Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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.

Congratulations. Apparently you never took a philosophy of science class though. Physics professors rarely analyze the fundamental basis of the theories they're teaching (most were never taught themselves). They just want to teach you how to do the problems. No deeper understanding is required.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I for one (and Galileo, and Newton) can make the difference between an inertial frame and one that isn't inertial

Well, you're one step ahead of the great Einstein there, then. One of his (several) dissatisfactions with SR was that there was no way to clearly determine what frames were inertial. As you may know, his definition of an "inertial frame" changed drastically with GR..

Quote:

That one key concept among the many that escape you. And i have tried to explain it to you again and again,

I don't recall you ever making even the slightest attempt to explain anything to me, Ollie. But if you care to start explaining, I'll certainly listen.

1 Reply

@layman,

You make it more and more clear that you have no formal education in Science. The fact that you think that your lack of education makes you smarter than the people who have actually studied science and are doing things like putting robots on Mars (which apparently I think is pretty impressive and cool is pretty telling.

You are wrong, and any first year student in a University (the next generation of people who will continue the impressive advances we continue to see) would know that.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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

Do you disagree with a SINGLE thing I said about Galilean relativity? ANYTHING? Anything at all? If so, please state what it is, why you think I'm wrong, and what your supporting argument/evidence for you claim is, OK?

Can you do that? Or, like Ollie, do you just keep saying, over, and over, and over again that I don't understand. Notice that I have said a lot about it, including showing that your claim was wrong. You have said virtually nothing. Can you?

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes,

Galilean relativity states that any frame of reference is equally valid, and any frame of reference is motionless (by definition).

This is a very basic point that is taught in high school that you seem unable to accept.

4 Replies

@maxdancona,

Again you are missing a very basic part of understanding...

What you are doing is the same as someone who doesn't understand addition arguing that 3 *2 = 7 and refusing to let anyone use addition to show how he is wrong.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

refusing to let anyone use addition to show how he is wrong.

I've already invited you to show me where I'm wrong. I hereby renew and reinforce that invitation. Show away.

0 Replies

@layman,

I doubt you can listen to anything i say. In any case you clearly didn't when i explained in great detail that the earth, orbiting around the sun and rotating on its axes, CANNOT be considered inertial.

And that is precisely why Galileo could conclude "eppure si muove".

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Galilean relativity states that any frame of reference is equally valid, and any frame of reference is motionless (by definition).

Please show me one physicist, anywhere, anytime, including Einstein, who said that. Can you?

Surely you can at least cite a high school textbook, since that where YOU learned it, eh?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In any case you clearly didn't when i explained in great detail that the earth, orbiting around the sun and rotating on its axes, CANNOT be considered inertial

.

Did you say that recently? I may have missed it with all the posts coming from the two of you, and me trying to respond. I don't argee with what you seem to be implying (or even that Galileo had a clear conception of what "inertia" even was, but I'll leave that aside, for now, at least.

Is it possible for an object in an inertial state to be in motion, Ollie?

1 Reply

I posted this just for you, Ollie, and you have ignored it, so I'm reposting it. Care to comment?
==============
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

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Galilean relativity states that any frame of reference is equally valid, and any frame of reference is motionless (by definition).

This is a very basic point that is taught in high school that you seem unable to accept

Did they happen to teach you in high school that they are billions of billions of billions, well, OK, an infinite number, of DIFFERENT inertial frames, right here and now, all in relative motion to all others? Did they teach you that ALL of those were "motionless?' And they teach that was what Galileo claimed?

I will grant you that that's what SR claims, but certainly not Galileo.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Galilean relativity states that any frame of reference is equally valid, and any frame of reference is motionless (by definition).

Look, I don't agree with this, but I will grant you that's what special (but not Galilean) relativity says. That's definitely SR's definition.

So I "understand" that, if you for any reason thought I didn't (no one who read this thread could ever think that).

So, now what? I understand that's SR "definition" which you said I didn't. I say the definition is misleading, false, and absurd as a matter of physical reality. That's my claim.

I also say that "defining" the (say) moon as motionless DOES NOT and CAN NOT make it so. Do you deny that?

0 Replies

@layman,

Depends what you call recent. I exPlained this distinction here:
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-55#post-5908666

You did not understand it the first time around. Maybe the second...

1 Reply

If anyone thinks that either Newton or Galileo thought that a ship which went from England to Boston remained motionless while England moved away from it and Boston moved toward it then he has absolutely NO CLUE about what they thought.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Depends what you call recent. I exPlained this distinction here:
http://able2know.org/topic/265997-55#post-5908666

You did not understand it the first time around. Maybe the second...

What is it that I'm supposed to understand? Is there a point? I responded to this post at great length, and I could have said a lot more. I could have cited the clock hypothesis (an "axiom" of SR), for example.

I could have reminded you that physicists all over the world claimed that this experiment confirmed the theory of SR (it didn't, but).

But what is your point? That time dilation doesn't apply on earth (many scientists say otherwise)? Ok, lets say you're right. How does that uphold the theory of SR? In other words, what's your point, if any?

Is your point that SR has no application anywhere in the universe? If so, I'd probably agree.

One point I will make is this: The experiment WAS done. And a clock difference WAS found. I didn't make any claims about SR predicting that outcome. I said the opposite.

The experiment DIDN'T even use SR to make predictions. As I pointed out on many occasions it used an AST, and those predictions were accurate. The predictions of SR, if any, were not.

2 Replies

@layman,

You are wrong. Newton and Galileo understood that any inertial frame of reference was equally valid. That is why this is called Galilean Relativity.

In the ship frame of reference, the ship is motionless and England moves away from it.

In the England frame of reference, England is motionless and the ship move away from it.

Newton and Galileo were able to think in terms of either frame of reference and realize that scientifically they were equivalent. Newton worked to show that his laws of motion were valid in any inertial frame... and the fact that he was working on how the laws in space were the same as the laws on Earth, he had to be able to work in multiple frames of reference.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I could have reminded you that physicists all over the world claimed that this experiment confirmed the theory of SR (it didn't, but).

Let me make sure I understand this correctly.

The reason that physicists all over the world are wrong, and you are correct is that unlike them, you are uneducated... and this somehow gives you the ability to know stuff that they are unable to understand.

Do I understand you correctly?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are wrong. Newton and Galileo understood that any inertial frame of reference was equally valid. That is why this is called Galilean Relativity

Equally valid for applying physical laws without having to resort to fictitious forces, sure. But believing that there was "no way to tell who's moving!?" Hell no! Galileo said that would only be true IF (got that, IF) one were deprived of sense perception from outside (you were in a closed room). Where do you get your information?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Ollie's the one who's saying they're all wrong, and that I somehow don't "understand that."

He says the experiment was not "in the domain" of relativity, so take that up with him.

I say they are wrong because SR was NOT EVEN USED. Many physicists seem to think that if the Lorentz transformations are "confirmed," then SR is confirmed. But that just shows how careless they are. Lorentizian relativity ALSO uses the transformations (naturally, since that where Al took them from to begin with). And LR applies regardless of inertial states. So Hafele-Keating did NOT confirm SR. It did, however, confirm LR.

1 Reply

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know