Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

So you want you dispute the 'light constancy' axiom which underpins all of modern physics and cosmology ? Good luck... Kuhn will write a book about you if you succeed, (if he is still alive) !

The irony of course is that any child who has been on a train in a station next to one that is pulling out, and thinking for a time instead that his own train was 'going backwards', has a better chance if understanding SR than you do !

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

- In the train example you say the "relativist" says "Chicago slows down as it approaches". That is simply not how Galilean Relativity works. No one says Chicago slows down. You have a basic misunderstanding of how the math work.

What I said was something like this: (Special) Relativist to Conductor on moving train: "Does Chicago stop here?"

Now this DOES have something to do with "reference frames" in special relativity, and it is preposterous.

In order for the theory to be at least superficially coherent, SR absolutely REQUIRES every passenger on a uniformly moving train to INSIST, without ever wavering, that he is ABSOLUTELY motionless.

If any train passenger on a moving train ever admits that HE is moving, relative to the earth, rather than vice versa, then he will have repudiated SR in favor of a theory positing absolute (not relative) simultaneity. This is something YOU don't seem to understand about "reference frames," (as defined by SR, that is), Max.

Note that it's not even a claim that he doesn't know, or "can't tell" if he's moving or motionless. He must claim to KNOW, and he must KNOW that he is motionless.

You might want to make it a point to understand this too, Ollie.

3 Replies

@layman,

Here we go again...laymen puts his fingers in his ears and mutters his mantra to himself......

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Here we go again...laymen puts his fingers in his ears and mutters his mantra to himself......

Heh, speak for yourself, blowhard.

2 Replies

@centrox,

Yes, good lyrics... Bob Morane was a character from an adventure book series for teenagers. Bill Ballantine was his budy... :-)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Bobmorane1-vernes-attanasio.JPG/230px-Bobmorane1-vernes-attanasio.JPG

I never saw Indochine play. In the same light new wave style, I was more of a Etienne Daho fan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WICtidJf06Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pPbHl4DH8I

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

In order for the theory to be at least superficially coherent, SR absolutely REQUIRES every passenger on a uniformly moving train to INSIST, without ever wavering, that he is ABSOLUTELY motionless.

If any train passenger on a moving train ever admits that HE is moving, relative to the earth, rather than vice versa, then he will have repudiated SR in favor of a theory positing absolute (not relative) simultaneity. This is something YOU don't seem to understand about "reference frames," (as defined by SR, that is), Max.

Note that it's not even a claim that he doesn't know, or "can't tell" if he's moving or motionless. He must claim to KNOW, and he must KNOW that he is motionless.

And, guess what, Max? The "math" is only applied accordingly, in such a manner as to maintain such fiction. The "math" can tell you that "the moving clock will slow down," but the math can never tell you which clock is moving. The concepts tell you that (rightfully or wrongfully), NOT the math.

Try to deny that, if all you want. You will only prove that you don't understand how a "frame of reference," and the math, works in SR if you do.

1 Reply

@layman,

No...I think you will find I speak for the majority !

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Note that it's not even a claim that he doesn't know, or "can't tell" if he's moving or motionless. He must claim to KNOW, and he must KNOW that he is motionless.

Balooney. Try and find me ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC SOURCE saying this. ONE.

You're like a child who would hear me say that "one has to walk in my shoes for a mile before they can criticize me", and then tries and takes my shoes to walk in them for a mile.

Just because you systematically misunderstand these kids metaphors (the train, the plane) doesn't mean that the metaphors are stupid. It just mean you are less clever than the average child. You take simplistic metaphors as first-degree truth and start to discuss whether Chicago or the train is moving...

I told you already: Chicago is moving for sure, and the train too. Everything is moving. There is nothing at rest in this universe. No single damn thing... Enough with your BS already.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Note that it's not even a claim that he doesn't know, or "can't tell" if he's moving or motionless. He must claim to KNOW, and he must KNOW that he is motionless.

In contrast, Galileo took the opposite approach. He (and later Newton, and, even later, Lorentz and Poincare, and many others) adhered to a theory incorporating absolute simultaneity (not the relative simultaneity of SR). With Galileo, a "preferred" frame or reference was not only permissible, but was required. As between the earth and the ship, the earth was "at rest" and the ship was moving (assuming there was any relative motion between the two).

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Balooney. Try and find me ONE SINGLE ACADEMIC SOURCE saying this. ONE.

I already have, Ollie. I pointed you to a thread in which there was a lot of discussion about the theoretical premises of both SR and other theories of relative motion. In it, I cited a physics professor at Harvard (Dr. David Morin) who says just this (there are thousand of others out there, if you care to look).

Morin said it would be "disastrous" for the theory of SR if both the stationary observer on the ground and the moving observer on the train agreed that the train passenger was the one moving. Each must see himself as "stationary" for SR to "work."

I suggested that you "educate yourself." You have chosen not to.

It is for just such reasons that your homeboy, Poincare, refused to accept SR. Poincare had already made the same observation, years before Einstein, but he rejected it as a viable theory since it was based on mandatory ignorance and misperception

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

It is for just such reasons that your homeboy, Poincare, refused to accept SR. Poincare had already made the same observation, years before Einstein, but he rejected it as a viable theory since it was based on mandatory ignorance and misperception

Poincare said something to the effect that such an approach would give you a "subjective" theory of relativity, i.e., one based on subjective errors. He did not, however, find such a fucked up theory to be meaningful or useful.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

fresco wrote:

Here we go again...laymen puts his fingers in his ears and mutters his mantra to himself......

Heh, speak for yourself, blowhard.

In fairness to Fresky, as much of a BIGTIME blowhard as he is, he's not the only one. As hard as it is to imagine, Ollie and Max manage to outdo him in this respect.

I won't say they are uneducated, but, as far as their understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of special relativity goes, they are most certainly poorly educated.

Nonetheless, with respect to this topic they are cocksure that they "know" it. And very proud of their ignorance, too. So proud that they display nothing but disdain for anyone who understands it better than they do.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

The irony of course is that any child who has been on a train in a station next to one that is pulling out, and thinking for a time instead that his own train was 'going backwards', has a better chance if understanding SR than you do !

Even chumps who are completely fooled by the "magical" optical illusions perpetrated on them by stage magicians have a better chance of understanding than you, Fresky. At least they can admit they have been deceived once it's clearly pointed out to them. They can distinguish objective reality from subjective (mis)perception.

You can't, and will never be able to, because your all-pervasive premise is that there is no objective reality.

0 Replies

A couple of excerpts from David Morin's (the Harvard physicist I mentioned to Ollie earlier) book on special relativity (and galilean relativity):

Dr. David Morin wrote:

The theory rests upon certain postulates. The one that most people find counterintuitive is that the speed of light has the same value in any inertial (that is, non-accelerating) reference frame. This speed is much greater than the speed of everyday objects, so most of the consequences of this new theory aren’t noticeable.

Let’s now start from scratch and see what the theory of Special Relativity is all about. We’ll take the route that Einstein took and use two postulates as the basis of the theory. We’ll start with the speed-of-light postulate:

• The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame.

I don’t claim that this statement is obvious, or even believable. But I do claim that it’s easy to understand what the statement says (even if you think it’s too silly to be true)....The truth of the speed-of-light postulate cannot be demonstrated from first principles...No statement with any physical content in physics (that is, one that isn’t purely mathematical, such as, “two apples plus two apples gives four apples”) can be proven.

There is one more postulate in the Special Relativity theory, namely the “Relativity” postulate (also called the Principle of Relativity):

• All inertial frames are “equivalent.”

This postulate basically says that a given inertial frame is no better than any other. There is no preferred reference frame.

It turns out (see Section 11.10) that nearly all of special relativity can be derived by invoking only the second postulate. The first postulate simply fills in the last bit of necessary info by stating that something has the same finite speed in every frame. It’s actually not important that this thing happens to be light. It could be mashed potatoes or something else and the theory would come out the same.

So to be a little more minimalistic, it’s sufficient to state the first postulate as, “There is something that has the same speed in any inertial frame.” It just so happens that in our universe this thing is what allows us to see.

======

The Galilean transformations imply that if the speed is c with respect to a given frame, then it is not c with respect to any other frame.

See the difference between Einstein and Galileo yet, Max?

What's this tellya about the "absolute certainty" which you would like to ascribe to the light postulate, eh, Fresky?: "So to be a little more minimalistic, it’s sufficient to state the first postulate as, “There is something that has the same speed in any inertial frame.”

Morin here is basically just explaining what is required to make the theory mathematically coherent. He deliberately and explicitly refrains from saying it is "true."

Ever "educate" yourself by reading Morin, Max?

3 Replies

@layman,

Perhaps worth noting; Morin observes that 'The Galilean transformations imply that if the speed is c with respect to a given frame, then it is not c with respect to any other frame."

This is the case in (scientifically confirmed) theories of relative motion which incorporate absolute simultaneity. That said, the speed of light is still always measured to be c in every inertial frame.

The basic difference is that guys like Poincare said that the speed of light is always (due to the lorentz transform) measured to be c, while Einstein said that is always IS c.

It may seem like there's no real difference, but actually the implications are vastly different in many respects.

Einstein, under the influence of Mach (and, before him, empiricist philosophers like David Hume), made the (philosophical) positivistic mistake of saying what we "measure" a thing to be is what it "is." This is far from true in any number of scenarios, including ones which have nothing to do with relativity.

Fresky himself gave one example: He conducted an experiment with distorted measuring instruments.

0 Replies

@layman,

Another comment (made mainly for the benefit of Ollie):

Morin states the second postulate as: 'All inertial frames are “equivalent.”

On the surface, at least, that sounds reasonable enough (even though it really isn't). But the problem with SR, as practiced, is that it isn't even adhered to.

If if were, and if A and B were both in different, but equivalent, inertial frames, then B would seemingly be free to say: "Well, A's frame is just as good as mine, so maybe it is me that's moving."

BZZZZ! Wrong answer. B can't say that. He can't even speculate that he might be moving in SR. This is due (in part, but not the real reason, actually) to the definition of an "inertial frame of reference" in SR.

Wiki says this about an "observational frame of reference" (which is what's meant when dealing with motion):

Wiki wrote:

In Einsteinian relativity, reference frames are used to specify the relationship between a moving observer and the phenomenon or phenomena under observation. In this context, the phrase often becomes "observational frame of reference" (or "observational reference frame"), which implies that the observer is at rest in the frame....

The notion of reference frame, itself related to the idea of observer: the reference frame is, in some sense, the "Euclidean space carried by the observer"

So, in SR, the term "reference frame" really boils down to the observer himself, and he is always, by definition, "at rest."

Put another way, in SR, each and every observer considers himself to be "the ether." He is at rest. Anything and everything else in the universe which is moving relative TO HIM is moving. He is not.

So his frame is NOT, contrary to the second postulate, "equivalent" to all others. HE (and he alone) is in a "preferred frame" which is not moving. He MUST claim that he is not moving. It's always the "other guy" who is moving, never him.

PS: This is also intended for the benefit of Max (not that he'll get any from it), who seems to have a very deficient view of what a reference frame is, both in Galilean and Special relativity. This notwithstanding the fact that he accuses others of not understanding the concept 3 or 4 times in virtually every post he makes.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No...I think you will find I speak for the majority !

Umm, not really, but I can't believe you tried to use that as an argument.

0 Replies

@layman,

I need the precise quote and source, as I don't trust your understanding of it. As stated, it makes absolutely no sense to me. In particular, there's no such thing as a real "stationary observer", as I explained. Nothing in this universe is at rest.

1 Reply

@layman,

You're inventing your own "science" here. I'm sure it's a load of fun for you to pull stuff out of your own anus but I derive no benefit whatsoever from it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Dear everyone here, I am most keen to learn from posters here who can talk from their own experiences in life, instead of dropping names and dropping technical terms.

Part of learning from others is the risk of being shown oneself to be wrong, and I am most receptive to being shown that I am wrong with my thinking, though I want to believe that I am grounding myself on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.
_____________________

Max says: “This argument really is about the importance of education to understanding Physics.”
Tue 1 Aug, 2017 06:25 pm Post: # 6,476,085

What about dear Max, let us consider first whether experience comes before education, I mean formal education.

Now, I like to ask you, Have you ever had the experience of being in a sailing boat i.e. moving on the surface of the sea, and you have a view of the shore, I ask you, Is the shore moving at all, or it is at a standstill, while the boat is moving on the surface of the sea?

Dear readers here, I am trying to get posters here to first get their experiences factored into everything they are into talking about.

The way I see what a lot of posters do in a thread, it is to drop names and drop technical terms, in connection with as in the present thread, “Who is your favorite physicist?”

That kind of a topic allows empty-minded posters to drop names and drop technical terms forever and ever, without having to do any personal genuine thinking from their own brain resources, founded on their experiences in life.

I submit that though satisfying to their vanity it is better that they do their own personal thinking, making use of their experiences in life, as to come to concur on an issue they are exchanging views on, so as to achieve a common position, that is however is grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man’s conscious intelligence.

Anyway I am available to talk about education that is necessary to understand physics, this is the present proposition of Max.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back and witness whether the posters here will talk about education needed to understand physics, and what is the role of personal experiences, more in particular how the common perennial recurring experiences of mankind count for man to come to know objective reality, that is outside and independent of education at all.

Annex

Quote:

From layman:

@Susmariosep,
Every fool and his brother knows that if you pack the boiler of a steam engine with coal, and keep shoveling it in to keep the train going a steady 50 mph, the energy is making the train move. It's not serving to merely hold the train "in place" and motionless because, as soon as the engineer hit the throttle, the whole earth start moving at the rate of 50 mph under it.

Well, except for relativists, I mean.

It's really kinda amazing how much permanent brainwashing can be accomplished on an obsequious and subservient student by teachers. Years after leaving school, they still adamantly insist that you can never know if is the earth or the train moving. They can never really "explain" why, but that doesn't deter or diminish their fervent advocacy of the absurd in the least, eh?

Post: # 6,476,078 • layman • Tue 1 Aug, 2017 06:08 pm

2 Replies

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know