Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

[url][/url]

layman wrote:

Yes, indeed Galileo was decidedly right, even though his premises contradict those of SR. SR adherents often cite Galileo as "proving" SR, but, once again, they don't even understand what he actually said.

What the hell, Max, just for you I will elaborate on this misconception (which even Smoot, at one point anyway, seems to share). In his famous "parable of the ship" Galileo postulated (quite rightly) that a passenger in a closed cabin of a ship on a calm sea would not be able to declare that he either was, or was not, "moving."

But he didn't stop there, He noted that if the passenger had a window he could easily detect whether or not he was actually moving vis a vis terra firma. Even more so if he went up on deck, felt the wind, and saw the billowed sails on the ship. Under those circumstances, no sane person would declare that the ship was absolutely motionless while the shoreline, and all the structures on it, were "moving" past him.

He never claimed that you can never never tell which object is moving vis-a-vis another. He merely said, like Newton after him, that there was no known way to detect absolute speed. Newton knew this, contrary to the popular myth that Einstein "corrected" him on this score.

Galileo is the person who, after all, on his way out ot the inquisition chamber where he was forced to recant the notion that the earth moved, uttered (under his breath) "And yet it (the earth) moves."

Galileo was right. Einstein was wrong.

Einstein attempted to argue that is was impossible to discern which of two (or more) objects were moving relative to the other(s). But to come to that conclusion, one has to reject virtually every cherished notion of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum, the law of gravity, the notion that it requires energy to overcome inertia, etc.

In his early attempts to defend SR, Einstein acknowledges all of this, but nonetheless claimed that the two could not be distinguished "in theory." All that tells you is that the "theory" is wrong.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Einstein attempted to argue that is was impossible to discern which of two (or more) objects were moving relative to the other(s). But to come to that conclusion, one has to reject virtually every cherished notion of physics, such as conservation of angular momentum, the law of gravity, the notion that it requires energy to overcome inertia, etc.

In his early attempts to defend SR, Einstein acknowledges all of this, but nonetheless claimed that the two could not be distinguished "in theory." All that tells you is that the "theory" is wrong.

This bring to mind the story about Hegel, who was once confronted by a student who said that his theory was contradicted by the facts.

Hegel's reply was: "Well, then, so much the worse for the facts."

The exact same sentiments are, by the way, expressed by hardcore left wing radicals. If "the facts" conflict with their theory, then they cannot possibly be facts. They deduce this conclusion from their a priori assumptions, and that's the end of it. Such "facts" are simply declared to be a "lie."

If their theory entails the conclusion that grass is blue, and you observe that grass is in fact green, they will simply say something like: "What are you going to believe? Your lying eyes or my brilliant theory?"

Umm, I think Imma hafta go with my eyes, sukka.

0 Replies

@layman,

You are being ridiculous. You don't understand Galileo or Newton.

If you took a high school Physics class, you would understand that Newton's laws work in any inertial reference frame. And, in a Physics, you would have to take a test where you could calculate the behavior of objects in several reference frames and show that they were the same. All of this would be done with zero reference to Einstein.

Do you think you could pass such a high school Physics test? The point is that you can't debunk all of science until you at least reach the point where you could pass a high school Physics test.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Just about what I thought your contentless and irrelevant "response" would be. You obviously don't understand a word I said, Max. Like I said, it's a complete waste of time to try talk to your ilk.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You are right about one thing, Max, to wit:

Max wrote:

All of this would be done with zero reference to Einstein.

0 Replies

https://able2know.org/topic/546056-1

0 Replies

An observation from Albert:

Einstein wrote:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

[Correspondance to Robert Thorton in 1944]

Not anything Max is likely to understand, but.....

0 Replies

@layman,

I guess I should correct this misstatement of mine, which was carelessly phrased.

layman wrote:

I didn't say a word about GR. I am talking about SR. The GPS does indeed confirm GR's stance on time distortion due to gravity. However, in GR that distortion is absolute, not relative, (unlike in SR)

It is not "time" that slows down or speeds up. It is the rate at which instruments designed to measure time operate under differing conditions.

Clock rates are not "time," and the distinction is important, so I apologize for any confusion I may have generated by blurring the difference.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

This is a discussion forum. Different people have different takes on things and understand things in different ways and try to make sense to each other.

It is not science to just declare that what someone is saying is nonsense. If you have a problem with something I said, quote it and explain what's wrong with it. Otherwise your opinion doesn't count.

You keep playing rhetorical games using words like, 'science,' 'take,' etc. but you don't post any actual discussion about the science you are talking about.

Therefore your posts are just groundless attacks on other posters...stop talking about science without actually talking about any science.

Bingo. That's our Max, sho nuff. He aint got no game and he aint no playa. His frontin don't fly.

1 Reply

I saw this thread, and it reminded me of this one

Why in the world would Einstein suggest...

0 Replies

@layman,

Layman... the way we learn, as human beings, is that we come to a point where our current way of thinking has too many contradictions. So then we progress to a more advanced way of thinking. You are stuck in a level of Physics that is usually grasped in high school.

In half of your ramblings you talk as if the Earth is fixed. In the other half of your ramblings you talk as if "the Earth moves" (as you yourself said).

That is your contradiction. Figure it out and you will be able to understand this basic point. Where you are stuck isn't anywhere close to Einstein. You misunderstanding was understood by Galileo and Newton hundreds of years before Einstein.

It seems like your basic problem with science is philosophical rather than scientific. My point is that you should be able to pass a high school Physics test before you debunk all of modern Physics.

2 Replies

I also want to say this clearly.

I reject the idea that the left is pro-science and the right is anti-science. Even though Layman et. al. are supporting this view.

Our modern society depends on science, and our policy decisions should be based on science. The political left does reject science at time, particularly on issues like Genetically modified foods.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I also want to say this clearly.

I reject the idea that the left is pro-science and the right is anti-science. Even though Layman et. al. are supporting this view.

Our modern society depends on science, and our policy decisions should be based on science. The political left does reject science at time, particularly on issues like Genetically modified foods.

Such rejections is however very very minor compare to the right wing rejection of say evolution or vaccinations for their children.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You are missing the point (and many if not most of the anti-vaxxers are actually politically liberal). Add anti-science views on organic foods, and homeopathic medicine and you get a pretty diverse set of political views on the anti-science side.

My point is that science doesn't care about political views, and if you are going to be pro-science... scientific findings shouldn't be filtered or distorted by politics.

When you make the argument that your political side is more scientific than the other political side, you are putting politics above science. Who cares? A pro-scientific view will take the science as science whether is supports one political side or the other.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, you keep saying the same thing in response to any issues of relativity that are raised.
You insist that "You are stuck in a level of Physics that is usually grasped in high school". Insinuating that the opponent is mentally incapable of even following along with high school Physics, YET, you never seem to be able to present this simple explanation of SR. (I did not wish to get into GR in this topic at this time. First things first.

And please stop your hate speech based on my political opinions.
Am I not entitled to my opinions and free speech on any subject? You allow yourself the privilege but HATE me if I have a view contrary to yours.
Your hate speech could incite others towards violence.

But I made a mistake in giving my opinion of world politics in this thread which was about physics, and should stay about Physics alone. i wont attempt it again. Ill use another thread for that.

Meanwhile, as you are the accredited teacher, knowledgeable on Einstein, please just explain, without any math, as this is unnecessary in a description of how a physical process might work.... explain how it is not irrational to say that any moving object, (a photon) can possibly be measured at c, by anyone, moving at any diverse speed, in ANY direction, at the same time..
Explain how this could possibly work. Begin by explaining how it works for objects moving at less than c.
In 100 years, no one has even tried.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

""My point is that science doesn't care about political views, and if you are going to be pro-science... scientific findings shouldn't be filtered or distorted by politics."""

Really? You only need to take a long hard look at the Climate Change Alarmist movement to see that science IS does care very, very much about politics.
As the great scientist, George Carlin said, "I never trust anything the Government says, never." (Carlin was a expert in the science of why people behave a certain way, he studied this all hi live, so is rightfully a "scientist".)
(one who studies Natural processes, and tries to understand them)

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In half of your ramblings you talk as if the Earth is fixed. In the other half of your ramblings you talk as if "the Earth moves" (as you yourself said).

Once again proving that you have no understanding of the topic or what's being said, Max

Why do you think Smoot said this? And we does it "seem to violate the postulates of Special Relativity?"

Quote:

..This is good evidence that Galileo is right - the Earth does go around the Sun.

0 Replies

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

explain how it is not irrational to say that any moving object, (a photon) can possibly be measured at c, by anyone, moving at any diverse speed, in ANY direction, at the same time..

It's just the doppler effect. If you hear an ambulance approaching at 100mph, its siren has a high pitch but the sound waves are moving at the speed of sound; then it passes you and it's going 100mph away from you, so its pitch has gone down but the lower-pitch sound waves are still moving at the same speed of sound they were when it was approaching you.

1 Reply

@layman,

Layman, in another forum, a long while back, I asked you what is the rationale behind your belief that time dilation according to Lorentz transform was real.

I cant recall getting any such explanation.
Got time to put pen to paper now, in this forum?
From my studies on Lorentz, I cant for the life of me, see any logic behind the development of the equation.
Whats the best way you know that explains why one would want to apply such a modification to what is a simple concept in Physics?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I don't believe this explanation of the Doppler effect in any way addresses my question.
Yes, the sound travels through this atmosphere at sea level, at a reasonably constant rate.
If you stood still and a car approached you would measure the sound wave moving relative to you and the earth and the still air, at the speed of sound.

But if you were moving in the same direction as that sound wave front, at half the speed of sound relative to the Earth, (still air) then you would measure the relative velocity of the sound to you as being one half the speed of sound.
Because its possible to actually catch up with that sound front, and pass it, its called breaking the sound barrier.
The relative speed of the sound to the jet pilot who just broke the sound barrier, would be a negative speed or sound, or rather the sound is receding in the opposite direction.

So want to try another way to explain how it could be possible NOT to get a similar result when doing the exact same thing, but with light? Assume we could go faster than light, just for the example to jive with the example of sound wave speed.
Your thoughts?

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know