Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

Harvard Physics Professor David Morin wrote:

One might view the statement, “A sees B’s clock running slow, and also B sees A’s clock running slow,” as somewhat unsettling. But in fact, it would be a complete disaster for the theory if A and B viewed each other in different ways.

Note, it is always the "moving" clock (i.e., the "other guy's" clock in SR) which runs slow.

The guy on the train must say HE is stationary, so YOUR clock is running slow.

The guy on the ground must say HE is stationary, so YOUR (the guy on the train) clock is running slow.

If the guy on the train ever said: "Ya know what, ground-guy? I think you're right. I think I'm the one moving, so I guess it is my clock running slow, not yours," then that would be a "COMPLETE DISASTER" for the theory of special relativity.

SR REQUIRES (at least) one of them to make a false claim for the theory to work. Homey don't play dat.

A passenger on a train cannot properly ask the conductor if the train stops in Chicago. The train isn't moving, if you're a relativist.

The proper question for a relativist could only be "Does Chicago stop here?"

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Actually, I have already checked your thread and verified that you got it completely wrong in your understanding of Morin. As expected.

Admit it, ******* LIAR. You lied through your rotting teeth when you claimed that you had "checked my thread," didn't you, ******* LIAR.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Harvard Physics Professor David Morin wrote:
One might view the statement, “A sees B’s clock running slow, and also B sees A’s clock running slow,” as somewhat unsettling. But in fact, it would be a complete disaster for the theory if A and B viewed each other in different ways.

I've forgotten who it was, offhand, but a prominent scientist once said: "If the facts conflict with the theory, well, then, that's just so much the worse for the facts."

It is now cited as a "joke" but I think he was serious at the time. Those who advocate the "truth" of SR must take it quite seriously, I know that.

If Morin is right (and he is) the facts themselves (not to even mention logic) destroy SR. They are a "complete disaster" for the theory. Relativists will discard every fact known to man before they will ever discard their precious "theory."

2 Replies

@layman,

Speaking of logic, I notice that Max continues to refuse to answer this simple logical question, eh? I wonder why?

layman wrote:

I'll take that as a "yeah, I understand logic." Since ya do, give me a little hand, willya? I've been puzzlin over this question:

There are two guys, let's just call them A and B, just chillin in their spaceships, and they spot each. Neither one of them is accelerating. They each take measuments, using doppler shift readings and ****, and they both agree that they are separating from each other at half the speed of light.

That's the set-up, now here's the problem:

1. A says: "I know I am at rest, and motionless, so B is travelling at half the speed of light," OK? But here's where the puzzle comes in:

2. B says: I know I am at rest, and motionless, so A is travelling at half the speed of light."

Now is it logically possible for BOTH of them to be right?

Keep in mind, I'm not asking you whether it's possible for each of them to THINK they are right--that's obviously quite possible, because anyone can make a mistake.

The question is, can they both actually BE right?

Also, please note, I'm not asking which one, if either, is moving, either. This is a logical question, not an empirical one.

0 Replies

@layman,

When "explaining" the ridiculous notion of relative simultaneity, Einstein used an example involving a passenger on a moving train and a guy on the ground.

He explained that the two observers would "see" two lightning strikes which hit the train (one at the front and one at the tail of it) differently, and he explained WHY. The reason why the train passenger would see it differently was BECAUSE he was moving.

So, Einstein "knew" the guy was moving. But he can't allow the guy on the train to know (or at least to admit) that obvious and known fact. The guy on the train must claim he's NOT moving.

Why? To make the theory, such as it is, come out right, that's why.

If I turn on a flashlight, a guy 5 light seconds away won't see it at the same time as (simultaneously with) a guy 10 light seconds away. Who knew? THAT changes all our notions of time and space, sho nuff!!

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

So, Einstein "knew" the guy was moving. But he can't allow the guy on the train to know (or at least to admit) that obvious and known fact. The guy on the train must claim he's NOT moving. Why? To make the theory, such as it is, come out right, that's why.

Now, once you pull off that trick of forced denial of the facts, voila! Now you have the "relativity of simultaneity!" This is the driving engine behind SR, and of course it contradicts the notion of "absolute simultaneity" which is implicit in such statements as "The earth orbits the Sun."

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Lol...

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Harvard Physics Professor David Morin wrote:
One might view the statement, “A sees B’s clock running slow, and also B sees A’s clock running slow,” as somewhat unsettling. But in fact, it would be a complete disaster for the theory if A and B viewed each other in different ways.

So that's the real quote, as opposed to your fake one I mentionned above? You finally moved your rear end and found it, uh?

No mention of these guys being forced to think of themselves as stationary. You invented that part, as I explained. You like to invent your own alternative version of reality.

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

And all that jazz... :-)

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

No mention of these guys being forced to think of themselves as stationary. You invented that part.

Heh, just as I predicted, eh, Ollie? I "invented" that, eh? Once again you are merely displaying your utter ignorance of SR.

layman wrote:

A quote from just one of hundreds of university websites (as well as others) that would tell anybody who cared to look the same thing:

Dartmouth wrote:
If you're in space, how do you know if something is coming at you...or you're moving towards that something?

Well, we define a point of view for these things as a "frame of reference." In your "frame of reference," the object is moving towards you. IMPORTANT POINT - you are always stationary in your own frame of reference.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html

Another totally invented fake quote, right, Ollie?

Once again: "IMPORTANT POINT - you are always stationary in your own frame of reference."

Get it, Ollie?

You're so predictable.

Readin, it aint really your thing, is it? I had already summarized that very point, using a wiki article as a reference. Morin, like any other knowledgable author of college textbooks on SR, says it too, of course. But I didn't quote or cite him as saying it to begin with.

Ascertaining "facts" and reaching ridiculous conclusions by strictly a prioi methods, based on your inexplicable preconceptions, is your thing.

1 Reply

Best I can tell, Ollie, the extent of your "knowledge" of special relativity appears to be this:

Somewhere along the line, somebody who you trusted to do your thinking for you (probably a teacher), told you that SR was a "true theory" and that settled the matter for you, once and for all.

I first read a book about special relativity when I was a teen-ager, and came away very impressed. I thought it was the most brilliant thing I'd ever heard. But I grew up.

You like to fancy yourself as a "thinker," but all too often you prove that you are merely a cheerleader for the team you have decided to attach yourself to emotionally.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Just to clarify..'consensus' refers to mainstream paradigm, not to the clubs of 'we know better dunces' on self publicity trips.

BTW anybody who has had the ' we are moving backwards' experience on a train gives the lie to the SR dissenters. That experience only 'ends' when the other train has departed and the 'fixed' reference frame of the station re-appears.
(And in some high school mathematics problems involving relative velocities of boats and rivers the most elegant solutions involve considering the bank to be moving, and the boat stationary ),

I think I have done enough troll feeding on this thread. Trolls are basically obsessive noise machines who crave any sort of recognition whether positive or negative. As we can see here, if they get none, they resort to talking to themselves.

4 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

You like to fancy yourself as a "thinker," but all too often you prove that you are merely a cheerleader for the team you have decided to attach yourself to emotionally.

Pretty cheerleaders are not required to (and frequently don't) know a damn thing about (for instance) football. The job requirements consist primarily of unflagging enthusiasm, unswerving devotion, the ability to yell meaningless slogans or mantras very LOUDLY, and to make cocky boasts about how great their team.is.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW anybody who has had the ' we are moving backwards' experience on a train gives the lie to the SR dissenters.

No, but making such a claim does expose the mentality of SR advocates, who like to think that known illusions and misperceptions are "truth."

Not surprising to hear such an obviously irrelevant, simplistic, and solipsistic claim from you, Fresky.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW anybody who has had the ' we are moving backwards' experience on a train gives the lie to the SR dissenters.talking to themselves

Proof positive that any "dissent" to SR is a "lie," right here, eh?

Notice how, to further play the chumps, the actor kinda "lurches" when he starts to "move," eh? FOOLED ME, BIGTIME!

How unfortunate that they let "reality" creep in at the end, eh?

Kinda like the way reality manages to creep in on poor special relativity. It just aint no fair, I tellzya!

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

in some high school mathematics problems involving relative velocities of boats and rivers the most elegant solutions involve considering the bank to be moving, and the boat stationary

Thanks for restating and affirming the point I've already made, eh, Fresky?

As I said, SR is merely a mathematical concoction, which has nothing to do with reality.

You can certainly "consider" a boat to be stationary, and the bank moving, if you want, but that will never make it true.

Well, except maybe for a solipsist like you, who believes that "reality" is comprised solely of what you think and "consider."

1 Reply

@layman,

Of course one is stationary in a frame of reference centred on oneself... And my nose always stay in the middle of my face for the same reason. Also, I tend to share my own opinions.

But that doesn't mean one cannot adopt whatever frame of reference one fancies to use at any point in time. Like a guy on a train and aware he's traveling from point A to point B. SR says nothing about what people are or are not allowed to think. Duh... Or are you saying Einstein never ever thought he was moving in any way?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, except maybe for a solipsist like you, who believes that "reality" is comprised solely of what you think and "consider."

The power of Fresky's mind is as great as God's omnipotence, ya know?

When he sits at his computer and "considers" the earth to be stationary, the earth abruptly stops, and the sun, the planets, and the whole universe begin to orbit around it.

Then, a few minutes later, when he gets bored with that thought, and "considers" the sun to be stationary, the earth immediately starts moving again, and while the sun stops in its tracks.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Of course one is stationary in a frame of reference centred on oneself... And my nose always stay in the middle of my face for the same reason. Also, I tend to share my own opinions.

But that doesn't mean one cannot adopt whatever frame of reference one fancies to use at any point in time. Like a guy on a train and aware he's traveling from point A to point B. SR says nothing about what people are or are not allowed to think. Duh... Or are you saying Einstein never ever thought he was moving in any way?

Once again proving that either you can't read or else that you can't understand what you read, eh, Ollie? Here, for the third or fourth time:

Quote:

If you're in space, how do you know if something is coming at you...or you're moving towards that something?

Well, we define a point of view for these things as a "frame of reference." In your "frame of reference," the object is moving towards you. IMPORTANT POINT - you are always stationary in your own frame of reference.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~kevinhainline/relativity.html

Another totally invented fake quote, right, Ollie?

Once again: "IMPORTANT POINT - you are always stationary in your own frame of reference."

Get it, Ollie?

Hint: "Always" means "always." Did you notice that the statement there does not refer to the beer can on the guy's desk, but rather to any object not in his frame of reference? This isn't anything like a "nose on your face" proposition.

This quote pertains to SR, of course.

But, yeah, sure, you can always REJECT the absurd premises of SR and adopt the sensible (non-SR) view that the guy on the train is moving and that he knows it. Where you go wrong is in insisting that you are ratifying SR when you do that.

As I said, you are repudiating and renouncing SR in those circumstances.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The dunces don t understand that (by applying Occam's Razor) mathematical elegance and predictive power have NOW replaced the seeking of 'truth' as the tangible goal for scientists aware of paradigm shifts and the limitations of absolute 'pictures' in simpletons heads. They may use 'truth' to denote mutual contextual agreement but only the religiously inclined play absolutist 'Truth' games.

'

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know