Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

huh? Where do you get this from?

I've already said where, but let me say it again.

If a rocket is blasted off from earth, it is accelerating. All agree that this motion is absolute.

But there comes a time when the rocket stops accelerating and begins to coast at a uniform speed. According to Newton it will then continue to travel at that speed indefinitely.

But SR prohibits this scenario. To remain faithful to SR, the guy in the rocket MUST insist that he is now motionless. He must insist that he is not moving at all and that everything else is the universe that is moving with respect to him is moving. But he is not.

The implication is that as soon as he reaches a uniform speed, he stops on a dime (with no force being applied). This is contrary to all accepted laws of physics.

It doesn't make physical sense, It can make "mathematical" sense, but it is physical nonsense.

1 Reply

@layman,

This has nothing to do with SR.

You are misunderstanding a principle that was well understood hundreds of years before Einstein.

The example you are giving is completely solvable using Newton law's. In fact, Newton in Principia wrote that the laws of mechanics are equivalent under any inertial frame of reference.

Let's consider two reference frames (you aren't going to like this, but this is basic Newtonian Physics that we teach in high school that has nothing to do with Einstein).

1. In the first Newtonian (i.e. inertial) Reference frame, we consider the Earth motionless. The rocket starts out motionless, then let's say it accelerates (this is a net acceleration including gravity) at 100 m/s/s for 30 seconds. After this time we would say that the rocket is going 3000 m/s. (The earth would have orbited... but we can simplify this, I will add the mathematics if you would like.

All of Newton apply in this frame of reference. V = V0 + At is true. If we want to calculate the force, we can use Newton's laws for that.

2. In the second Newtonian Reference Frame we consider that the Earth is moving (downward from the perspective of the rocket) at a speed of 3000 m/s.

The rocket accelerates at 100 m/s/s upward for 30 seconds. After this time the Earth is still going in the direction we call "downward) at 3000 m/s, and the rocket has a velocity of 0 m/s (it is motionless).

The point that Isaac Newton made is that either of these inertial frames of reference are equivalent.

All of Newton's laws apply to the second frame of reference as the first. V = V0 + At is still true. Newtons first, second and third laws all still work.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I am sure you are going to have a problem with this. Hopefully you can consider this with an open mind. This is what high school students learn in Physics class.

But these are the points to take from this.

1. This is pure Newton. It has nothing to do with Einstein (who came hudreds of years after this was understood).

2. Newton's first law-- the law of inertia-- as well as the second law, and the third law, and all the other laws, work in either of these two frames of reference.

3. You can reject Newton's laws based on philosophy... but in any inertial frame of reference Newton's laws are not only logically and mathematically consistent, they are also testable by experiment.

So your claim that frames of reference "forces you to abandon the law of interia" is false.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am sure you are going to have a problem with this. Hopefully you can consider this with an open mind. This is what high school students learn in Physics class.

But these are the points to take from this.

1. This is pure Newton. It has nothing to do with Einstein (who came hudreds of years after this was understood).

2. Newton's first law-- the law of inertia-- as well as the second law, and the third law, and all the other laws, work in either of these two frames of reference.

So your claim that frames of reference "forces you to abandon the law of interia" is false.

What? This is a complete non sequitur. It doesn't address the issue at all.

2 Replies

@layman,

I just showed you that Newton's laws work in more than one frame of reference. I think you were claiming that they don't (particularly the law of inertia).

Do you agree that Newton's laws work in any inertial frame of reference?

0 Replies

@layman,

I will freely grant you that Newton's laws are the same in every inertially moving frame (but not in accelerating frames). So what? How does that address the issue I have raised?

2 Replies

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

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.

How then do you explain the discrepancy that has to be compensated for when using GPS information from satellites at sea level?

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard this as an example of proof that identical clocks keep time at different rates in orbit as they do at sea level.

How do you explain that in light of what you said in the above quote?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I will freely grant you that Newton's laws are the same in every inertially moving frame (but not in accelerating frames). So what? How does that address the issue I have raised.

In that case, I have disproven your claim that the law of inertia doesn't work in more than one frame of reference. You gave the rocket example. I showed you how frames of reference work.

1 Reply

@layman,

In SR every observer MUST, by fiat and arbitrary decree, consider himself to be motionless.

Not "may." Not "is free to." But MUST.

Without that condition, the whole theory falls apart.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In that case, I have disproven your claim that the law of inertia doesn't work in more than one frame of reference. You gave the rocket example. I showed you how frames of reference work.

Are you really that dense, Max? There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. You obviously don't even understand the theoretical issues being raised.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

In SR every observer MUST, by fiat and arbitrary decree, consider himself to be motionless.

Not "may." Not "is free to." But MUST.

Without that condition, the whole theory falls apart.

You are making this up. This is not correct.

And we aren't even talking about SR in the example you gave. This is completely addressable with Newton (which you are having trouble understanding).

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

In that case, I have disproven your claim that the law of inertia doesn't work in more than one frame of reference. You gave the rocket example. I showed you how frames of reference work.

Are you really that dense, Max? There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. You obviously don't even understand the theoretical issues being raised.

Sigh.... I very carefully explained to you how the two different inertial frames work. In the second frame (where the rocket ends up motionless) all of the math works just fine, and all of Newton's laws hold.

If you are going to claim there are "theoretical issues" being raised, then please explain what they are.

This is math done by high school students.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

If you have a philosophical problem with Newton's laws in different inertial frames... there is nothing I can do about that. I am not a philosopher.

There is no mathematical problem with Newton's laws in different inertial frame. Newton understood his, and I just demonstrated how it works with the example you gave.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

In that case, I have disproven your claim that the law of inertia doesn't work in more than one frame of reference. You gave the rocket example. I showed you how frames of reference work.

Are you really that dense, Max? There is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. You obviously don't even understand the theoretical issues being raised.

Sigh.... I very carefully explained to you how the two different inertial frames work. In the second frame (where the rocket ends up motionless) all of the math works just fine, and all of Newton's laws hold.

If you are going to claim there are "theoretical issues" being raised, then please explain what they are.

This is math done by high school students.

Translation:
"I told you how it works and if you don't accept the math you are dumber than high school students."

Max wants you to accept his statements without questioning them based on his academic status. He doesn't really care if you understand or accept anything based on your own sensibilities.

If you say he hasn't sufficiently explained his point, he will tell you it's your responsibility to go to school. If you tell him you have a different understanding than he does, he'll tell you your isn't real science and his is and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

Either way the burden will be shifted to you and he thinks what he says should be unquestioningly accepted on the basis of his claimed credentials.

You won't get accountability to reason from him because he doesn't believe you are capable of reason except insofar you submit to the same authority he does.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sigh.... I very carefully explained to you how the two different inertial frames work. In the second frame (where the rocket ends up motionless) all of the math works just fine, and all of Newton's laws hold.

If you are going to claim there are "theoretical issues" being raised, then please explain what they are.

This is math done by high school students.

1. It's not a matte or math (except indirectly)

No, the laws of physics definitely do NOT hold (per SR) for the astronaut. If they did, the astronaut would NEVER claim that he is motionless while the earth is moving with respect to him.

With a high school education he would know:

1. That he had been continually accelerated for a period of time,
2. That he then stopped accelerating, and that therefore,
3. He was still moving vis-a-vis the earth, although not at an accelerating rate of speed (law of interia).

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Bingo, Lava.

0 Replies

@layman,

Stop saying SR when we are talking about Newtonian Physics. This has nothing to do with SR.

Quote:

1. That he had been continually accelerated for a period of time,
2. That he then stopped accelerating, and that therefore,
3. He was still moving vis-a-vis the earth (law of interia).

In the second frame of reference in my explaination above, where before it blasts off, the Earth and the rocket starts out moving "downward" at 3000 m/s, everything you say is true. Someone with a high school physics understanding would know.

1. That he had been continurally accelerated for a period of time.
2. That he then stopped acceleration.
3. That he was now motionless (vis-a-vis) the inertial reference frame.

I am not talking philosophically (which I don't care about). What I am saying is that in either frame of reference the same mathematical laws apply and the same acceleration is felt by people in the rocket.

There is a simple way to show you the contradiction in your thinking.

You are insisting that the Earth is motionless. In other places you insist the Earth moves. I have no problem with dealing with multiple frames of reference that are equally valid. But you are breaking your own rules.

1 Reply

@layman,

As Fenymann noted, it is he one who is accelerated who will be younger. Why? Because, because he is the one moving.

Why? Because the LT predict that clocks will only be slowed down for the moving clock (not both, or all clocks).

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

As Fenymann noted, it is he one who is accelerated who will be younger. Why? Because, because he is the one moving.

I am pretty sure you misunderstand what Feynman was saying. I linked to Fenyman's lecture on Special relativity and the Twin paradox, I don't see what you are talking about there.

Can you provide a link?

If you found a contradiction in what Feynman said, I would be quite impressed.

1 Reply

@layman,

And what possible reason did Feynman give, as to what is causing the twin that is moving to age exactly?
Since when is aging caused by moving relative to something that you believe is not moving?

You guys are arguing about fantasies.

0 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know