5
   

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

 
 
justafool44
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:10 pm
@layman,
meanwhile, in the real world, none of you guys can explain any of the problems I raised here.
No one can explain how or why it could possibly have any effects on physical processes, to take measurements from here, or over there, from this place beside this rock, or from that place on fast rocket.

No vantage point for taking measurements can possibly cause the merest hint of any real changes to any physical processes.

Time, length and mass can never be warped simply because some idiot takes measurement for some other position moving or not.
Imaginary "inertial frames of reference" are IMAGINERY, as is the ABSOLUTE origin and frame of reference, its able to be imaginary too, if I want it to be "here", then here it is, and its valid for the experiment I'm doing.

If anyone here in this forum thinks that imaginary reference frames can change physical properties and affect physical processes, then he is delusional.

Argue all you want about the meaning of Math, but math cant prove anything other than math is able to support almost any theory. Its like silly putty, mold it to what shape you want.





layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Theoretical Physicists are highly mathematical. Ironically (in this anti-Einstein thread) Einstein was a Theoretical Physicists. He came up with the ideas mathematically. His triumph was creating a mathematical model that fit with all of the data. You can read his hypothesis... it was written in advanced mathematics


Al took his math from Lorentz, Poincare and others. He didn't alter any of it in form. He just changed the premises underlying it.

The lorentz transformation formula is identical in both SR and LR, in form (and form only).

But the substantive is radically content is different. In SR the v (for velocity) is relative. In LR it is absolute.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong. The theories of Galileo and Newton carried the day because they were confirmed by experiment and made predictions that could not be made by earlier theories.

Galileo and Newton could make precise predictions and confirm them by experiment. The earlier theories were much less successful at doing this.

Halley's comet was immensely important for the new Physics. The mathematical laws made precise predictions that could be measured by an actual comet. They confirmed the theories.

Had this not been the case, then these theories would have been discarded.



Richard Feynman is one of my personal heroes. He says science starts with a "guess" (which I suppose it what you are saying). Here is his talk about scientific method.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:15 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Al took his math from Lorentz, Poincare and others. He didn't alter any of it in form. He just changed the premises underlying it.


You have apparently not read Einstein's papers.

Einstein writes very careful mathematics to develop new functions. Of course, he then shows how they related to earlier work.

If you are going to develop a new theory, when there are existing theories that make pretty good predictions, you are going to have to show how your new theory relates to earlier work.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:15 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong. The theories of Galileo and Newton carried the day because they were confirmed by experiment and made predictions that could not be made by earlier theories.


No, you are wrong. The advancements made by Galileo and Newton were conceptual, not experimental. They provided a much more coherent and complete explanation than did the geocentric hypothesis.
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:20 pm
@maxdancona,
I have great respect and admiration for Feynmann too. He gave his own refutation of SR in favor of LR.

I could find an extended passage, but in essence he said the solution to the twin paradox was simple. The one who was moving would be younger. Of course this is correct. The problem with SR is that it tries (unsuccessfully, ultimately) to deny that the travelling twin is moving.

LR says the travelling twin is moving.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:21 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The advancements made by Galileo and Newton were conceptual, not experimental.


I don't know what you mean by "conceptual". Both Galileo and Newton expressed their ideas mathematically.

The theories of both Galileo and Newton were confirmed by experiment (if not by them, then by others). If the theories didn't match experimental data, they would have been rejected.

The historical argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they did the experiments themselves, or if they wrote their theories in such a way that they could be precisely confirmed by others. Newton used known astronomical data to confirm his laws of mechanics... and he wrote many experiments he did on optics etc. Galileo made famous experimental observations with a telescope and spent time dropping objects and making measurements with pendulums.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:23 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I could find an extended passage, but in essence he said the solution to the twin paradox was simple. The one who was moving would be younger.


I understand Feynman's work. He understands relativity (and uses it in his work). I am sure that you misunderstood what Feynman said.

I would be interested in seeing a link in context.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:25 pm
@maxdancona,
This is the Fenman lecture on Special Relativity for your reference.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:29 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "conceptual".


Yeah, I think that's the problem here.

Galileo developed (in imperfect form) the concept of inertia, which was later refined by Newton. This replaced the Aristotelian "impetus" theory of local motion. Newton inspiration underlying the ultimate formation of his "law of gravity" was another conceptual breakthrough.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:31 pm
@layman,
To a scientist, a "concept" is meaningless if it can not be confirmed by experiment. If your concept leads to prediction that are contradicted by experimental observation, it is wrong.

Physics requires that any idea be confirmed by experiment, this means that it must make predictions that can be tested. If you don't do this, your "concept" is not science.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:37 pm
@layman,
Feynman wrote:
When this idea descended upon the world, it caused a great stir among philosophers, particularly the “cocktail-party philosophers,” who say, “Oh, it is very simple: Einstein’s theory says all is relative!” In fact, a surprisingly large number of philosophers, not only those found at cocktail parties (but rather than embarrass them, we shall just call them “cocktail-party philosophers”), will say, “That all is relative is a consequence of Einstein, and it has profound influences on our ideas.” In addition, they say “It has been demonstrated in physics that phenomena depend upon your frame of reference.” We hear that a great deal, but it is difficult to find out what it means. Probably the frames of reference that were originally referred to were the coordinate systems which we use in the analysis of the theory of relativity. So the fact that “things depend upon your frame of reference” is supposed to have had a profound effect on modern thought. One might well wonder why, because, after all, that things depend upon one’s point of view is so simple an idea that it certainly cannot have been necessary to go to all the trouble of the physical relativity theory in order to discover it. That what one sees depends upon his frame of reference is certainly known to anybody who walks around, because he sees an approaching pedestrian first from the front and then from the back; there is nothing deeper in most of the philosophy which is said to have come from the theory of relativity than the remark that “A person looks different from the front than from the back.” The old story about the elephant that several blind men describe in different ways is another example, perhaps, of the theory of relativity from the philosopher’s point of view.

But certainly there must be deeper things in the theory of relativity than just this simple remark that “A person looks different from the front than from the back.” Of course relativity is deeper than this, because we can make definite predictions with it. It certainly would be rather remarkable if we could predict the behavior of nature from such a simple observation alone.

There is another school of philosophers who feel very uncomfortable about the theory of relativity, which asserts that we cannot determine our absolute velocity without looking at something outside, and who would say, “It is obvious that one cannot measure his velocity without looking outside. It is self-evident that it is meaningless to talk about the velocity of a thing without looking outside; the physicists are rather stupid for having thought otherwise, but it has just dawned on them that this is the case. If only we philosophers had realized what the problems were that the physicists had, we could have decided immediately by brainwork that it is impossible to tell how fast one is moving without looking outside, and we could have made an enormous contribution to physics.” These philosophers are always with us, struggling in the periphery to try to tell us something, but they never really understand the subtleties and depths of the problem.

Our inability to detect absolute motion is a result of experiment and not a result of plain thought, as we can easily illustrate. In the first place, Newton believed that it was true that one could not tell how fast he is going if he is moving with uniform velocity in a straight line. In fact, Newton first stated the principle of relativity, and one quotation made in the last chapter was a statement of Newton’s. Why then did the philosophers not make all this fuss about “all is relative,” or whatever, in Newton’s time? Because it was not until Maxwell’s theory of electrodynamics was developed that there were physical laws that suggested that one could measure his velocity without looking outside; soon it was found experimentally that one could not.


I was looking for Feynman's lecture on the Twin Paradox. I found this instead (which is related to our discussion). His explanation of the Twin paradox is further down the page.

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

Feynman was not particularly fond of philosophers.
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:43 pm
Here's a passage from Feynmann, and it mirros what I have been saying in prior posts.

Quote:
This is called a “paradox” only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative; they say, “Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can’t we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly? ... the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an “absolute” sense, and it is certainly correct.


I've truncated it some, but you can read the whole thing here:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html#:~:text=

The main point? Some motion is absolute, and that includes the motion of the travelling twin, even when he is cruising at a uniform speed in the long periods between blast-off, turnaround, and return. SR tries to deny this.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:50 pm
@layman,
Feynman is correct. I don't think you are understanding what he is saying.

This is part of the Feynman lecture series on Special Relativity. He isn't contradicting SR, he is explaining it. If you think there is a contradiction here... you should consider the fact that maybe the problem is that you aren't understanding it.

(The other option is that Feynman is wrong... but I can assure you that this isn't the case.)

The way that I would explain this to my high school students is that you can't measure velocity... but you can measure acceleration. It is a little tricky here, the contradiction you think you see doesn't exist. If you are patient enough, I will explain this to you. Feynman also explains this if you read his lecture carefully.

layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:51 pm
@maxdancona,
The extreme emphasis you put on experiment is unwarranted. Sure, Popper says that an theory which cannot be tested is mere pseudo-science, but that another topic.

SR can be tested. So can LR. Testability is NOT the distinction between them. They are theoretically opposed.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:53 pm
@layman,
Quote:
They are theoretically opposed.


I don't know what "theoretically opposed" means. It has no relevance to science. Science only cares about experimental results. Read the text I quoted from Feynman about philosophy and science (I know it is long).

Feynman makes the same point that I am making.
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:57 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Feynman is correct. I don't think you are understanding what he is saying.

This is part of the Feynman lecture series on Special Relativity. He isn't contradicting SR, he is explaining it. If you think there is a contradiction here... you should consider the fact that maybe the problem is that you aren't understanding it.


Yes, he is explaining the physical phenomena quite well. But he is not explaining SR as propounded by theory. I've previously explained why, and I can come back to this.

Of course, even SR acknowledges that acceleration is absolute, not relative. But that's not the main point. The point is that what SR wants to call "relative" motion is also absolute.

And, ultimately, SR's problem is that it attempts to force one to abandon the universally accepted law of inertia, i.e, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 08:59 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
They are theoretically opposed.


I don't know what "theoretically opposed" means. It has no relevance to science.


That's definitely one of the more naive statements you have made. Your notion of "science" is extremely narrow and misguided.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 09:07 pm
Max, you don't know this, and you will instinctively deny that it's true, but it is.

LR (which posits absolute motion) has been tested against SR (which posits relative motion), and SR loses. LR wins.

The best example of this is the GPS. It could not possibly use SR as a theoretical framework. And it doesn't.

But I don't think you even understand the basic difference between the two to begin with.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Fri 13 Mar, 2020 09:07 pm
@layman,
Quote:
And, ultimately, SR's problem is that it attempts to force one to abandon the universally accepted law of inertia, i.e, that a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an external force.


huh? Where do you get this from? I think you might be misunderstanding something here.
 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 06:52:06