Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Quote:

2. "You fail to see that you are using that one frame.." I don't "fail to see" anything. I just don't agree with your erroneous claims. I have noted, for example, that in the twin paradox solution, SR itself DOES indeed resort to "using one frame" as a preferred frame.

Of course the twin paradox uses one frame as shown but we are talking about the viewpoint of each when travelling. I suggest that if we simply use the other frame as the starting and stopping point then we get a completely different answer.

Let's put both twins on a ship flying toward earth at .5c Now one twin stops at earth while the other continues on with a large elliptical orbit around the sun and then returns to pick up the 2nd twin and continues on at .5c. Which one is younger when they both end up on the ship frame of reference? Is it possible that the one that stopped on earth is younger?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Your evidence is based on ONE frame of reference. Geez. How many times do you have to be told that

Say it a million times. It doesn't matter. One clock ACTUALLY records less time passage than the other. That was what the bet was about. Each clock does NOT run slower than the other. I proposed a bet on a set of specific circumstances, which you accepted. Just pay up and quit trying to welch.

If your point is that the predictions of SR do NOT match the facts, you're right. That's why they threw SR out. ONLY the AST with the preferred frame makes predictions which match the ACTUAL facts. That said, even SR does not predict that "each clock (actually) runs slower than the other." It merely says it will "appear" that way to the observers involved.

Can you pay with cash? No bank will cash a check made payable to me.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If your point is that the predictions of SR do NOT match the facts, you're right.

To elaborate, SR, to the extent it really says anything at all, says the speed of light is constant, regardless of the motion of the sender/receiver of the light transmitted.

SR would say that you could use Washington D.C. as a "valid" frame of reference. If you did that, and then flew planes away from Washington at equal speeds in opposite directions (as the Hafele-Keating experiment did), then each clock would slow down, by an equal amount, compared to the earth clock. That is NOT what actually happened.

Here again, the "evidence" for or against the bet we made is "what happened," NOT "what does my pet theory, as ideosyncraticly propounded by me, predict." I proposed the physical "experiment," and the bet, specifically to end all the wild speculation, so as NOT to continue it. You lose.

0 Replies

@layman,

Yawn!!!

Exactly as I predicted. You simply claim you are correct.

Quote:

That said, even SR does not predict that "each clock (actually) runs slower than the other." It merely says it will "appear" that way to the observers involved.

Gosh, now it appears you are admitting I won the bet.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Gosh, now it appears you are admitting I won the bet.

Hahahah. What are you claiming the bet was, Parados? Spell it out.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

What are you claiming the bet was, Parados? Spell it out

No answer, Parados? Figures. Maybe I can help.

I have asked you several times if you disagreed with anything in a particular post, and you have consistently evaded the question. Here it is again, re-posted for ease of reference.

Quote:

Likewise, a guy sitting on a jet plane travelling at 600 mph with a clock in his lap is quite free (if he is that stupid) to INSIST that he is not moving, and this his clock IS NOT slowing down, relatively to an earth clock.

He can likewise INSIST (and he can scream it at the top of his voice for all in the aircraft to hear) that Washington, D.C. (and only Washington, not him) is moving.

But, no matter how loud he screams, his clock will show less time elapsed when he lands and holds his clock up next to the Washington clock. According to SR, this proves that his clock was the one moving, not the one in Washington.

Well, do you?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. IF I define 2 + 2 as "equal to 4," THEN 2 + 2 = 4

2.IF I define 2 + 2 as "equal to 5," THEN 2 + 2 = 5

BOTH of those statements are, BEYOND QUESTION, correct. So what?

Neither tells me whether 2 +2 is 4 or 5.

Your tautologies do NOT address any matter of substance.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That definition over-rides reality? That can't be the case.

You see with maths each number is a representation of a value. This can be tested in reality, which is why math works. Therefore your second definition can't be validated to true because it is false.

If you have two groups of two apples, the sum total of how many apples you have is never going to be five. It is impossible, therefore defining 2+2=5 is always false. There is NO way to validate it to true. If you could then math becomes meaningless and vague like abstract art.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

I think he forgot to make a left turn about 1000 miles ago, and he's off course by over 2000 miles. he he he.....

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

What exactly are you trying to say here? That definition over-rides reality? That can't be the case.

Of course, not, Krumps, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I'm saying that definition CANNOT override reality. Notice that I emphasized the hypothetical nature of the propositions (IF-THEN). It's arbitrary.

Quote:

If you could then math becomes meaningless and vague like abstract art.

Yeah, that's exactly what math is, as far as "external reality" goes. It says, and can say, nothing about that. That's not the domain of math.

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." (Albert Einstein)

0 Replies

@Krumple,

I was making both a general and a specific point, there, Krumps. I've forgotten what the specific point even was, now, but it was probably this:

SR can DEFINE an inertial frame of reference as being "completely motionless," if it wants, but that act does NOT make it so, in reality. It just "makes it so" in the context of SR's *special* definition. In other words, it makes it so, in the theory of special relativity.

But, nonetheless, many people then want to act like that definition somehow creates, determines, or controls reality. It doesn't. They don't make the distinction, and honestly speaking, I don't think your post does either.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

It just "makes it so" in the context of SR's *special* definition. In other words, it makes it so, in the theory of special relativity.

Which just comes back to the same point I was making 53 pages ago, in the first post: Just because SR COMPELS (within the framework of it's theory) a guy on a moving train to "pretend" that he's motionless, that doesn't mean it's true "in reality."

People here have repeatedly made statements like this: "But, in his frame of reference, he is at rest"

All they are really saying (given SR's special definition) is: "But if you define him as being at rest, then he is at rest."

An empty tautology.

1 Reply

@layman,

In my mind, I'm really saying much more than needs to be said on the topic now, but, from what I've encountered here, I'm not sure the point can be made enough times:

Suppose a guy told me: All crows are black

Now, is that supposed to be a statement of fact, or merely one of definition? Some people make no distinction.

Suppose I found a critter that was in every discernible way identical to a crow, and that had a small grey spot on it. Therefore it is not completely black. Now suppose I took it to the guy who told me all crows are black, to demonstrate to him that his statement was not true as a matter of fact. What would he say?

If he was a typical SR adherent, he would just say: "That's not a crow because, like I already told you, "all crows are black."

They want to settle issues of fact and/or logic by using their own idiosyncratic definitions, not by acknowledging either fact or logic.

1 Reply

@layman,

No. You've just demonstrated that the "is-ness of a crow" is a matter of consensus..nothing more. "Facts" are constructions (From the Latin facere- to make). Think of the "is-ness" of Pluto as "a planet" until recently.

Let me refer you to one of my favorite philosophers Crocodile Dundee !

GIRL: "Watch out Mick ..he's got a knife !"
DUNDEE: "That's not a knife" (stilleto)...(pulls out his big bush knife)"That's a knife !" (Punk mugger flees)

Note how "is-ness" equates to contextual functionality.

Now you can argue that SR doesn't work in some contexts. So what. We all knew that ! But you cannot argue about the paradigmatic utility of it in generating experimental hypotheses and pushing forward the boundaries of modern physics.

Of course, your obsession is unlikely to let you concede the point. You have too much invested in it. A pity really.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No. You've just demonstrated that the "is-ness of a crow" is a matter of consensus..nothing more.

Your utter lack of any objective standards and abject subjectivity has been demonstrated many times, Fresco. No real need to repeat it. We know where you're coming from.

A "consensus" of one is right up your alley, sho nuff.

"Is-ness." Heh.

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes a pity that we all know that you are stuck in a psychological hole ! You might even call that "an objective fact" ! You add to the "evidence" every time you continue your diatribe. ! Laughing

0 Replies

Still people here believing in the theories of Einstein?

Unbelievable!

0 Replies

@parados,

OK, Parados, just duck and ignore all those other questions. I don't care. Just answer this one:

Quote:

Can you pay with cash? No bank will cash a check made payable to me.

0 Replies

@layman,

Yawn!! You are still insisting that by simply making a claim, it makes you correct.

You might want to look up the meaning of "inertial frame of reference."

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

u are still insisting that by simply making a claim, it makes you correct.

Hahaha, nice try. The BET was that a Hafele-Keating type of experiment would NOT say both clocks to run slower than the other (my side). You took the bet.

Do you have any evidence at all that the experiment showed that "each clock ran slower than the other?"

That's what I thought.

Can you pay cash?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

SR would say that you could use Washington D.C. as a "valid" frame of reference.

Yawn!!!!
You continue to simply claim you are correct when your entire premise was invalid.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know