Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Quote:

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.

No , mate it IS NOT!

Here we go again, yaaawnn

Louis Essen, the father of he atomic clocks!:

Quote:

One aspect of this subject which you have not dealt with is the accuracy and reliability of the experiments claimed to support the theory. The effects are on the border line of what can be measured.
The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results. This was so with Eddington's eclipse experiment, and also in the more resent results of Hafele and Keating with atomic clocks. This result was published in Nature, so I submitted a criticism to them.
In spite of the fact that I had more experience with atomic clocks than anyone else, my criticism was rejected. It was later published in the Creation Research Quarterly, vol. 14, 1977, p. 46 ff.

Quote:

Louis Essen was the world champion of time measurement and introduced the new time standard based on the caesium clock rate. Essen understood that Einstein's special theory of relativity is empty of physical meaning and thus is no theory.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

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.

What "two separate things" do you think I am "conflating?" The twin who leaves and returns is the one that is (relatively) moving. SR says the moving clock runs slow. Therefore it will be, again according to SR, HIS clock that runs slow. That's just SR. What's being "conflated?"

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

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

I'm looking at your reference now. According to it, Einstein said all of the following things. Did he mean any of them, you think?

Quote:

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality...

according to axiomatics the logical-formal alone forms the subject-matter of mathematics, which is not concerned with the intuitive or other content associated with the logical-formal....

These axioms are free creations of the human mind. All other propositions of geometry are logical inferences from the axioms...Schlick in his book on epistemology has therefore characterised axioms very aptly as "implicit definitions." ...

it [is] also evident that mathematics as such cannot predicate anything about perceptual objects or real objects....

The question whether the practical geometry of the universe is Euclidean or not has a clear meaning, and its answer can only be furnished by experience....

"...the original, immediate relation between geometry and physical reality appears destroyed, and we feel impelled toward the following more general view, which characterizes Poincaré's standpoint. Geometry (G) predicates nothing about the relations of real things, but only geometry together with the purport (P) of physical laws can do so....

My only aim today has been to show that the human faculty of visualisation is by no means bound to capitulate to non-Euclidean geometry...

Was he "lying," you think? What did he REALLY mean? Something else entirely?

1 Reply

And of course the whole issue of the atomic clock and their inaccurcy by Louis Essen is conveniently ignored. so much for truth, honesty and integrity.

0 Replies

@parados,

Maybe the better, and more concrete, question is this. Do YOU really think that Al is supporting your (utterly confused) claim that:

Quote:

The math predicts that clocks traveling at a faster speed will slow down. The physics confirms the math.

Is Al saying that it is math (not physical theory) which does the predicting and that physics then merely "confirms" the math?

For some strange reason, I don't read him quite that way.

0 Replies

@layman,

Think Schrodinger's cat. You can't measure until you decide on your final frame of reference. Until you have the final reference and take a measurement both are correct.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Until you have the final reference and take a measurement both are correct.

I flip a coin and it lands, but is covered up before I can see it.

Does that mean it is:

1. Both heads and tails?
2.. Heads, but I just know it?
3. Tails, but I just don't know it?
4. It is either heads or tails, but I just don't know which?

Does what I happen to "know" or "think" or "guess," or "assume" in any way determine, or help determine, which side that flipped coin has landed on?

One thing is certainly clear: It isn't, and can't be, both heads and tails.

Proposition 4 is "correct" but it ONLY refers to what I know (or don't know). As an objective matter, it can't be either heads or tails. It is what it is, whether I know it, or not. If it has landed with the head side facing up, then the "probability" of it being tails is ZERO (not 50%).

2 Replies

@layman,

Edit: I said "Proposition 4 is "correct" but it ONLY refers...

I meant to say: "Proposition 4 is "correct" if it ONLY refers...

But, as stated, proposition 4 does NOT only refer to what I know. Therefore it is also incorrect.

0 Replies

@layman,

I guess you failed to read this line from Einstein...

Quote:

I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate the theory of relativity.

As for the sentence fragment you were posting:
Read the full paragraph that your quote came from. You might want to post the entire paragraph here. Einstein was referring to Poincaré's standpoint when he said; "Geometry (G) predicates nothing about the relations of real things." Something you pulled completely out of context.

But then you completely ignore the rest of the paragraph where Einstein states that G + P is required. It isn't one or the other. It requires both to understand everything. They both have to make up the total.

Your other quotes again are sentence fragments taken out of context. "Mathematics as such" doesn't refer to mathematics in general. It refers to axiomatic mathematics which Einstein differentiated from older mathematics earlier in the piece.

Over the course of the article, Einstein refers to older mathematics, newer axiomatic mathematics, Euclidean, and non Euclidean geometry. Pulling out sentence fragments without clarifying which specific math he is referring to is disingenuous because you are attempting to use it to prove something Einstein clearly did not intend.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

One thing is certainly clear: It isn't, and can't be, both heads and tails.

Of course, but you can't predict which one it is until you test it. In the case of relativity you can predict based on which inertial frame you are using to measure. Until you decide the frame there is no way to tell which it is.

2 Replies

@layman,

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

Quote:

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

Lay forgive me but could you provide a link to my q

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

I guess you failed to read this line from Einstein...

Why would you assume I failed to read that? There is no reason to cite it. It simply has nothing to do with the issue in question.

Quote:

you are attempting to use it to prove something Einstein clearly did not intend.

Really? WHAT did he intend?

This?

Quote:

Parados: The math predicts that clocks traveling at a faster speed will slow down. The physics confirms the math

.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Lay forgive me but could you provide a link to my q

Not offhand, Dale. I took it to be one you have implicitly asked on many occasions, as I read you.

To wit: Why does the acceleration on takeoff, landing, or turnaround make any difference in the time dilation?

Simple answer, which I have given you several times: It doesn't. But you keep asking the same question. Why is it a question?

0 Replies

@parados,

What?

Quote:

Of course, but you can't predict which one it is until you test it. In the case of relativity you can predict based on which inertial frame you are using to measure. Until you decide the frame there is no way to tell which it is.

Are you simply saying that you can't finish until after you have started?

Quote:

... but you can't predict which one it is...

What is being "predicted" here? What is "it?"

Quote:

Until you decide the frame there is no way to tell which it is

What is "it" in this statement?

Are you suggesting that, you, sitting at home, determine whether an object (say a rocket on it way to mars) is moving by exercising your choices?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Your other quotes again are sentence fragments taken out of context. "Mathematics as such" doesn't refer to mathematics in general. It refers to axiomatic mathematics which Einstein differentiated from older mathematics earlier in the piece....Pulling out sentence fragments without clarifying which specific math he is referring to is disingenuous because you are attempting to use it to prove something Einstein clearly did not intend.

No. You misread it if you think he's talking about "two different kinds of math." Math hasn't changed one bit. Al was merely recounting a difference in historical views (assessments) of math. A commonly-held historical view was that math somehow informed us, a priori, about the nature of the world. That view has since been rejected by almost everyone, and certainly by Einstein himself.

Those who rely on a minkowski diagram on a piece of graph paper to provide a "cause" for physical phenomena apparently didn't get memo.

1 Reply

@layman,

Those that think math "causes" something haven't been paying attention. It seems you want to misrepresent my position as well as Einstein's.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Until you decide the frame there is no way to tell which it is

That very mistake is implicit in the above claim of yours, and it is tantamount to utterly subjective solipsism, if I interpret it correctly.

Given the context, I take you to be saying this:

Until I, the relativist doing mathematical calculations, arbitrarily designate one of two given objects to be the stationary one (by deciding to use it's frame for purposes of calculating), BOTH are motionless.

Once I make that decision, I THEN know which one is moving.

So, if you "choose" the frame of the rocket moving to Mars, it is NOW stationary, as you "predicted?"

If you choose the earth's frame of reference, that same rocket is NOW moving?

Do you really think that your personal, subjective, and arbitrary assumptions, as they pertain to mathematical exercises, dictate reality?

Does the rocket, out there in space, "stop moving," when you make one choice, and start moving when you make another?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It seems you want to misrepresent my position as well as Einstein's.

I have repeatedly asked you to STATE your position. You have not done so. What is it?

Your repeated hollow accusations of "misrepresentation" are lame.

0 Replies

@layman,

The relative motion is there no matter which one you decide is moving. Arguing that one stops and the other starts moving depending on how you choose is merely your failure to understand.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Do you really think that your personal, subjective, and arbitrary assumptions, as they pertain to mathematical exercises, dictate reality?

Would that be as opposed to your personal, subjective, and arbitrary assumptions?

0 Replies

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know