Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@FBM,

Quote:

Quick non-SR related question: Do you want an absolute inertial frame? If so, why?

Yeah, I do (and astronomers seem to think they have found one--or at least a very close approximation of one--in the form of the CMB).

There are multiple reasons that I do, but, primarily just to restore some objectivity and logic to the topic, and to cease leading unsuspecting students into solipsistic thinking by means of dogmatic, sophistic "educational" techniques.

1 Reply

@layman,

I'm not following. What's subjective and illogical about SR? What's solipsistic, dogmatic or sophistic about it?

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

I'm not following. What's subjective and illogical about SR? What's solipsistic, dogmatic or sophistic about it?

Heh, that's what I just written the majority of 42 pages in this thread about.

I've also already mentioned several in our discussions (but you apparently didn't see them as such).

The "solipsistic" (or, if you prefer, the extremely subjective) part is addressed in my very first post (although it certainly doesn't end there). The "admittedly mistaken" subjective views of individual observers are used as the basis for an entire so-called "scientific" theory.

1 Reply

@layman,

So, you're proposing that we scrap SR? In favor of what, exactly? Do you know of something that isn't subjective, solipsistic, etc?

1 Reply

@FBM,

I'll try to repeat (too much trouble to try to find) an illustrative example of what I mean by way of analogy.

Take a case where lightning strikes a cloud.

An observer right next to it will see the lightning and hear the thunder clap virtually simultaneously.

An observer a few miles away will first see the lightning, then later (maybe 15 seconds later), hear the thunder. So the two will not be simultaneous "for him."

So, does physics now say that the thunderclap happened at TWO different times? Hell no.

Three times for 3 observers, 4 times for 4 observers, ad infinitum? Hell, no.

Nor should they.

They just say the two were "in fact" simultaneous, and then explain why they may not have been perceived that way by all observers.

To do otherwise creates an infinite number of standards, which is equivalent to absolutely NO standard, for assessing such things.

No, it didn't happen only if you heard it and only WHEN you heard it, sorry, solipisist.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

So, you're proposing that we scrap SR? In favor of what, exactly? Do you know of something that isn't subjective, solipsistic, etc?

Yeah, I have mentioned many times in this thread, and in my discussions with you (at least by reference, if not in detail) that there is (actually "are") a variety of theories, just as viable as SR, that posit absolute simultaneity, not the "relative simultaneity" which leads to endless sessions of "explanations" which go back and forth with statements like "Yeah, but from A's perspective...."

All the "paradoxes" immediately disappear once you adopt an AST (absolute simultaneity theory).

2 Replies

@layman,

I don't see where any of that is in conflict with SR. The speed of light is treated as a constant (in a vacuum) in SR. Your analogy is based on the different speeds at which light and sound propagate through a medium.

It seems more to me that you're arguing against a putative solipsist in favor of SR. What am I missing?

1 Reply

@layman,

What you "lose" with such theories in the dogmatic assertion that "the speed of light in constant in all frames." With an AST light will, indeed, be "measured" to be the same, but that "measurement" will not be taken as "fact" for every person measuring it.

Mathematicians don't like this. If every frame has a different speed of light associated with it, well, then, that's not as "simple" and there's more work to do.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:

So, you're proposing that we scrap SR? In favor of what, exactly? Do you know of something that isn't subjective, solipsistic, etc?

Yeah, I have mentioned many times in this thread, and in my discussions with you (at least by reference, if not in detail) that there is (actually "are") a variety of theories, just as viable as SR, that posit absolute simultaneity, not the "relative simultaneity" which leads to endless sessions of "explanations" which go back and forth with statements like "Yeah, but from A's perspective...."

All the "paradoxes" immediately disappear once you adopt an AST (absolute simultaneity theory).

Yes, I've read your comments about ASTs, but I put "exactly" in italics because I wanted to know which one you're stumping for, if any.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I don't see where any of that is in conflict with SR. The speed of light is treated as a constant (in a vacuum) in SR. Your analogy is based on the different speeds at which light and sound propagate through a medium.

It was intended to make a point about simultaneity, not sound waves.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I don't see where any of that is in conflict with SR. The speed of light is treated as a constant (in a vacuum) in SR. Your analogy is based on the different speeds at which light and sound propagate through a medium.

It was intended to make a point about simultaneity, not sound waves.

Yes, I understant that, but you're using the comparative measurements of two different phenomena, whereas SR has only one. I think that's a problem.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

I wanted to know which one you're stumping for, if any.

There isn't. That's not my domain. Nobel prize-winning physicists like George Smoot propose using the CMB as a (motionless) standard for assessing motion on a cosmological scale. If they say so, I'm with them.

But, it seems that, the best thing to use as a "preferred reference frame" needs to vary according to the gravitational "forces" that prevail in any given locality.

For earth-based matters, the ECI is used.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

What you "lose" with such theories in the dogmatic assertion that "the speed of light in constant in all frames." With an AST light will, indeed, be "measured" to be the same, but that "measurement" will not be taken as "fact" for every person measuring it.

Mathematicians don't like this. If every frame has a different speed of light associated with it, well, then, that's not as "simple" and there's more work to do.

Well, then, what's the point of making a measurement if you can't treat it as a fact? Seems like "anything goes" and anybody can make whatever they want out of the data.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/dunno_1.gif

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Yes, I understant that, but you're using the comparative measurements of two different phenomena, whereas SR has only one. I think that's a problem.

Not sure why. But I will comment that any time you use an analogy, no matter how apt and valid, the guy you're talking to will generally just say "that's different," missing the point entirely.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Well, then, what's the point of making a measurement if you can't treat it as a fact? Seems like "anything goes" and anybody can make whatever they want out of the data

No, not at all. If you use a yardstick that had shrunk by 50% to measure a football field, you would say it's 200 yards long. But as soon as you realized your measuring stick was off, you would agree that it's actually only 100 yards (stress on the word "actually," as opposed to "as measured").

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I wanted to know which one you're stumping for, if any.

There isn't. That's not my domain. Nobel prize-winning physicists like George Smoot propose using the CMB as a (motionless) standard for assessing motion on a cosmological scale. If they say so, I'm with them.

But, it seems that, the best thing to use as a "preferred reference frame" needs to vary according to the gravitational "forces" that prevail in any given locality.

For earth-based matters, the ECI is used.

Alright, I can see the practical application there, but physics doesn't quite hold the same goals as engineering. It could work in the sense of producing useful data, but the appeal to utility is a logical fallacy. I think physics is the endeavor to produce the best possible model of the universe and its forces, regardless of utility.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Alright, I can see the practical application there, but physics doesn't quite hold the same goals as engineering. It could work in the sense of producing useful data, but the appeal to utility is a logical fallacy. I think physics is the endeavor to produce the best possible model of the universe and its forces, regardless of utility

It can only do that on the basis of it's assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

But, actually, theoretical physics is quite concerned with creating models which make accurate predictions, so it isn't "regardless of utility."

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Yes, I understant that, but you're using the comparative measurements of two different phenomena, whereas SR has only one. I think that's a problem.

Not sure why. But I will comment that any time you use an analogy, no matter how apt and valid, the guy you're talking to will generally just say "that's different," missing the point entirely.

I have to disagree. There is a logical fallacy called "false analogy." Some analogies are better than others. I think you could come up with a better one, one that measures only one propagation speed, for example.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Well, then, what's the point of making a measurement if you can't treat it as a fact? Seems like "anything goes" and anybody can make whatever they want out of the data

No, not at all. If you use a yardstick that had shrunk by 50% to measure a football field, you would say it's 200 yards long. But as soon as you realized your measuring stick was off, you would agree that it's actually only 100 yards (stress on the word "actually," as opposed to "as measured").

How would the yardstick shrink without the measurer also shrinking?

Also, this presumes an absolute frame of reference, which we have yet to establish.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

think you could come up with a better one, one that measures only one propagation speed, for example.

OK, but the point would be the same. If we see a super-nova "now" we don't say it happened NOW. We project that it happened 20,000 years ago, or so. We use knowledge to correct our immediate sense perceptions.

That better?

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know