Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@parados,

From the site you quoted, Parados:

Quote:

Observers that are in motion relative to each other (and that employ Einstein's definition of simultaneity) will generally end up with different results: events that one observer judges to be simultaneous will not necessarily be simultaneous for the other.

Surely you understand the qualified nature of this statement, don't you, Parados?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Einstein's definition of simultaneity) will generally end up with different results: events that one observer judges to be simultaneous will not necessarily be simultaneous for the other.

This insight allows relativity to escape the apparent contradiction that one and the same clock is both slower and faster than another clock.

This doesn't in any way "escape" the apparent contradiction. In fact, it is this very suspect "insight" that CAUSES the apparent contradiction.

Here's how it works (simplified). A will INSIST that he is motionless. B will ALSO INSIST that he is motionless. Why? Because Al makes them do that. But they cannot both be motionless and ALSO be moving relative to another. At least one of them has to be wrong in his claim.

Don't let big words and glib assurances mislead you, Parados. Too many do that already.

That is why all relativists agree that one twin "really is" aging faster than the other. They cannot possibly maintain, on an OBJECTIVE basis, that "each clock is slower than the other." They don't say "both twins are correct," at least not when push comes to shove. They can't. They would just look stupid.

1 Reply

@layman,

Their own theory SAYS the moving clock runs slower. Logically AT LEAST ONE of the two twins MUST be moving.

Therefore, relativists contradict their own theory when they say "both are correct." There's a reason for that. I have also quoted Physics Professor Morin (from Harvard) who explains the "reason."

It is this. Without those two conflicting and contradictory claims, the whole SR theory falls apart. It is only by making such claims that Al can claim that the speed of light is constant in all frames. You must have two subjective observers, each presupposing a different set of "facts," to make that (constant speed of light) appear to happen.

So, relativists try to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to say that "both are correct" and "there is no way to tell who's (relatively) moving." On the other hand, they want a theory that doesn't contradict itself and that can make predictions which have some meaning (which you can't do if you don't even know who's moving).

In trying to maintain both positions, utter sophistry results. The so-called "explanations" of the twin paradox show this clearly. After all the inadequate "physical" explanations fail, they are left with trying to point to a piece of graph paper to "explain" the inexplicable. Al himself rejected that attempt.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

dalehileman wrote:
(2) what if B instead circumnavigates the Universe so he undergoes no second shift of frames

How do you propose that B is able to circumnavigate the universe without changing direction which would require an acceleration and thus bring GR into play?

He proposes it by postulating a finite universe that "loops on itself" through a higher dimension, so that if you go far enough in a straight line, you will eventually end up in the same spot.

But he postulates only half-formed models that say nothing about whether the traveler(s) accelerate at the beginning of their trip, or decelerate at the end of their trip.

And no many how many times you ask him to clarify exactly what he is proposing, he refuses to ever say what is supposed to be happening in his proposed models.

I eventually lost patience asking for clarification over and over and over and over again, and I proposed my own model that I thought encompassed the situation that he was trying to understand.

Now he is steadfastly refusing to say whether or not the model that I proposed would address his question.

If you want to beat your head against a brick wall, have fun. I think I've had enough of it. Good luck.

1 Reply

@layman,

You did nothing other than argue that you are using only one frame of reference for all your thinking. At this point, you are the one that is wearisome. You can't think outside your little box that is dark and safe for you.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Correct BY that definition. It is not a definition that is required. Al uses mere (dubious) assumptions (such as that a guy on a train is "correct" when he claims he's not moving relative to the earth) to establish a concept of simultaneity that is "relative."

I am beginning to wonder if you think it is 1915. Since Einstein first published his paper there have been many advances in physics with a lot of them building on Einstein and some of them contradicting Einstein's thoughts on some subjects.

0 Replies

@layman,

So let me get this right. You are claiming we have to use the speed of light to calculate simultaneity but then you claim that the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames. How do you calculate simultaneity if you don't have a way to calculate it? Your own arguments are not defeating your arguments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

But he postulates only half-formed models that say nothing about whether the traveler(s) accelerate at the beginning of their trip, or decelerate at the end of their trip

Obviously I have to accelerate at the beginning, and that's what presumably causes you to be older than me when we meet again

However I don't see how it matters at that time whether I decelerate or not

Quote:

And no many how many times you ask him to clarify exactly what he is proposing, he refuses to ever say what is supposed to be happening in his proposed models

I've proposed several models so not entirely sure, Ora to which one you have ref. I've tried to answer your q's but apparently with little success; but I'm willing to try again if you could more carefully specify where I've been remiss

Quote:

Now he is steadfastly refusing to say whether or not the model that I proposed would address his question

Ora, guess you gotta forgive an old fella; so could you please provide a link to that posting

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You did nothing other than argue that you are using only one frame of reference for all your thinking

Heh, OK.

Let's just arbitrarily take, say, 500 trillion different "frames of reference," all moving relative to each other and all claiming to be "at rest."

Are they all "correct?" If so, then nothing said about motion could ever be wrong, eh? There is no motion, except everything is in motion. All is illusion.

Again, I start to see where this Hayes guy is coming from.

Quote:

The amazing thing about Einstein's theory of relativity is that it has kept going. It is built on contradictions, but these very contradictions means that almost anything ‘proves' that it is right. It is a bit like a theory where you say 1 + 1 = 2, but also that 1+ 1 = 3."

What, pray-tell, is the one frame of reference from which you can discern that they are all "correct."

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So let me get this right. You are claiming we have to use the speed of light to calculate simultaneity

Where did I ever claim that?

The global positioning system does in fact use the "speed of light" to determine position. It does indeed assume that the speed of light is different in frames which are moving relative to the ECI. However, it does not use the speed of light to determine "simultaneity."

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

However I don't see how it matters at that time whether I decelerate or not

Dale, your question seems to presuppose that it does matter.

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-26#post-5891611 --and see posts right before this one (where Al is quoted as saying: "Geometry predicates nothing about relations of real things...").

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Let's just arbitrarily take, say, 500 trillion different "frames of reference," all moving relative to each other and all claiming to be "at rest."

Are they all "correct?"

Yes, they are all correct within their frame of reference.

Relativity does not have an objective frame of reference. It is all relative to which frame you are in.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Yes, they are all correct within their frame of reference.

Oh, I see. Kinda like every delusional raving paranoid-schizophrenic is "correct" within his frame of reference? Why didn't you say that to begin with? I get that. However, it simply ignores the point I made (question I asked). Good dodge!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The global positioning system does in fact use the "speed of light" to determine position. It does indeed assume that the speed of light is different in frames which are moving relative to the ECI. However, it does not use the speed of light to determine "simultaneity."

Where does it assume that the speed of light is different in different frames? It assumes time is different in different frames and without that assumption it couldn't accurately determine coordinates.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Where does it assume that the speed of light is different in different frames?

It "assumes" it (perhaps the better phrase is "dictates it") by establishing the ECI clock as the "master clock" at the outset.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Relativity does not have an objective frame of reference.

If that's true, where do these scientists get the audacity to say that, in SR twin paradox, the earth twin is right (he REALLY aged more, just like he thought all along) and the travelling twin (who thought the earth twin was aging less) is wrong?

Going back to the well-documented gps, any "observer" on a satellite who believed that the time dilation caused by speed (ignoring gravitational effects) meant that his clock was going faster than an earth clock would, plainly and simply, be wrong.

One clock ACTUALLY does move slower than the other, and that not simply a matter of ideological speculation or subjective perspective. It is an empirically verified fact.

As far as assessing alternate theories of motion goes, I guess the question would be "which theory best comports with (and predicts) that known fact?" Hint: It ain't SR.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
However I don't see how it matters at that time whether I decelerate or not

Dale, your question seems to presuppose that it does matter.

http://able2know.org/topic/265997-26#post-5891611 --and see posts right before this one (where Al is quoted as saying: "Geometry predicates nothing about relations of real things...").

It is simply amazing how you pull half a sentence completely out of context and try to make it mean something Einstein never intended.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_geometry.html

1 Reply

@layman,

It gets to you just don't understand anything more complex than 1 dimension.

0 Replies

@layman,

First of all, you are conflating two separate things. A twin that leaves and returns is changing inertial frames so by returning to the initial reference he would be the one to age.

Let's have 2 twins. One leaves and accelerates to .5 C. The other leaves later and accelerates to .75C until he catches the first twin and then matches the .5C of the first twin to join him at that speed compared to the initial reference. Which one do you think would be younger? Why?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Which one do you think would be younger?

According to SR, there would be a net accumulated time difference that would be much greater the more closely you approached the speed of light.

Therefore the rate at which that net difference accumulates also varies with relative speed. You would have to use the Lorentz transformations to get the precise answer (which I aint gunna do).

But, that aside, how could you even begin to calculate an answer? According to you, there could be no right answer, because each is right when he assumes he is "at rest." Yet, again according to you, at some point, when inertial, they are both still moving at .5c.

What does it mean to simply say one "accelerates to .75C?" Is that an absolute speed? You seem to implicitly be positing an absolute frame of reference here, eh? In this case it appears to be the "initial reference" which serves as the absolute frame. When you say he is going at the rate of .75c, how fast is he going according to the guy he's chasing, I wonder? That guy is "correct," right?

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know