Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Both Newton and Galileo said that absolute speed can't (or couldn't at that time) be detected, but neither of them claimed, as SR does, that, as between two objects you couldn't know which one was moving.

You have a basic misunderstanding of Newton. How do think Newton defined which object was moving? Please do tell (because that you "couldn't know which one was moving" is exactly what Newton said)?

How do you think Newton claimed to know which object is moving?

The whole problem is that you don't understand high school physics, including what Newton said.

You're completely wrong on every count. Newton figured out, with amazing accuracy, the motion and direction of every planet in the solar system by positing the barycenter as the preferred (motionless) frame of reference.

It would, in any event, be ludicrous to say that the earth, with it's tiny relative mass could "cause" everything else in the solar system to orbit it. It would contradict his own law of gravity.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Yes, the earth is moving. "How" do they work? They work the way they do. So what?

1 Reply

The Lorentz transformations (completely adopted and relied upon by SR) tell you that the clocks on a "moving" object slow down, right?

But of course they don't, and can't, tell you which object is moving. You have to figure that out for yourself.

If the astronaut "admitted" that he was the one moving, relative to the earth (and not vice versa), then he would acknowledge that HIS clock had slowed down, rather than insisting it was the earth's clocks which had slowed down. But this acknowledgment would wreck the whole SR theory, so it is strictly forbidden by SR.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Yes, the earth is moving. "How" do they work? They work the way they do. So what?

So... here is your problem.

I am sitting on the Earth (moving at whatever speed you say I am moving). The boat in your examples is motionless.

I am going to be flying away from that motionless boat right? (Being the chump I am, I will think I am seeing the boat take off into the sky). All that nonsense about billowing sails means nothing... I see that motionless boat rocket off into the sky.

That is what you are claiming, right?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

If the astronaut "admitted" that he was the one moving, relative to the earth (and not vice versa), then he would acknowledge that HIS clock had slowed down, rather than insisting it was the earth's clocks which had slowed down. But this acknowledgment would wreck the whole SR theory, so it is strictly forbidden by SR.

But ultimately, SR is forced to abandon this absurd premise. In the twin paradox, it is, according to SR itself, the travelling twin who really and actually ages less rapidly, even though he thought otherwise (because he's forced to be a chump) throughout his travel. Turns out that SR itself had to admit that he was wrong.

His motion vis-a-vis he earth was absolute, not relative.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Yes, the earth is moving. "How" do they work? They work the way they do. So what?

So... here is your problem.

I am sitting on the Earth (moving at whatever speed you say I am moving). The boat in your examples is motionless.

I am going to be flying away from that motionless boat right? (Being the chump I am, I will think I am seeing the boat take off into the sky). All that nonsense about billowing sails means nothing... I see that motionless boat rocket off into the sky.

That is what you are claiming, right?

Not anything close to what I am claiming. The whole question you pose is utterly incomprehensible. In my "examples" the boat is NOT motionless to begin with, even if a guy in a closed cabin couldn't sense his own motion.

Just because he can't detect his own motion by performing physical experiments in his cloistered environment, that does not mean he is motionless. He has many other (empirical) ways of detecting his motion, if allowed.

0 Replies

As far as understanding Galileo goes, looky here: He was definitely NOT trying to claim that you could not tell which of two objects is moving. Quite the opposite, he was trying to prove that you could be moving even if you couldn't detect it by sense perception. He invented the concept of inertia to achieve this. That was the ultimate point of his "parable of the ship."

He was trying to demonstrate that you could know, by way of a rational interpretation of the empirical evidence (but not by raw sense perception), that the earth was moving. The traditional arguments against this notion included the claims that (1) if the earth were moving, we would all feel a "wind" due to the motion, and (2) that if you threw a ball straight up in the air it would not come back to you because, while it was in the air, the earth (and you) would have moved out from under it. In response he argued that if you dropped a ball from the mast of a ship, it would always land at the foot of the mast, even though the ship was moving while the ball was falling. That was because releasing the ball from your hand did nothing to take away its accumulated forward momentum.

Inertia served to refute these arguments. And he was right. SR was wrong when it tried to claim that it was impossible to say if the earth was moving.

0 Replies

You (relativists) are arguing that our ignorance about being able to take measurements, is affecting the universe, causing Time, (a concept) to dilate, space and lengths to shrink and Mass to mysteriously grow, all because of our IGNORANCE.
"we cant figure out if we are moving or not, so we must be shrinking or gaining weight, or some one must, its only logical....."

Only an idiot would come to this conclusion.

This is yet another great example of why Math is able to totally mislead scientific inquiry.

Math based on false assumptions will always lead to garbage. Ask Einstein.

And Layman, you have a lot of great comments, but you still are clinging on to the irrational claim that Time Dilation is a real thing.
You just need to take that last step in critical thinking, to recognize that Time does not warp because of speed, but clocks locally change rates as local physical conditions change.

Local Physical conditions cause atomic clocks to alter their rates when moved from one location to another on Earth, when taken to different gravitational regions, when temperature changes, vibrations, magnetic changes, rotational changes..... but Time has not changed. Not Locally, or uniquely related to a specific observer, Time has not changed at all for anyone, anymore than Length or Mass can.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

https://www.insidescience.org/news/why-do-we-need-super-accurate-atomic-clocks Why Do We Need Super Accurate Atomic Clocks?
Explore the applications of state-of-the-art clocks -- and the math that describes their performance and limitations.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

There is so much woo woo science in that article that its not worth reading in full.
Once I see reference to Time Dilation, Dark Matter or Energy, or Quantum anything, I quickly lose interest.

If you have a clock that is the most accurate, not losing a second since the Big Bang, (or some such claim), by what even more accurate time keeping device are you comparing it with to make such a claim?

Anyway, according to the idiot, Einstein, Time is just a persistent illusion, seconds for you are not the same for me, so why all the effort to measure an accurate second what the second is not a constant!
Its the height of foolishness.

Unless of course one realizes that the idiot Einstein's theories are as ridiculous as their author.

Clocks don't ever lose or gain time because TIME has changed, the change their rates because of changes in the Physical conditions around them. This is not TIME changing, its clocks becoming less accurate.

0 Replies

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know