2

# Why in the world would Einstein suggest... 2

Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 01:01 pm
@layman,
Frames of reference are mathematical tools necessary to calculate motion, distances, speed, etc. of other mathematical objects. Such frames are concepts existing only in the mind. They are not physical objects. Even when a frame of reference is "anchored" on a physical object, it is NOT the same thing as the object.
0 Replies

Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 01:04 pm
@layman,
As usual, you don't understand the argument being made. Maybe you can't, maybe you don't want to. I don't know, but this discussion is not making much progress.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 01:14 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I don't know, but this discussion is not making much progress.

Quite true, because, as always, you can't or won't say anything of substance that relates to the issues being discussed. You say, for example...

Quote:
Frames of reference are mathematical tools necessary to calculate motion, distances, speed, etc. of other mathematical objects. Such frames are concepts existing only in the mind. They are not physical objects. Even when a frame of reference is "anchored" on a physical object, it is NOT the same thing as the object.

I agree with this entirely, but so what? In what way is it relevant to anything we're discussing? In what way does it even begin to respond to specific questions I ask, which you always duck?

What is your point? Can you say? Is it that SR is "meaningless?" I doubt that's your claim. So what is the relevance?

Tell you what. Let's just say, for now, that YOU are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about everything you say you are, and that I am absolutely wrong about everything you say I am wrong about, OK?

Now, with that out of the way, can you answer this question?:

Quote:
Do you agree with the difference I have shown between LR and SR in the 120 hour train example? If not, why not?
Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 01:20 pm
@layman,
My point is simply that SR is a useful theory, though its applicability to real life cases is limited. Hence the need for GR. Another point is that you don;t actually know what you disagree with, since SR and "LR" actually say the same thing, for all practical purposes, yet you will agree with one and disagree with the other...
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 01:26 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Another point is that you don;t actually know what you disagree with, since SR and "LR" actually say the same thing, for all practical purposes, yet you will agree with one and disagree with the other...

OK, that said, can you answer this one simple question?:
Quote:
Do you agree with the difference I have shown between LR and SR in the 120 hour train example? If not, why not?
Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:08 pm
@layman,
The short answer to your question is: over a period of 120 hours, neither a train nor the earth surface can reasonably be considered inertial. Therefore there is no reciprocity in SR between frames anchored on these objects. The same applies LR since there's no effective difference between these two theories.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:16 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
The short answer to your question is: over a period of 120 hours, neither a train nor the earth surface can reasonably be considered inertial. Therefore there is no reciprocity in SR between frames anchored on these objects

How is that relevant? Do you understand that SR DOES NOT CLAIM that there is any reciprocity over those 120 hours? Why do you say "therefore?"
Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:27 pm
@layman,
We evidently do not understand one another... Maybe if we met in the flesh it'd be faster and more fluid. This back-and-forth of misunderstandings is just not going anywhere. Anyway, I tried.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:33 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Anyway, I tried.

Giving up? OK. That's fine. You can't give a relevant or meaningful answer to a simple question, and just quit if asked for the least bit of clarification. It's clear you have no interest in supporting your claims. Later.
Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:52 pm
@layman,
I think it's much simpler than that: you are bent on disagreeing with SR, and that's why you keep inventing your own strawman version of SR, easier to tear down than the real one. That's also why you are not interested in understanding what I say.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:55 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I think it's much simpler than that: you are bent on disagreeing with SR, and that's why you keep inventing your own strawman version of SR, easier to tear down than the real one. That's also why you are not interested in understanding what I say.

OK.
Olivier5

1
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:20 pm
@layman,
Still, I learnt something re. the origins of relativity and the contribution of a large number of people to it. I used to see the story as one of a lonely genius cracking up the enigma all by himself. This romantic view was evidently mistaken. So the conversation was useful as far as I am concerned. Also discovered the philosophic side of Pointcarre thanks to this debate, and will dig that further.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:32 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Also discovered the philosophic side of Pointcarre thanks to this debate, and will dig that further.

Why in the world would you be the least bit interested in that old fool? He obviously did not understand SR and was just attacking some "strawman" version of it, eh?:

Quote:
Poincaré's work in the development of special relativity is well recognised...Poincaré developed a similar physical interpretation of local time and noticed the connection to signal velocity, but contrary to Einstein he continued to use the ether-concept in his papers and argued that clocks in the ether show the "true" time, and moving clocks show the local time
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9
0 Replies

layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:43 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
...neither a train nor the earth surface can reasonably be considered inertial.

Why not? You claim to know, understand, and subscribe to SR, don't you? Are you suggesting that you have somehow discovered a way, in contradiction to all the tenets of SR, to determine that the earth is accelerating (or otherwise moving) through absolute space?

I'm not trying to solicit an answer from you, by the way. Just a rhetorical kinda question, to myself, really. I'm reflecting on how unfortunate it is for poor Al that you weren't there to point out his errors when he used trains, clocks, and people moving on earth to explain his theory.
Olivier5

0
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Pointcarré contributed to SR by helping Lorentz develop his equations, and pointing at time dilatation as being a profound intuition rather than just a computation device. Apparently he was pissed off that Einstein did not acknowledge his debt to him.

One aspect of The Measure of Time that's worth highlighting is the idea that, in our intuitive understanding of time, the anteriority or posteriority of one event related to another is strongly linked with the possibility of a cause & effect relation between them:

Quote:
In 1572, Tycho Brahe noticed in the heavens a new star. An immense conflagration had happened in some far distant heavenly body; but it had happened long before; at least two hundred years were necessary for the light from that star to reach our earth. This conflagration therefore happened before the discovery of America. Well, when I say that; when, considering this gigantic phenomenon, which perhaps had no witness, since the satellites of that star were perhaps uninhabited, I say this phenomenon is anterior to the formation of the visual image of the isle of Española in the consciousness of Christopher Columbus, what do I mean?

A little reflection is sufficient to understand that all these affirmations have by themselves no meaning. They can have one only as the outcome of a convention. [...]

Behold then the rule we follow, and the only one we can follow: when a phenomenon appears to us as the cause of another, we regard it as anterior. It is therefore by cause that we define time; but most often, when two facts appear to us bound by a constant relation, how do we recognize which is the cause and which the effect? We assume that the anterior fact, the antecedent, is the cause of the other, of the consequent. It is then by time that we define cause.

We say now post hoc, ergo propter hoc; now propter hoc, ergo post hoc; shall we escape from this vicious circle?

http://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_Time

This line of reasoning reminds me of the Minkowski diagram, according to which Tycho Brahe's supernova explosion is NOT in any meaningful sense anterior to Colombus' voyage across the pound.
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:07 pm
@Olivier5,
Poincare:

Quote:
I shall ask him first how he knows it, that is, how he has measured the velocity of light. He has begun by supposing that light has a constant velocity, and in particular that its velocity is the same in all directions. That is a postulate without which no measurement of this velocity could be attempted. This postulate could never be verified directly by experiment...

Curious, then, that he didn't approve of Al unprovable postulation, eh? Why not do that?
Quote:
no matter whether a chronometer is used, or whether account must be taken of a velocity of transmission, as that of light, because such a velocity could not be measured without measuring a time.

Al knew better. He made clear that you do not need to measure time to determine velocity. You DICTATE velocity, then the velocity determines (one of the requirements to measure it) time.

Obviously, Poincare just didn't buy into Al's shenanigans at all, eh?
0 Replies

layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:37 pm
@Olivier5,
Poincare:

Quote:
The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible.

It would appear, then, that for some reason or another, Poincare did not believe that Al's postulation of simultaneity as being relative was defining simultaneity in such a way that "the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible."

Obviously, he just had no clue of what relativity was actually about, eh?

Quote:
To conclude: We have not a direct intuition of simultaneity... We replace it by the aid of certain rules..
These rules are not imposed upon us and we might amuse ourselves in inventing others; but they could not be cast aside without greatly complicating the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy.

Maybe he thought that Al's amusing himself by inventing other rules about simultaneity just "greatly complicated the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy," eh?

But, again, what would that old fool know. He has no clue of what SR is even about.
0 Replies

layman

3
Wed 6 May, 2015 06:51 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
This line of reasoning reminds me of the Minkowski diagram, according to which Tycho Brahe's supernova explosion is NOT in any meaningful sense anterior to Colombus' voyage across the pound.

And does a minkowski diagram strike you as forcefully persuasive in some way, Ollie?
layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 07:48 pm
@Olivier5,
More from Poincare:

Quote:
From all these results, if they were to be confirmed, would issue a wholly new mechanics which would be characterized above all by this fact, that there could be no velocity greater than that of light, any more than a temperature below that of absolute zero....(1904)

Perhaps, too, we shall have to construct an entirely new mechanics that we only succeed in catching a glimpse of, where, inertia increasing with the velocity, the velocity of light would become an impassable limit.(1904)

There is no absolute space, and we only conceive of relative motion ; and yet in most cases mechanical facts are enunciated as if there is an absolute space to which they can be referred. 2. There is no absolute time. When we say that two periods are equal, the statement has no meaning, and can only acquire a meaning by a convention....is not our Euclidean geometry in itself only a kind of convention of language?" (1901)

"Whether the ether exists or not matters little – let us leave that to the metaphysicians; ...some day, no doubt, the ether will be thrown aside as useless." (1889)

"It appears that this impossibility of demonstrating the absolute motion of the earth is a general law of nature.(1904)

All that, before Al ever said one word about relativity, eh? Sounds like he would strongly support Al, eh? But, naw, he just didn't buy Al's line, it seems:

Quote:
However, Poincaré himself never abandoned the ether hypothesis..And although he admitted the relative and conventional character of space and time, he believed that the classical convention is more "convenient" and continued to distinguish between "true" time in the ether and "apparent" time in moving systems. Addressing the question if a new convention of space and time is needed he wrote in 1912:[A 20] "Shall we be obliged to modify our conclusions? Certainly not...

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

Obviously, the old fool had absolutely no clue what SR was about, eh?

How do you think Poincare could possibly reject the relativity of simultaneity and insist that simultaneity was absolute, Ollie? Any guesses? Utter senility, maybe?
0 Replies

layman

2
Wed 6 May, 2015 08:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
was talking of all inertial frames of reference being equivalent to calculate time dilatation, and about non-inertial frames not offering the same equivalence. This has nothing to do with the effect of acceleration on time dilatation. These are two different topics having no bearing with one another.

Just for your future information, Ollie:

Quote:
It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates: that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames. But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in which such an object is at rest. To allow us to make predictions about how accelerating objects behave, we need to introduce a third postulate.

This is often called the "clock postulate"...clock postulate says that the rate of an accelerated clock doesn't depend on its acceleration...The clock rate won't be affected by circular motion at constant speed....

The clock postulate also implies that the amount of shortening of a moving rod is independent of its acceleration. And also, that the relativistic mass of a moving object also doesn't depend on its acceleration....it's a statement about the physical world...Although the clock postulate is just that, a postulate, it has been verified experimentally up to extraordinarily high accelerations,

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

See the significance?

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 02:57:21