATIN to construct

Now are you going to continue to waffle about it? Morin didn't because he knew what the score was on paradigmatic limitations.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Still setting up your own straw man ? Any scientist (bar a naive realist) would know that axioms such as Einsteins postulates were not facts in the layman's sense (ho ho) of being of an observer independent "reality". They are functional constructions which "work" to a greater or lesser extent in generating and predicting "data". Concepts of "explanation" cannot be separated from elegance of exposition and predictive power. They have little to do with traditional (and philosophically problematic) concepts of "causality" or "common sense". Elegance, like beauty, may lie in the eye of the beholder, but like it or not, the consensus is that Einstein had the edge.

NB Etymology of "fact"...facere LATIN to construct

Now are you going to continue to waffle about it? Morin didn't because he knew what the score was on paradigmatic limitations.

Well, are you really sure about what you wrote ( especdially in the red letters)? Because NONE of it works!

0 Replies

@fresco,

I'm not talking about physicists (although some of them also seem to completely ignore it too).

But, if you say something like "Einstein's light postulate is debatable," a frequent response from "students" of SR will be: "You just don't understand SR!"

Then they are likely to flatly assert, in a loud and positive manner: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame!!"

1 Reply

@layman,

In physics, the boiling point of water is said to be 100 degrees Celsius.

Of course the conditions are (arbitrarily) specified, e.g. at sea level.

This is necessary because it is known that water boils at different temperatures with changes in elevation.

But what they don't do is say that the boiling point of water is an absolute. If they said that, then there would be an infinite number of "definitions" of (or standards for determining) 100 degrees (different 1" above sea level from 10,000 feet above sea level, etc.). 100 degrees (and, of course, therefore 99 degrees, 98 degrees, etc.) would vary strictly depending on your elevation.

And, if they did say that, then, to be consistent, they would have to that "elevation" is subjective (or something like that). In that way, they could say that the boiling point of water is ALWAYS 100 c, wherever you are.

Wouldn't that be wonderful? But, for some reason, they don't do that. I wonder why?

1 Reply

@layman,

It really isn't a matter of "elevation," per se. It is pressure that correlates to the change in boiling point. But, the point is the same, either way.

To say the "elevation" causes the change is to confuse correlation with causation. It happens.

1 Reply

@layman,

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah99/davidrs1/obsessive_zpspqwc0quj.jpg

1 Reply

@fresco,

Wait. Fresco, didn't you pompously claim, a long time back, that you would make no more posts in this thread?

Do you have some obsessive compulsion to do it, notwithstanding your vow, is that it? You keep coming back, for some reason.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are right ! I should know better than to feed a troll.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

You are right ! I should know better than to feed a troll.

A "troll" being what? Someone who doesn't agree with you, that it?

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I get what you're saying but I'm not convinced that after his takeoff SR insists he must consider himself still.

Dale, I've already responded to this issue by quoting two different physics professors, one of whom was much more understandable for the average person than the other.

You haven't said anything since, so maybe you no longer care. Or maybe you just feel there's nothing more you want to say on the topic.

Then again, perhaps you're still not convinced. If that's the case, this may or may not help persuade you:

Quote:

Your coordinate frame is how you define where things are. If you’re on a train, plane, rickshaw, or whatever, and you have something on the seat next to you, you’d say that (in your coordinate frame) that object is stationary. In your own coordinate frame you’re never moving at all

You can no doubt find the same thing being said by experts in many places on the web. I was just browsing and happened to come across it, and thought of you.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-if-a-photon-doesnt-experience-time-then-how-can-it-travel/

This same information is reiterated at that same site (the caption under the picture of the monk) with this rephrasing:

Quote:

Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is something other things do. When you describe the movement of those other things it’s always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates.

But note, also, that I did not say "after takeoff." I said after he quits accelerating, i.e., as soon as he is in an inertial frame.

1 Reply

@layman,

Lay, immediately above the ed. posting box, to the left. On mine it's in green tone so maybe your viewer needs adj

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:
I get what you're saying but I'm not convinced that after his takeoff SR insists he must consider himself still.

Quote:

Dale, I've already responded to this issue ...

Lay, ya gotta forgive an old guy's failing mem

Quote:

Or maybe you just feel there's nothing more you want to say on the topic.

Forgive, I'm pretty much exhausted

Quote:

Then again, perhaps you're still not convinced. ….

Always open to new and exciting inputs. Ora was pushing one I believe but then he too dropped out. I believe he was about to explain, if there's no "preferred," how you aged faster than me even if I don't shift refs again

Quote:

Quote:

Your coordinate frame is how you define where things are….In your own coordinate frame you’re never moving at all

Yes

Quote:

…... I was just browsing and happened to come across it, and thought of you.

Lay I'm flattered

Quote:

…... (the caption under the picture of the monk) with this rephrasing:

Quote:

Quote:
Everything is stationary from its own perspective. Movement is…...always in terms of your notion of space and time coordinates.

I understand but that doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the SR outlook which might let him understand why in spite of the apparent 2 x 1 speed diffs they'll still meet up at the same place

Not arguing at all, just confused (me not you)

Incidentally Lay I have a supposedly original view of time-at-a-distance that immediately dispatches all the controversy hereabout: The unstated but subliminal idea of simultaneity everywhere is grossly misleading and in fact it's the very source of all the current controversy. (And yes I'm being repetitious tho I keep hoping to find a newbie). It states in effect that my (the traveler's) notion of my stillness can be shared by you (left home) with the simple assertion that at the moment of my noon takeoff it's actually 12;05 at Marty's home base--so my trip is indeed instantaneous

Yes, it requires me to go 'way 'way faster than c and I know, it sounds too nutty to be true but then so did Al's at first, typified by Hitler's denunciation of relativity as "Jewish science"

In rebuttal the q immediately arises as to why if my trip is instantaneous my return is at 12:10. The answer gets awkward but no moreso than that Al, who says firing my retros causes your watch to jump ahead 10 min

I'd provide links but after a few searches it's apparent they seemed so strange to Those in Power that they were eventually deleted

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I understand but that doesn't necessarily mean he rejects the SR outlook which might let him understand why in spite of the apparent 2 x 1 speed diffs they'll still meet up at the same place

I'm a little confused, but I assume you are referring back to Ora's hypothetical.

But, the thing is, there is NO SR view which allows that conclusion. In SR, the bleachers cannot, ostensibly at least, be said to be the "correct" (preferred) frame.

But, as a matter of fact it is (tacitly) designated to be the preferred frame in his example (nothwithstanding his earlier assertion that "there is no such thing as a preferred frame").

It is the ONLY frame which will allow the phenomena which he asserts to be "seen." Adopting the SR viewpoint which is mandated for either A or B merely leads to appearances which are completely contrary to what Ora says is happening.

SR purports to say that all 3 views (A, B, and the bleachers) are "equally correct." They are not, in Ora's own example.

His premises are NOT those of SR. They are of the type that would be appropriate and allowed in an AST (absolute simultaneity theory), but not SR.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

I'm pretty much exhausted

OK, fair enough. I completely understand.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

OK, fair enough. I completely understand.

Thanks Lay but as you can see immediately above I regained a bit of energy; tho my puzzlement remains, just as yours. In other words, still waiting Ora's rebuttal

Ora if you're still with us, yes I realize you might have already addressed the issue but with a thread of this size, recapitulation by regression is near impossible; thus inevitably requiring paraphrase if not replication; though pertinent links are acceptable

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

But,…..In SR, the bleachers cannot, ostensibly at least, be said to be the "correct" (preferred) frame……..But, as a matter of fact it is (tacitly) designated to be the preferred frame in his example…...

Well put Lay, I absolutely agree and if that surprises you it's only because of limitations of old age

I only meant to say that the traveler was still free to entertain SR as a means to explain the apparent contradiction--even tho I agree he must be wrong. In fact I have felt for decades there must surely be a "preferred" rep, else Al was wrong; and I'm pleased to learn that I wasn't entirely off my rocker. Ora where are you

I did however incidentally inject somewhere above a ref to my own weird theory about t-a-a-d, which easily settles the entire controversy tho I hope doesn't further complicate things

..and yes, by "...easily settles the entire controversy…." sorta kidding

..though you gotta admit, besides settling the immediate controversy it also it easily explains all those apparent relativistic changes in the moving object that must have so embarrassed Al when it was learned they weren't mutual after all..

If ya don't hear fro me again Lay, Ora, it's because I've been struck down for my incompetence and persistence in the face of interminable odds cast from all directions

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

His premises are NOT those of SR. They are of the type that would be appropriate and allowed in an AST (absolute simultaneity theory), but not SR

Thanks Lay for that distinction

I had called my own version, "relative relativity" inasmuch as it gives us another (equally valid?) way of looking at SR

Yes I'm petering out
Not Hayes but Hileman

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=peter+hayes+relativity

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

To briefly summarize what I've tried to discuss in this thread:

1. The "relative simultaneity" which was addressed in the first post just boils down to this: Any two relatively moving observers MUST make contradictory claims about who is moving. Without that required conflict, the theory completely falls apart. It is this very conflict (together with assumptions which are external to the theory) that creates all the paradoxes that plague SR.

2. Theories of motion which do not impose this artificial and very dubious requirement on observers make all the same predictions, just as well, as does SR. "Relative simultaneity" is by no means required to explain relative motion. SR cannot be said to be superior on the basis any experimental findings or other empirical grounds. SR is not a "proven fact."

3. In practice (e.g., the gps, astronomers, etc.) SR is not used for calculations. Instead a theory which incorporates the synchronization methods of an AST (absolute simultaneity theory) is used to calculate and to achieve practical results. These theories work just as well in non-inertial frames, where SR falls apart and must be rejected.

4. Einstein himself was never satisfied with the theory. By 1907 or so, he had rejected it. In general relativity, the speed of light is NOT claimed to be constant.

5. The premises of SR are, at bottom, metaphysical claims.

6. I have seen no one in this thread meaningfully deny or debate these claims, notwithstanding the seeming consensus that SR is superior to any alternate theory.

3 Replies

@layman,

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah99/davidrs1/boring_zpsaepfws3n.jpg

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Ora if you're still with us, yes I realize you might have already addressed the issue but with a thread of this size, recapitulation by regression is near impossible; thus inevitably requiring paraphrase if not replication; though pertinent links are acceptable

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-22#post-5887514

dalehileman wrote:

Hell Ora that's an easy one They'd be the same youngsters they were when they launched.

First things first. Does my proposed hypothetical address the question that you have been trying to figure out over these past years?

dalehileman wrote:

But I'm wondering why it would matter that they swished on past Earth (if it's still in existence)

I did not include Earth anywhere within my proposed hypothetical.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know