Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Quote:

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

That is a tautology, saying "the traveling twin is traveling"...

In actual fact, both twins are traveling. Period. That you would, even for one second, think that one would be not moving... that only shows the depth of your naivety.

And NO, SR DOES NOT insists that each twin MUST treat himself as immobile... Contrary to popular belief, SR is not a psychological theory with special relevance to twins... You are very confused. And it pisses me off because I actually think you're smart, and that you can do better than a few flippant, condescending remark about relativity... But hey, I guess we all have our blind spots.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Let me start with you last assertion first:

Quote:

And NO, SR DOES NOT insists that each twin MUST treat himself as immobile... is not a psychological theory..

No, of course it isn't, although it's often treated as such when it's being "taught." It's a mathematical theory, with certain procedures and protocols built into the way the math can be applied within the context of SR. It is those mathematical rules which says the person making SR calculations (not the actual twin) MUST treat each twin as stationary.

Quote:

In actual fact, both twins are traveling. Period

As I said, EVERYBODY knows that. EVERYBODY, including Einstein and all modern day physicists. EVERYBODY. Do you think you are "enlightening" anyone when you state the obvious?

But what "everybody" (including physicists) doesn't do, is simply point that out, and then say that explains everything there is to know about the theory, about twins, etc. Only YOU do that, as far as I've ever seen.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

And it pisses me off because I actually think you're smart...

Well, thanks for that, Olivier, and I think you are intelligent also. That's why it's so disappointing to see you come in here and announce that I (or anyone else) is in "way over their depth," is totally "naïve," merits only a "LOL" as a response, and such.

The truth is that you are merely displaying that it is you that is "in over his depth."

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

It is those mathematical rules which says the person making SR calculations (not the actual twin) MUST treat each twin as stationary.

No, they don't say any such things.

Quote:

EVERYBODY knows that.

Yes, everybody knows that. And yet you did say one twin was moving and the other was not... Why? Because you are still thinking in absolute terms, as if there was some standard motionless frame of reference somewhere.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

No, they don't say any such things.

Really? What DO they say?

Quote:

Yes, everybody knows that. And yet you did say one twin was moving and the other was not... Why? Because you are still thinking in absolute terms, as if there was some standard motionless frame of reference somewhere

.

Not even close, Olivier. I said it, then I said it again bolding the qualifying part, and you still don't read it. It there such a thing as "motion," Ollie? Is there such a thing as "relative motion?"

1 Reply

@layman,

Yeah. "As between the two "... Whatever that means. Between the two, BOTH are moving. Stop that nonsense already.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Between the two, BOTH are moving. Stop that nonsense already.

Yeah both are moving. Nonsense? Are you EVER going to answer a single question I ask, Olivier, or are you just keep throwing out irrelevant and baseless red herring assertions?

You better tell EVERYBODY that both are moving!!!! Wait... everybody knows that. Do you have any point? Any point at all? Can you explain anything you think you are trying to say? Or do your objections consist only of characterizations like "nonsense?"

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Between the two, BOTH are moving

Do your "complaints," whatever they may be, extend to yourself?

Quote:

Olivier: you did say one twin was moving and the other was not... Why? Because you are still thinking in absolute terms, as if there was some standard motionless frame of reference somewhere.

When you say everything is moving, do you think that says something about special relativity? If so, what is it? Do you think Einstein knew what you know?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Yeah. "As between the two "... Whatever that means. Between the two, BOTH are moving. Stop that nonsense already.

Let me help you out a little, because I certainly get the idea that you don't really even know what you're saying, or even trying to say.

Take two cars going down the freeway at 100 mph, an inch apart from each other. They are both moving (relative to the earth) and they know it. However, they are NOT moving relative to each other. They can pass a beer back and forth between them just as though they were both sitting on the same living room couch There is no "relative" motion between them.

Now one speeds up to 120 mph, and holds it steady there. As a consequence, the two cars just keep getting farther and farther apart from each other. NOW (but not before) there is relative motion between those two. And yes, they are both also moving with respect to the earth's surface.

What is your point? Do you have one?

1 Reply

@layman,

I have one, pertaining to that situation. In SR each will be treated as motionless. Each will see the other as "moving," and will "see" (i.e., assume) the other's clock going slower.

The difference in relative motion would "look" the same whether one car sped up to 120, or the other slowed down to 80 (or so SR will tell you). But either car can simply look out his window and measure the time that passes between mile markers, and thereby know that, in fact, one sped up and one held the same speed.

The suggestion, by SR adherents, that it is "impossible" to know, as between two inertially moving objects, which one is "moving faster" (which one accelerated) is ridiculous.

0 Replies

@layman,

You made the mistake of assuming that one twin was not moving, and that was a rather dumb mistake since as you stated yourself, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT EARTH IS NOT STATIC... My hypothesis is that you made this error -- which is evidently "below you" -- because you were stonewalling your mind against SR and trying to clinch to the idea of an absolute frame of reference. That will of yours to argue and be right at all cost, is precisely what lead you astray... You're too opinionated and it ruins your delivery.

So my advice to you is to adopt a less opinionated attitude, and to genuinely try and understand relativity before you decide to trash it. For the moment, the only thing you are really trashing is your own credibility on this site.

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

For the moment...

An understatement if ever I read one ! Wink

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Are you EVER going to answer a question and show that you know even the first thing about relativity? It seems not. You will use hollow derogatory "judgments" as your argument. I am becoming more and more convinced that you really don't know the first thing about SR, or theories of relative motion in general, Oliver.

Quote:

You made the mistake of assuming that one twin was not moving,

Demonstrating my point. You don't even understand what I said.

Quote:

So my advice to you is to adopt a less opinionated attitude, and to genuinely try and understand relativity...

Is "ironic" the proper word to describe this?

If you have been taking lessons from Fresco, I will have to admit that he taught his "art" to you very well.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I am becoming more and more convinced that you really don't know the first thing about SR, or theories of relative motion in general, Oliver.

I suggest you go ask your "questions" to someone you think is truly qualified, then. Somebody of your scientific qualiber... Don't waste your time with little me.

0 Replies

For any who may not know, Hendrik Lorentz, a nobel-prize winning physicist, began developing what came to be called the "Lorentz transformations" in 1892, 13 years before Einstein's first paper on special relativity. Einstein used the Lorentz transformations as the mathematical basis of special relativity. Those transformations are the crucial element of his theory. So much so that Bertrand Russell (the famous mathematician/philosopher) said that "special relativity IS the Lorentz Transformations."

But Lorentz did not develop his transformations by positing that simultaneity is relative. On the contrary, he maintained throughout his life that simultaneity is absolute. Then, as now, "Lorentizan Relativity" makes every prediction (and then some) just as accurately as Einstein's special relativity.

Lorentz developed the concept of "local time" in 1895 as a mathematical shortcut. He always maintained that this concept had no actual physical meaning or significance; it was strictly a "fictitious" notion that greatly simplified some complex calculations.

One main difference between Al and him was that Al said that "local time" IS time. By doing this SR, eliminated some steps in calculation, and this alone held great appeal for many physicists.

At first, special relativity was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory (that's how similar the two theories were). In 1953, Einstein said of Lorentz: "For me personally he meant more than all the others I have met on my life's journey."

All of the "paradoxes" generated by SR are eliminated in Lorentzian Relativity. They never arose. The Lorentz Transformations were designed to make predictions under conditions of absolute simultaneity.

SR is perfectly self-consistent as a mathematical theory. It is only when one tries to use that same math as a basis for describing physical reality immense complications and serious anomalies arise.

0 Replies

And for any who may not know, Hendrik Lorentz himself wrote that Einstein was "right".

And for any who may not know, Ludwig Wittgenstein, arguably the most significant philosopher of the 20th century, rejected Russell's logical positivism (about "is-ness") which he had originally supported.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

And for any who may not know, Hendrik Lorentz himself wrote that Einstein was "right".

Wrong (for those who DO not know)

Quote:

Lorentz argued in 1913 that there is little difference between his theory and the negation of a preferred reference frame, as in the theory of Einstein and Minkowski, so that it is a matter of taste which theory one prefers...

Lorentz argued during his lifetime that in all frames of reference this one has to be preferred, in which the ether is at rest. Clocks in this frame are showing the "real“ time and simultaneity is not relative...

Lorentz's "ether" theory became both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The main difference was the metaphysical postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory, as Lorentz wrote in 1909,[C 7] 1910 (published 1913),[C 8] 1913 (published 1914),[C 9] or in 1912 (published 1922).[

Lorentz: "..according to Einstein it has no meaning to speak about motion relative to the aether. He also denies the existence of absolute simultaneity...The evaluation of these concepts belongs largely to epistemology to which we can left the judgment, trusting that it can consider the discussed questions with the necessary thoroughness...space and time can be strictly separated, that one can speak about simultaneity without further specification.

Lorentz 1914, p. 23: If the observers want to see the concept of time as something primary, something entirely separated from the concept of space, then they would certainly recognize that there is an absolute simultaneity...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

1 Reply

@layman,

I have already cited the appropriate reference above. I don't intend to read through what in your own words are "pages of crap" in order to find it.
You appear to be ignorant of the then vested interests in "aether theory" by physicists, or of religionists in "absolute reference frames" to appreciate the subtleties of Einstein's ontological leap and the controversy that it caused.

The indications about whether you have the brains to tackle Wittgenstein's views on "meaning" are perhaps indicated by your failure to tackle that point at all.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I have already cited the appropriate reference above. I don't intend to read through what in your own words are "pages of crap" in order to find it.

I recall your so-called "appropriate reference." All your citation of that particular quote demonstrated was your own inability to read and understand. It did not then, and, of course, does not now, say what you claims it says.

And I'm confident that you do not, and can not, understand what I just quoted by and about Lorentz either. Others can, however.

0 Replies

@parados,

Hey, Parados, there...what's up, Buddy?

I'm contemplating a big-ass party to celebrate the coming of spring, here soon. Plenty of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, ya know? Right now I've got a garden hose running 24/7 into a pit I dug out back--for mud wrestling with the BABES.

Point is, I need some cash. A lot of cash. I'll even invite you too, eh? Can ya please pay up now? Thanks!

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know