Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

So you're left talking to yourself, non?

I've read the thread a bit. You guys aren't making much progress. You keep treating SR unfairly. There is a key distinction in SR between inertial and non-inertial reference frames. Only the former are mutually equivalent to describe the laws of SR. But a plane flying around the earth -- nor any point at the surface of the earth, be it Washington DC -- is no inertial frame. The plane is constantly accelerated one way or the other by gravity, its engines and the winds. Washington DC REVOLVES around the earth center of mass, and is thus constantly accelerated downward by gravity.

Inertial frames go in straight lines (in SR). So if if you turning around something, you're not in one.

Another way to say the same thing is: let us take a frame of reference centered on the obelisc in Washington DC, with the obelisc as its vertical axis etc. Let's try and describe the laws of motion of the universe in this DC frame as if it was immobile. The entire universe now revolves around Washington DC, literally. Planets, the sun, all the stars now speed around Obama and the 47 traitors. Galaxies far far away, replete with their usual lot of jedis and princesses, break the light of speed and bend their ways backward to circle around DC.

Well... The sad news is such a bizarre universe cannot be explained by the laws of SR.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You keep treating SR unfairly

It what way, Ollie? I have said SR can't be used to predict the clock changes in these experiments (although an AST predicts them perfectly). Are you claiming that's wrong?

Quote:

But a plane flying around the earth -- nor any point at the surface of the earth, be it Washington DC -- is no inertial frame.

Two things:

1. Acceleration has no effect on time dilation, in SR or in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_hypothesis

2. Then why is it that it's adherents claims dozens of "confirmations" of SR based on experiments done/evidence gathered on and from earth? The "thought experiments" Einstein which based the theory on took place on earth. Given what you're saying, it would seem that SR "applies" exactly....uh nowhere, and is inherently wrong in it's premises (you're right, there).

Quote:

Let's try and describe the laws of motion of the universe in this DC frame as if it was immobile. The entire universe now revolves around Washington DC, literally. Planets, the sun, all the stars now speed around Obama and the 47 traitors. Galaxies far far away, replete with their usual lot of jedis and princesses, break the light of speed and bend their ways backward to circle around DC...The sad news is such a bizarre universe cannot be explained by the laws of SR."

Thank you, Ollie. You have just conceded the point I made in the OP, and which people in here have been denying ever since.

There is a reason SR doesn't "apply" in inertial frames, by the way. That's because the whole theory doesn't work and falls apart if you try to apply it to an inertial frame, and exposed to be what it is. " What ensures then is "a complete disaster" for SR, as Morin, the Harvard physics professor I quoted, said.

In an inertial frame is impossible for BOTH A and B to "claim" they are motionless. Without those two mutually contradictory claims being made, SR totally fails.

3 Replies

@layman,

Edit: In a [NON]-inertial frame it is impossible for BOTH A and B...

0 Replies

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

Thank you Ollie !

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

There is a reason SR doesn't "apply" in inertial frames, by the way. That's because the whole theory doesn't work and falls apart if you try to apply it to an inertial frame, and exposed to be what it is. " What ensures then is "a complete disaster" for SR, as Morin, the Harvard physics professor I quoted, said.

???

You make very little sense here. The reason Einstein's relativity applies to inertial frames is the same reason Galileo's relativity applies to inertial frames. Einstein is basically a generalization of Galileo. Stop criticising a theory which you don't understand. It's painful to watch.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

2. Then why is it that it's adherents claims dozens of "confirmations" of SR based on experiments done/evidence gathered on and from earth? The "thought experiments" Einstein which based the theory on took place on earth. Given what you're saying, it would seem that SR "applies" exactly....uh nowhere, and is inherently wrong in it's premises (you're right, there).

You are confusing the frame of reference and the domain of validity of the theory now. Even though Washington DC is NOT an inertial frame, relativity applies to it. You just need another frame of reference (truly inertial) to compute the laws, that's all.

Only over a very short timeframe (a few nano-seconds) can a locale on earth surface be approximated as the center of an inertial frame. Eg in the Michelson–Morley experiment on the speed of light in different directions.

1 Reply

@layman,

Einstein was trying to use deformable time and space to explain the apparent failure of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Einstein was trying to use deformable time and space to explain the apparent failure of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

And he did so with incredible success, as predictions of SR and GR have been confirmed over and over again, and continue to be confirmed to this day.

LIGO will come online later this year and GR will have an opportunity to prove itself yet again. Should be interesting.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You make very little sense here. The reason Einstein's relativity applies to inertial frames is the same reason Galileo's relativity applies to inertial frames. Einstein is basically a generalization of Galileo. Stop criticising a theory which you don't understand. It's painful to watch.

No, Olivier, YOU are the one who doesn't understand the conceptual issues being discussed here. And it is painful to respond to. Like many others before you, you come in this thread and start making glib pronouncements without having read the thread and without knowing that the very objections you are raising have already been addressed about 20 times.

If you don't understand what Dr. Morin said, and why he said it, read the thread. If you don't know why an AST does apply, and does work in all frames, both inertial and accelerating, and why SR fails to do that, then read the thread. I've already been through it way too many times to say it again for those who refuse to take the time to understand the issues.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Even though Washington DC is NOT an inertial frame, relativity applies to it. You just need another frame of reference (truly inertial) to compute the laws, that's all.

Which is precisely why SR was not used to make the accurate predictions in the Hafele-Keating experiments. Calling an AST "SR" does not make it SR. Hafele and Keating established and used a preferred frame--something "strictly forbidden" by SR (except when it ignores its own mandates--as in the "resolution" to the twin paradox, for example).

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

YOU are the one who doesn't understand the conceptual issues being discussed here.

LOL

Quote:

If you don't understand what Dr. Morin said

I don't give a flying rat's arse what your guy Morin said. Just saying: before you criticise SR, try and understand what it says. You're behaving as a kid who can't understand a mechanical clock and smashes it out of frustration.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I don't give a flying rat's arse what your guy Morin said

That's QUITE obvious, Olivier.

Why you seem so proud of that is what I fail to understand.

Morin is not "my guy." He is a professor of physics at Harvard who has written highly acclaimed textbooks on the topic.

It's possible, although the possibility is EXTREMELY REMOTE, I know, that he may know a little more about the subject than you do.

1 Reply

@layman,

So what? Do I have to be interested in him because you just happen to be?

My point was and remain: don't criticize something you fail to understand. You evidently don't get this 'inertial frame of reference' thing, and yet that's the first thing one needs to understand in SR.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

My point was and remain: don't criticize something you fail to understand

As usual, people are quick to prescribe advice which they refuse to follow themselves.

I know enough about inertial frames of reference to know what is said here: http://able2know.org/topic/265997-51#post-5902478

Do you?

1 Reply

@layman,

No. You think you understand but you actually don't, and until you come to terms with that, you will make zero progress.

The thing with inertial frames of reference is: none of your examples (trains, planes, rockets, cities) ACTUALLY represent or offer the basis for one. They are all very imperfect examples. A real train never ever is inertial. You can always feel that you're moving even with your eyes closed, simply by the balancing of the train car, the breaking, the accelerations, the turning... Likewise, and even if we can't feel it, a train station is circling around the earth center of mass, and revolving in a much broader ellipse around the sun, so it does not offer an inertial frame of reference either. These are just examples given to kids so they can vaguely get the ideas behind relativity. They are not serious examples of inertial frames.

The other thing is: whereas an inertial frame of reference is required to compute the SR equations for all sorts of stuff, this frame can be used to calculate many things happening EVEN TO NON-INERTIAL OBJECTS. Ie the time dilatation of a clock in a plane flying around earth as compared to a clock left at the airport can very well be calculated accurately in SR, using an inertial reference frame. This is in spite of the fact that neither the plane itself nor the airport are inertial. So we cannot use a frame centered on the plane, or centered on the airport, to calculate time dilatation. But if the experiments lasts only for a few hours, one can neglect the earth revolution and use a geocentric frame for this problem, with axes pointing at specific stars. That is to say a frame centered on earth but not rotating with earth. If the experiment lasts for more than a few days, one might have to use a sun-centric frame because the earth's trajectory cannot be considered inertial over more than a few days: it is in fact 'accelerated' by the sun's gravity into an ellipse, not a straight line.

Bottom line is: as far as we know, SR seems to predict all sorts of phenomena rather well. It's not a perfect theory by any means, but no amount of uninformed, confused blah-blah will tear it apart.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

So we cannot use a frame centered on the plane, or centered on the airport, to calculate time dilatation. .

Which is precisely why "you" are NOT using SR. You are resorting to an AST (absolute simultaneity theory) at that point. Do you understand that difference?

Quote:

as far as we know, SR seems to predict all sorts of phenomena rather well.

Yeah, it does, in limited circumstances, because it took its basic math (the Lorentz tranformations) from an AST theory. Are you under the impression that ONLY SR makes those predictions?

Every experiment which is deemed to confirm SR also confirms an AST theory. But an AST can also be used to make accurate predictions which SR cannot make. To call every calculation which works "special relativity" just displays an inadequate understanding of what SR is.

You have not said anything that I wasn't aware of, Olivier. There are already enough people around here who seem to think they are brilliant, and know everything, and that the person they are talking to is simply an ignorant fool. Such persons then "demonstrate" their superior knowledge with stock answers like "LOL!!!"

You don't need to join that crowd, so you?

1 Reply

@layman,

The 'crowd' here knows ****, and that includes you and me, but unlike you and most of 'them', I am aware of the limits of my knowledge. You are not.

You have been talking about SR like crazy here, never ever mentioning inertial frames, until I made that point here a few days ago. That's how the twin 'paradox' can be solved: by recognising that neither twins trajectories is inertial, and therefore that the twins' own frames of reference (centered on their house or the ship) are not equivalent to calculate the laws of nature.

And even after I made that critical point, you conveniently forgot about it...

And no, i am not adopting a 'AST'. I am just pointing at a key feature of SR, which is that an inertial frame of reference is required to calculate stuff accurately. An accelerated frame of reference won't work.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

accelerated frame of reference won't work

An accelerated frame WILL work, just not within the strict confines of SR. SR adherents know perfectly well how to, and they do, make calculations in accelerated frames. They are just not using SR when they do it.

Quote:

That's how the twin 'paradox' can be solved: by recognising that neither twins trajectories is inertial, and therefore that the twins' own frames of reference (centered on their house or the ship) are not equivalent to calculate the laws of nature

Care to explain what you mean by this? I posted an excerpt from Feynman earlier, which showed what HE meant, and it's rather simple--along these lines.

1. The moving clock runs slow (always).
2. Accelerated motion is absolute, even within SR.
3. We therefore know that the travelling twin is, as between the two, the one moving.
4. That explains why it is his clock running slow (and he is the one aging less).

The situations are NOT identical. One is moving, one isn't. That's why the earth twin's SR calculations are RIGHT, and why the travelling twin's calculations are WRONG (because he was treating himself as "immobile," as it "required" by SR).

Is that what you're saying?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

3. We therefore know that the travelling twin is, as between the two, the one moving.

This is just one tiny example of how you are way beyond your depth here: BOTH twins are traveling, because earth is turning on its own axis, revolving around the sun, and the sun itself is revolving around the center of the milky way, etc. There no such thing as an immobile twin.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

This is just one tiny example of how you are way beyond your depth here: BOTH twins are traveling, because earth is turning on its own axis, revolving around the sun, and the sun itself is revolving around the center of the milky way, etc. There no such thing as an immobile twin.

EVERYBODY knows that. I can't for the life of me understand that you think anybody doesn't know that.

It's also not the issue when you talk about the DIFFERNCE that is registered on two relatively moving clocks. Did you even read the sentence you quoted? It says: "We therefore know that the travelling twin is, as between the two, the one moving."

SR insists that each twin MUST treat himself as immobile. That's been well-established. Do you disagree?

I asked you a question (and gave you Feynman's answer to it) that you ignored. Or was that your "answer?"

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know