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

@maxdancona,

A brief recap of a crucial difference in our respective views, Max:

1. You (accurately) quoted me as asking:

Quote:

For example: The frame of reference which says the earth is motionless and that the sun orbits it is NOT, FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACCURATE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD

"just as valid" as a frame of reference that says the earth orbits the sun

2. Your (partial) response was:

Quote:

The fact is that Physics can make accurate predictions in any inertial frame of reference.. including the one that at this instant says that the earth is motionless.

3. You then (again, accurately) quoted me as saying:

Quote:

Now, I have made (or at least tried to make) a distinction between "a frame of reference" and a "correct frame of reference." They are NOT the same thing.

4. In response, you said:

Quote:

This is one of the key disagreements you and I have. I claim that there is no scientific difference between "any frame of reference" and "the correct frame of reference"...

Let's talk about this "key disagreement" as you put it, OK?

See next post

1 Reply

@layman,

If I'm sitting at my desk with graph paper, slide rule, and retractable lead pencils in hand and I want to construct a Minkowski diagram, I can, for purposea of doing calculations, TREAT the earth as motionless. And, by doing so, I can make some accurate predictions, right? But, now, here's my question:

When I, in my mind, arbitrarily decide to "treat" the earth as motionless, does that, and that alone, make the earth suddenly STOP?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

When I, in my mind, arbitrarily decide to "treat" the earth as motionless, does that, and that alone, make the earth suddenly STOP?

Of course not. When you switch frames of reference, you are just switching what you are using as a reference point.

Let's take a simpler example

I live in Boston. My brother lives in Buffalo.

I am completely correct to say that Buffalo is 455 miles away. My brother is completely correct to say that Buffalo is 74 miles away. We can both be correct at the same time because the reference point we are measuring from is different. And no, this doesn't mean that Buffalo is moving.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Let's take a simpler example

Yes, you can both obviously be correct at the same time, BUT that is no "example" of anything I'm talking about. Can we, just for once, stay on topic, Max?

Quote:

Of course not. When you switch frames of reference, you are just switching what you are using as a reference point.

Thank you for that answer. Now to proceed with the topic I brought up, let me reference this prior exchange:

Quote:

Quote:
I had said:For example: The frame of reference which says the earth is motionless and that the sun orbits it is NOT, FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACCURATE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD

"just as valid" as a frame of reference that says the earth orbits the sun.

In response, you said: You are using the phrase "ACCURATE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION". I don't know why this is all in caps, nor do I know how you would define it.

I put in all caps to try to make SURE to direct your attention to the issue. I seem to have failed. But I am now (in the last couple of posts), indirectly, "defining" what I mean by the difference. Can you see that?

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

But I am now (in the last couple of posts), indirectly, "defining" what I mean by the difference. Can you see that?

No, I don't see that. Maybe you could just give a direct definition.

0 Replies

@layman,

Next question. I had said:

Quote:

The frame of reference which says the earth is motionless and that the sun orbits it is NOT, FOR PURPOSES OF AN ACCURATE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE WORLD

"just as valid" as a frame of reference that says the earth orbits the sun

Do you agree or disagree with the following claim:

Although it may be valid, for purposes of math, to treat the earth as motionless, treating the earth as motionless would NOT be a "valid frame of reference" for purposes of rendering a correct physical description of solar and planetary motion, as our current science understands it.

1 Reply

@layman,

I disagree with that statement. Any frame of reference is equally valid.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

The advantage of the heliocentric view is that it is a simpler model. The math is easier to calculate and the picture is easier to conceptualize.

There is Occam's razor... but that doesn't mean that the other frames of reference are any less valid. There are certain problems that are easier to solve in different frames. That is why scientists switch between them.

In a physics laboratory, the laboratory frame of reference is commonly used. The center of mass frame of reference is also used at times... particularly in circumstances where conservation of momentum is involved in the calculations.

Of course, once you have solved the problem in one frame of reference, it isn't that hard to map the solution onto another frame.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Let's take a simpler example

I live in Boston. My brother lives in Buffalo.

I am completely correct to say that Buffalo is 455 miles away....

As I said, that is not an example of what I'm talking about. If you want a "simpler example" based on that, here it is.

1. You say you are 455 miles from Boston
2. I say that you are NOT 455 from Boston.

Can we both be correct?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I proposed:
.

Quote:

Although it may be valid, for purposes of math, to treat the earth as motionless, treating the earth as motionless would NOT be a "valid frame of reference" for purposes of rendering a correct physical description of solar and planetary motion, as our current science understands it

Your response:.

Quote:

I disagree with that statement. Any frame of reference is equally valid

.

No matter how much anyone tries to dissuade you from your totally erroneous convictions, Max, you will always revert to your default a priori position.

You think that math dictates the reality.

I think that the "reality," insofar as we know it, dictates the proper math to use.

We COMPLETELY disagree.

If we can't agree on that, then, as always, there is no possible way for us to communicate.

Think about it. If your view is correct, then there is, and can never be, any discipline properly called "physics." There is NO "science" at all. There is only mathematical tautology.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Of course, once you have solved the problem in one frame of reference, it isn't that hard to map the solution onto another frame.

Insofar as SR is concerned, this is a totally incorrect statement. In SR the solution in or from one frame of reference NEVER gets carried over to another frame of reference.

Hence you end up making such absurd claims as:

"It is possible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years and still NEVER exceed the speed of light."

1 Reply

Max, you seem to treat the word "science" as though it were a mystical incantation which has unlimited magical powers that work only for you.

You seem to think that the mere utterance of the word "science" in connection with any of your outlandish claims renders your claims totally invulnerable to any logical questions or thoughts. You act as if, so long as you have somehow worked in the word "science," your claims are indisputable.

But you don't even know what the word means, the way you use it. All of your attempts to define it have been self-contradictory and utterly incoherent.

I had asked you earlier how many degrees in the philosophy of science you have earned. Let me rephrase that question:

Have you ever, in your entire life, read even one page pertaining to the philosophy of science?

1 Reply

@layman,

Science is the study of things that are testable. There is nothing magical about that. It is what it is.

The claims of science are supported or refuted by experiment. This is the advantage of science, it isn't a matter of what seems right to you or I. Questions are settled by the ability of a theory being able to make predictions that are confirmed by experiment or observation.

Yes, I have studied the philosophy of science in college.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

"It is possible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years and still NEVER exceed the speed of light."

Max, you seem to think that a proposition like that can be readily and easily proven by looking at a math table. You don't seem to understand the contents of it at all.

Maybe I'm naïve, but I would think that virtually every person in existence would naturally balk at taking that self-contradictory claim to be true without a very elaborate, and very convincing, explanation. They would just naturally "question" it. But, there are some who don't, at least not once they're told it's "science," eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

We have been over this several times so far.

1) There is a convincing explanation of this. This is the equation for Lorentz contraction. Ironically for the past several pages you have been pushing what you are calling "Lorentzian Releativity" or "Lorentz Ether Theory" or whatever you call it that I assumed was based on the Lorentz transformation

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/imgrel/lencon.gif

This transformation was actually derived before Einstein developed Special Relativity. But, it is also a core part of SR.

Do you accept Lorentz contraction, or not? Because, you seem to be going both ways on this.

2) The fact that Lorentz contraction figures into calculations of distance travelled in "ship time" meaning that a ship could go farther than it's speed times ship time has been documented by experiment.

We have done this experiment with atomic clocks on airplanes circling the earth. We have done this experiment with sub-atomic particles passing through the atmosphere and traveling through accelerators.

Not only is this fully explained by the Lorentz transformation you yourself have been touting, it has also been confirmed by experiment.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Not only is this fully explained by the Lorentz transformation you yourself have been touting, it has also been confirmed by experiment.

What is "it," Max? I agree that there is time dilation, i.e. that clocks slow down as a function of speed. That CERTAINLY does not compel one to accept SR as "true."

I don't accept that this means that each of two clocks runs slower than the other. Did you read the article I posted from the Physic Research Journal? Did you read the brief posts I made right after them, showing the difference between SR and LR?

Have any comment on those posts and/or that article?

1 Reply

@layman,

I head down to Cape Canaveral to watch a rocket get blasted into space. I see the ignition and the ship starts heading toward the moon.

Or does it? SR would say no, it doesn't, from it's "frame of reference." What evidently happens is that, when ignited, the fuel in the spaceship pushed the earth away from it, while it remains motionless. At that same instant, the moon starts moving toward the spaceship.

Wanna believe that? Help yourself.

I do think you have conceded that my act of "positing" that a spaceship is motionless does not make it STOP as a matter of physical reality.

Of course, according to the astronaut on the rocked, at that same time, the clocks slowed down on the earth and on the moon. And here I always thought that astronauts had at least a modicum of intelligence. Go figure.

Being the dumbass that I am, if I was that astronaut. I would stupidly say: "Hey, I'm moving. That means MY clock has slowed down, not those on earth." Einstein would certainly not recruit me to use the Lorentz transformations "properly," eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Being the dumbass that I am, if I was that astronaut. I would stupidly say: "Hey, I'm moving. That means MY clock has slowed down, not those on earth." Einstein would certainly not recruit me to use the Lorentz transformations "properly," eh?

Suppose I'm that astronaut and I stupidly think that because I'm the one moving, MY clock has slowed down. Now I start to wonder how much my clock has slowed down. How could I know that?

Easy: Use the Lorentz transforms to calculate it.

Do you even begin to see the point, Max? You have totally missed it for years now, so I expect the answer is "no."

It not the math formula that's in question here. That is exactly the same in either SR or LR. It's how it's APPLIED that is in question.

The LT ONLY tells you that it is the MOVING clock which slows down. Being nothing more than a stupid math formula it doesn't, and can't, tell you which one is moving. You have to figure that out for yourself. Once you figure that out, the LT will tell you the degree to which the moving clock has slowed down. That's ALL it does.

The LT doesn't MAKE anything move faster or slower. It doesn't have that power. It is not a "force." It's a stupid-ass math formula, that's all.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The LT doesn't MAKE anything move faster or slower. It doesn't have that power. It is not a "force." It's a stupid-ass math formula, that's all.

Needless to say, a "frame of reference" is not a force either. A frame of reference does not, and can not, MAKE anything move faster or slower. Defining a "frame of reference" as "that which determines the motion of an external object" is a serious error. But that's what has been done when one says:

"It is possible to traverse 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT ever exceeding the speed of light."

I aint buying what you're trying to sell, sorry.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I proposed:
.

Quote:
Although it may be valid, for purposes of math, to treat the earth as motionless, treating the earth as motionless would NOT be a "valid frame of reference" for purposes of rendering a correct physical description of solar and planetary motion, as our current science understands it.

Your response:

Quote:
I disagree with that statement. Any frame of reference is equally valid

I know I'm wasting my time, Max but I'm repeating this one more time based upon the infinitesimally small chance that you might begin to understand. As I said before, the difference between your view and mine is essentially this:

1. YOU think that your choice of how to employ math and abstract concepts dictates external reality (such as what is moving and how fast).

2. I think that external reality (such as what is moving and how fast) dictates how I (should) choose to employ math and abstract concepts.

For example, if I had $0 in the bank and put in $10 I would use addition, not subtraction, to ascertain my new balance: I would say its +$10 not -$10, EVEN THOUGH the absolute difference is $10 either way. On the other had if I had $0 in the bank and wrote a (bad) check for $10 I would say my new balance would be -$10. Which operation I use (addition or subtraction) depends on what the facts are. The math can't tell me whether to add or subtract.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know