Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Point is: the theory is a scientific theory, properly expressed in scientific articles. Any other expression of it is a form of dumbing down. Whether Einstein himself used this or that metaphor or not is irrelevant to the fact that these are just metaphors, not the real thing. You are taking aim with a dumbed-down version of SR. It's facile and meaningless.

When the sage points at the stars, the fool looks at the finger. You don't criticize SR, lay. You just rage on about a few "fingers" pointing at it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You apparently missed my tell about having objections to the philosophical "add-ons" that supposedly give the theory "real meaning." It not just the bogus examples, because the examples merely serve to illustrate (not create) the underlying theoretical basis. I did say I don't object to it on strictly mathematical grounds. I don't. But that's just part of the theory, as promulagated.

1 Reply

@layman,

That must be why you keep talking about trains and the psychology of twins... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

According to Al:

Quote:

We suppose a very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated in Fig. 1. People travelling in this train will with advantage use the train as a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in reference to the train.

Do you understand the import of what's being said here, Ollie? He's saying that the people on the train will use the train's reference frame to judge things (which, it turns out, will be treated as absolutely motionless).

Quote:

Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative.

The answer is negative, because, and only because, of the condition first mandated, i.e., that they people on the train assume that the earth's surface is moving while they remain motionless.

Quote:

If an observer sitting in the position M’ in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A

Here Al concedes that he is "really" moving, and says the events would be simultaneous for the train passenger IF HE WASN'T MOVING. The point here is that Al is first acknowledging the trains "real" motion down the tracks. Now what? Here's what (as amazing as it is):

Quote:

Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A.

He MUST conclude the two are NOT simultaneous, Al says. He doesn't say he "can" conclude that, he says he MUST!

So because he is REALLY moving, but nonetheless (erroneously) considers himself to be motionless, he now (falsely) concludes that the strikes were NOT simultaneous.

You say "psychology" has nothing to do with it. But according to Al it has plenty to do with the "physical explanation" (as opposed to the mathematical formalism) of SR. It is the guy's MISTAKEN notion that he is not moving (remember, Al has already said he really is moving), that "explains" the "relativity of simultaneity." That whole concept (and hence the very essence of special relativity itself) is based on a fool's mistake, if you take Al at his word.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

If it isn't already clear, all quotes are from Al.

1 Reply

@layman,

Has this stupid thread really gone on for 60 pages? I just skimmed over this thread, and there isn't anything here that I haven't seen mastered by bright high school students.

This appears to be 1200 posts of arguing with someone who refuses to accept (or understand) high school science. I haven't read all 60 pages, have I missed anything?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This appears to be 1200 posts of arguing with someone who refuses to accept (or understand) high school science.

Thanks for at least giving me enough credit to "understand" high school science, Max. That's something Ollie has been unwilling to do (and most other posters here).

I understand it, but, you're right, I refuse to accept it. Why? Because it's unacceptable in terms of being consistent with other known laws of physics, it's unacceptable because the implicit philosophy of science and ontology it adopts have been thoroughly discredited, and it's unacceptable because its dogma creates logical contradictions.

Other than that, it's a great theory.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What else is there to talk about, Max? Just trying to pass time here...

0 Replies

@layman,

This is really basic science Layman. Anyone with a degree in hard science or engineering masters this by their freshman year in college. People who don't master this (and accept it) can't continue in science. It is that basic, in fact really bright high school students master this (it is on the AP exam).

Look at it this way. You are rejecting the science accepted as basic fact by the scientific community. There are two options.

1) The scientific community is wrong and they all have a basic misunderstanding of science. This includes the people who are doing all sorts of impressive things including landing robots on Mars.

2) You are wrong and you have a basic misunderstanding of science.

I don't know what you have done with your understanding of science (which you apparently think is superior to actual scientists). But they have landed robots on Mars. Where have you landed robots?

Do you really think you are better than them?

The fact is that you are wrong. This type of discussion is interesting if you are able to see where you are wrong and learn from it... in fact this type of discussion is instructive if you have an open mind. But there is a right answer to this and you are wrong. After nearly 1200 posts is appears that you aren't ever going to figure this out or accept the facts, are you?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

But there is a right answer to this and you are wrong

If you believe this then (1) you haven't read the thread, and (2) you are wrong. SR is NOT the only viable theory of relative motion. In fact it is not even the one used in cosmology (see the quotes from nobel prize-winning physicist George Smoot--up a few posts) or by the global positioning system.

1 Reply

@layman,

I read the first few pages, where you basically rejected Galilean Relativity. Once you reject the most basic understanding, you kind of lose you ability to reason about things that are more advanced. And I read your last post (which is incorrect).

The moving train analogy that are having trouble accepting is really basic stuff. This is covered in high school AP programs and is mastered by every Freshman science student in college. This isn't even Einstein, the concept you are having trouble with, Frames of Reference, was well-known to Galileo and certainly to Newton.

You can't do physics without understanding this. I don't know what you think you understand from these other papers, but you aren't making sense to anyone who does real science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I read the first few pages, where you basically rejected Galilean Relativity. Once you reject the most basic understanding, you kind of lose you ability to reason about things that are more advanced

Heh. Weren't you the one talking about "having an open mind?" Did you look at the recent quotes in this thread by George Smoot, John Stuart Bell, and others? Or have they also "lost the ability to reason," you figure?

Quote:

basically rejected Galilean Relativity.

I have never rejected Galilean relativity to my knowledge. In fact, I hardily endorse it. Care you explain why you make that claim?

1 Reply

@layman,

Your original post is a rejection of Galilean relativity.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Your original post is a rejection of Galilean relativity.

Really? How?

1 Reply

@layman,

The idea that Person A on a train can correctly consider himself as motionless, at the same time that Person B on the ground can correctly consider Person A as moving along with the train.

Galileo understood this basic concept as did Newton. You can't have any valid understanding of any of these issues without mastering this basic concept.

What you are doing is equivalent to a person who hasn't mastered addition arguing that 3 * 2 = 7, and the rejecting anyone who uses addition to show you are wrong.

You are going to have to understand the the train example before you can possibly understand anything else in this topic. I think you have trouble admitting you are wrong which is getting in the way of you learning anything from people who know much more than you do about this topic.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The idea that Person A on a train can correctly consider himself as motionless, at the same time that Person B on the ground can correctly consider Person A as moving along with the train. Galileo understood this basic concept as did Newton.

That is wrong. Both Galileo and Newton noted that it would be impossible to detect an absolutely motionless frame, and both said the laws of physics would remain the same in all inertially-moving frames (which Einstein also postulated).

But neither of them said every inertial frame could correctly be considered as motionless. They said the opposite!

Galileo, in "his parable of the ship" demonstrated that you couldn't tell you were moving if you were moving uniformly AND were deprived of all external data and sense perception in a windowless cabin. But, he said, as soon a the sailor went up on deck and saw the fully-billowed sails on his ship, and saw the shoreline passing by, then he would KNOW that the ship was (the one) moving relative to the shore. You forget that part?

Remember, Galileo is the one who claimed the earth ACTUALLY did orbit the sun, and that, therefore, the earth could not "correctly" be considered to be motionless. Hence the ship's parable. One long-standing objection to that claim had been that if you were moving you would know it. Another was that a ball thrown up in the sky would go westward if the earth was moving. The ship's parable ALSO showed how this would not happen, due to inertia.

You seem to have some serious misconceptions about what Galileo and Newton actually said, as Ollie also seems to have.

2 Replies

@layman,

Look you have a basic misunderstanding that is holding you back from seeing where you are wrong.

Every inertial frame of reference by definition is motionless. Newton did understand that. Galileo did understand that as well.

A Frame of Reference defines what motionless means. I don't know if you ever do math, if you did and a FOR is defined as a train, a book on the floor of that train will have a velocity of zero (motionless). The Parable of the ship looks at the two different FOR's and notes that either one is valid.

You claim that I have serious misconceptions about these things. My understanding of physics comes from studying Physics in a University from professors who have done real science including one who has designed experiments on relativity that ran in space.

If I have serious misconception about what Galileo and Newton actual said, then so do Universities, and scientists and engineers across the world.

You are claiming that you have the correct understanding and that the entire scientific establishment is wrong.

Do you see why I think you might want to consider the possibility (however remote it may seem to you) that you might be mistaken and the entire scientific establishment could be correct in this?

If you have happened to have put robots on another planet, I may reconsider my opinion of what you are writing.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Every inertial frame of reference by definition is motionless. Newton did understand that. Galileo did understand that as well.

Wrong, and wrong.

(1) In SR, yes, an intertial frame of reference is BY DEFINITION motionless. But that is by no means inherent in the concept. And, needless to say, defintiitions do not decide and determine "reality" in any event. You can "define" a rocket on its way to the moon is "motionless" all you want. That won't, and can't, make it true.

(2) The concept of a "frame of reference" was not even created until long after both Newton and Galileo. That had no "understanding" of the term at all.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

A Frame of Reference defines what motionless means. I don't know if you ever do math, if you did and a FOR is defined as a train, a book on the floor of that train will have a velocity of zero (motionless). The Parable of the ship looks at the two different FOR's and notes that either one is valid.

No that's what you do. What about an accelerating frame of reference, the motion of which even SR deems to be "absolute." Is that frame of reference also "motionless?" You've been so indoctrinated with the unwarranted and unjustifiable idiosyncracies of SR that you don't even know there's anything different./

1 Reply

@layman,

I for one (and Galileo, and Newton) can make the difference between an inertial frame and one that isn't inertial. That one key concept among the many that escape you. And i have tried to explain it to you again and again, but you're not interested to learn. You just want to keep denying.

1 Reply

@layman,

Look,

You need to understand Galilean relativity before you have a chance of understanding Einstein. To do this, you are going to need to admit you don't know what you are talking about. If you took a course in Physics at a local college, it would help.

Education is a good thing. You have to learn Physics before you can claim expertise.

You seem to be confusing education with "indoctrination". Yes, I am educated in science, but so are the people who are putting robots on Mars.

Where have your ideas about science (which reject everything you would learn if you went to college) gotten you?

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know