Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

@layman,

Quote:

Any frame which "claims" that the earth is moving, vis a vis the car, would have to demonstrate a "force" that accelerates the entire crowd (or more broadly, the entire earth--i.e. something that's makes the earth start to "turn backwards").

This is incorrect. In the "end of acceleration" Frame of reference I suggested, started out moving West at 60 mph and ended up moving West at 60mph. They never accelerated.

Again... I suggested you think about the situation where the crowd, the track, and the car are all on a very large train moving west at 60 mph. The crowd, in this case, would not accelerate.

1 Reply

@layman,

Any scientific claim needs to be based in experiment.

If you are going to claim that the Earth frame is "more valid" than the other frames of reference, then you need to provide an experiment that would show how it is "more valid".

If you just mean "simpler to calculate" then I might agree with you (and since I have done the calculations, I can show this by experiment).

In Physics we sometimes use something called the "center of mass frame" because in some circumstances (often involving objects bumping into each other), the calculations are simpler. But when we do this, we all know that the Earth Frame would also be valid.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Any frame which "claims" that the earth is moving, vis a vis the car, would have to demonstrate a "force" that accelerates the entire crowd (or more broadly, the entire earth--i.e. something that's makes the earth start to "turn backwards").

This isn't true at all. You are confusing velocity with acceleration.

In a frame of reference where the crowd has always been moving, and keeps moving, then there is no acceleration and no force.

This is Newton's first law "An object in motion tends to stay in motion..." I can suggest an experiment to show that this is scientifically correct (and I have in fact done this experiment).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you are making claims that can't be unambiguously tested by experiment, then they aren't scientific claims.

It never even begins to occur to you, does it, Max, that your repeated resort to this "criterion" totally invalidates special relativity as "science." As Einstein freely acknowledged, and as every person who understands the theory from a conceptual perspective is aware, the fundamental axioms of SR are not, and cannot be, tested by experience. They are unproven assumptions. The basic definitional and methodological schemes which are derived from them presuppose these axiomatic (i.e. unproven) premises, and so on.

Your theoretical understanding of special relativity repeatedly displays itself to be quite weak.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In the "end of acceleration" Frame of reference I suggested, started out moving West at 60 mph and ended up moving West at 60mph. They never accelerated.

Again... I suggested you think about the situation where the crowd, the track, and the car are all on a very large train moving west at 60 mph.

The crowd, in this case, would not accelerate.

Exactly!! The crowd does not accelerate. You are confusing yourself here, Max. The question is about which of 2 things are moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. Not relative to the sun, some distant galaxy, or some hypothetical point in space.

Nothing you come up with invalidates the conclusion that it is the car which accelerated. What you present as "counter-examples" completely ignore the question and are irrelevant. But, even so, they are not counter-examples. It is understood by all (except perhaps the delusional driver) that VIS A VIS the earth, HE is the one moving. Your examples just help illustrate this, not contradict it as you seem to think.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you are going to claim that the Earth frame is "more valid" than the other frames of reference, then you need to provide an experiment that would show how it is "more valid".

I already have. And you have made the exact same point. Physics, as we understand it, refutes any claim that it is the crowd, not the car, which is accelerating wrt the earth, NOT vise versa.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

OH and the math is needed to get the correct answers when dealing with GPS satellites network.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you just mean "simpler to calculate" then I might agree with you (and since I have done the calculations, I can show this by experiment).

In this case, no. In this case I mean the frame which gives the correct answer to the question being asked. The question is basically "who is moving (wrt the other--DON'T KEEP FORGETTING that and trying to thereby change the question).

Show me a frame where the dragster doesn't move, but, instead, the earth suddenly begins rushing past it, and I will show you a frame which, if deemed to be "correct" would require violations of the most fundamental laws of physics (such as F = MA). That frame must be rejected as being "correct."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

It is understood by all (except perhaps the delusional driver) that VIS A VIS the earth, HE is the one moving

This discussion is getting silly again. I got pulled back in by Oristar, I will let Oristar tell me what he is interested in (I have the suspicion that he already understands the points I am making).

Having a discussion with Oristar about the interesting points of Physics is fun. You and I just going back and forth about whether science is valid or not isn't very much fun... nor is it helping either of us.

Oristar... please tell me if there is anything you would like me to clarify or expand upon about the science.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Relativity is a bunch of bullshit, just like evolution

Sure it is that is why relativity need to be deal with in the GPS system to get the correct answer and that is why you are sitting on your tail bone as far as evolution is concern.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You are confusing velocity with acceleration.

No, Max, I'm not. What we trying to determine here is not velocity, per se, but a CHANGE in velocity (a change in either speed, direction of movement, or both). An object is inertial unless and until it accelerates (changes speed or direction). Then it is "noninertial." Non-inertial simply means accelerated or acceleration. Any object is either (1) moving uniformly in a straight line) or (2) accelerating.

Quote:

In a frame of reference where the crowd has always been moving, and keeps moving, then there is no acceleration and no force. This is Newton's first law "An object in motion tends to stay in motion.

Exactly!

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Show me a frame where the dragster doesn't move, but, instead, the earth suddenly begins rushing past it, and I will show you a frame which, if deemed to be "correct" would require violations of the most fundamental laws of physics (such as F = MA). That frame must be rejected as being "correct."

If you are interested in the correct answer to this question (as determined by the way real physicists do and teach real physics) then I will answer it. There is a correct answer to this whether you understand it or accept it or not. Every first year student of Physics in college gets a textbook that explains exactly how to solve these types of problems in multiple frames of reference. They then go to a laboratory and do experiments to see that the answers are correct.

I am not going to keep going back and forth when the actual science doesn't interest you at all.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

How in the hell do you find the patience to deal with the gentleman?

I blocked him when he started to pull the small kind of behaviors over the US constitution.

You are never going to change any of his views no matter how many facts you give him.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sure it is that is why relativity need to be deal with in the GPS system to get the correct answer

No, it is not needed, at least not special relativity. In fact it is not used in the GPS. Granted, the Lorentz transforms (the math) are needed. But Einstein merely took these, whole cloth, from Lorentz. The are applied in the GPS, but NOT in a manner which is consistent with special relativity.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I was continuing with Layman because of Oristar (who is interested in the actual science). I will let Oristar tell me what part of this discussion interests him.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

If you are interested in the correct answer to this question

By all means, give me the correct answer, Max. I mean TO THE QUESTION BEING ASKED, not some other, irrelevant, question.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

I blocked him when he started to pull the small kind of behaviors over the US constitution.

You are never going to change any of his views no matter how many facts you give him.

Heh. You blocked me after your ignorant claims about the constitution were flatly refuted by the supreme court cases I cited. You had no answer, so you "blocked" me and refused to respond.

0 Replies

@layman,

Ok Layman, I will give this one more chance to see if a reasonable discussion about the science is possible.

The question you asked was

Quote:

Show me a frame where the dragster doesn't move, but, instead, the earth suddenly begins rushing past it, and I will show you a frame which, if deemed to be "correct" would require violations of the most fundamental laws of physics (such as F = MA). That frame must be rejected as being "correct."

1) Since the dragster is being acted upon by an unbalanced force, there is no inertial frame of reference in which the dragster is motionless for more than an instant. There is however an inertial frame where the dragster is motionless for exactly one instant. I proposed just such a frame of reference in my "end of acceleration" frame above.

2) Since the crowd in the example is not being acted on by a force (for the purposes of the problem) there can be a frame of reference where the crowd is motionless. I was calling this frame the "Earth frame".

There are other inertial frames of reference in which the crowd is moving. For example, in the "end of acceleration" frame that I proposed the crowd is moving at 60 mph. Since the crowd in this example is not accelerating, Newton's laws work just fine in this frame of reference and any value can be correctly calculated.

3) Newton's laws work the same in any inertial frame of reference, including the two I mention above.

Newton's laws can easily be confirmed by experiment in multiple frames of reference, including ones where the Earth is moving backwards at 60 mph.

Non-inertial frames get a bit more complicated.

4) This is stuff that you would learn if you took a first year college course in Physics.

I would recommend it if you really want to understand it. If you reject it out of hand before you have taken the time to learn it, then you are making it rather difficult on yourself.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

By the way you seems to have a very very solid understanding of the subject matter and are able to explain it in a very clear manner so I been wondering what is your background.

A physics teacher at the university level at the very least would be my guess.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Since the dragster is being acted upon by an unbalanced force, there is no inertial frame of reference in which the dragster is motionless for more than an instant

Exactly! That is just another way of acknowledging that the car (not the earth) is accelerating.

Quote:

2) Since the crowd in the example is not being acted on by a force (for the purposes of the problem) there can be a frame of reference where the crowd is motionless. I was calling this frame the "Earth frame".

OK

Quote:

There are other inertial frames of reference in which the crowd is moving

.

Of course. We know that. We have talked about it already (it is orbiting the sun, and participating in many other motions as well). The question is NOT is the earth moving in any absolute sense. The question is which "object" here has ADDED motion due to acceleration. Correct answer: The car. Incorrect answer: The earth.

Quote:

3) Newton's laws work the same in any inertial frame of reference, including the two I mention above.

OK---what you mean here is that they work in the simplest way--i.e. without having to account for fictitious forces (inertial forces).

Quote:

Newton's laws can easily be confirmed by experiment in multiple frames of reference, including ones where the Earth is moving backwards at 60 mph.

PROVE IT! I mean prove something that shows the earth is the one accelerating. You are merely asserting this without any reasoning or support of any kind. You announce uncontroversial facts, but then draw a conclusion that is irrelevant to, and in no way follows from, those facts. In fact, you have already contradicted the conclusion you are trying to imply, when you said:

Quote:

Since the dragster is being acted upon by an unbalanced force, there is no inertial frame of reference in which the dragster is motionless for more than an instant.

But, that aside, you have once again tried to answer a question that hasn't been asked. You say:

Quote:

Newton's laws can easily be confirmed by experiment in multiple frames of reference, including ones where the Earth is moving backwards at 60 mph

.

Of course. But that aint the question. BTW, what do you even mean by "moving backwards?" With respect to what? The car (which itself remains motionless wrt the earth)?

1 Reply

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know