Einsteins special relativity nonsense

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

Someone with a high school physics understanding would know.

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.

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?

maxdancona wrote:

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?

I already provided it, together with a link and an excerpt from the relevant passage. Do you even read my posts?

If we substitute this transformation of coordinates into Newton’s laws we find that these laws transform to the same laws in the primed system; that is, the laws of Newton are of the same form in a moving system as in a stationary system, and therefore it is impossible to tell, by making mechanical experiments, whether the system is moving or not.

The principle of relativity has been used in mechanics for a long time. It was employed by various people, in particular Huygens, to obtain the rules for the collision of billiard balls, in much the same way as we used it in Chapter 10 to discuss the conservation of momentum. In the 19th century interest in it was heightened as the result of investigations into the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and light.

So 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.

Yeah, you have said that repeatedly, and I have agreed with you each time. What you have not shown is that this fact is in any way relevant to the issue at hand.

This is a point I made a long time ago. The fact that you cannot, by physical experiment alone, detect your own motion does NOT mean that motion cannot be detected. It simply means that you need to resort to another way of detecting it.

Do you understand the two different frames of reference in your rocket problem? It is important that you do.

In one frame of reference the rocket starts out motionless and ends up going 3000m/s upward. In the other frame of reference the rocket starts out going 3000m/s downward ends up motionless. In the second frame of reference the Earth is going 3000m/s downward throughout the whole time. In both frames of reference the Earth experiences near zero acceleration.

In both frames of reference the people inside the rocket experience the same acceleration for the same amount of time. In both cases the people on Earth experience almost zero acceleration from the rocket.

This is Newtonian Physics, nothing to do with SR.

In each case, by your own admission, the rocket feels acceleration and the earth twin doesn't. That's why what you are calling the "second frame" is demonstrably untrue. And this is precisely what Feynmann says.

When the candle is lit under a spaceship, it does not simply remain motionless while it pushes the earth away from it at great speed.

You also still haven't answered the biggest contradictions in your viewpoint.

1. In some places, you have said the The Earth moves.
2. You have implied in other places that the Earth is motionless.

3. You suggest that there is a some way to determine whether a rocket is "actually" motionless or not.
4. You are unwilling to tell me what a rocket that was "actually" motionless would be doing relative to the Earth. Would it be rocketing into space, or would it just sit on its launch pad?

I have, however, noted that SR absolutely REQUIRES certain observers to falsely claim that they are motionless.

Do you, or do you not agree with Newton that Newton's laws apply equally in any inertial frame of reference?

If you are going to change your mind about this, at least be honest about it.

Quote:

I have, however, noted that SR absolutely REQUIRES certain observers to falsely claim that they are motionless.

I have done the math of SR. This is incorrect.

As between the two, the rocket is the one moving, not the earth. Why? Because it has been accelerated and accelerated motion is, even by SR's own admission, ABSOLUTE.

maxdancona wrote:

Do you, or do you not agree with Newton that Newton's laws apply equally in any inertial frame of reference?

If you are going to change your mind about this, at least be honest about it.

For about the 20th time, yes I agree. I have never "changed my mind" about it. But for the 20th time I'm also telling you that this is irrelevant to the issue in question.

That's why what you are calling the "second frame" is demonstrably untrue.

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Do you, or do you not agree with Newton that Newton's laws apply equally in any inertial frame of reference?

If you are going to change your mind about this, at least be honest about it.

For about the 20th time, yes I agree. I have never "changed my mind" about it. But for the 20th time I'm also telling you that this is irrelevant to the issue in question.

Layman wrote:

That's why what you are calling the "second frame" is demonstrably untrue.

If Newton's laws are equally valid in all inertial frames of reference, how can the "second frame" be "untrue"? You are contradicting yourself.

So you, in fact, reject Isaac Newton's principle. This has nothing to do with Einstein or SR.