Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

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

Heh, the conclusions you deduce, and the premises on which those conclusions are based, is incomprehensible.

NO! I do NOT reject any of Newton's principles (even though I have no idea what principle you are referring to).

What "principle" do you think I am rejecting, and why do you think that?

I am being very patient here.

1) Isaac Newton says that any inertial reference frame is equally valid. You said you agree with this.

2) When in our example I provided you with two inertial frames of reference, you rejected one of them as valid.

3) #1 is a contradiction with #2. You first say any inertial reference frame is valid. Then you say that an inertial reference frame is invalid.

You are contradicting yourself

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You have a problem with Newton's laws that have nothing to do with Einstein.

Newton's laws were the best laws of Physics we had for 250 years. Time and again they were tested and shown to make precise predictions to the ability of the time to measure.

Even now, when we have found slight inaccuracies in Newton's laws (which is why Einstein is considered valid) we still use Newton's laws in many cases. All of the PhD scientists and Engineers who worked at NASA in the and 1960s were highly educated and fully understood Einstein's theories, they used Newton's laws because they were good enough.

Incidentally, going to the moon involves multiple frames of reference. When the rocket is attached to the launch pad on Earth, they use the Earth frame of reference. It is valid to say that the rocket attached to the launch pad is motionless.

However, using the Earth frame of reference when you are trying to land on the moon would be crazy. They used the moon frame of reference... because what they needed to calculate was their orientation to the ground. When the lander was on the moon, and the astronauts were sitting in their chairs, they considered themselves to be motionless... from the Moon frame of reference.

This isn't Einstein. This is basic Physics understood hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am being very patient here.

1) Isaac Newton says that any inertial reference frame is equally valid. You said you agree with this.

No ,I did not say I agreed with "this. " Nor do I agree that Newton ever said it. To claim that he did say that is simply ridiculous.

Quote:

2) When in our example I provided you with two inertial frames of reference, you rejected one of them as valid.

Yes, indeed, I did reject one of them as being valid.

Quote:

3) #1 is a contradiction with #2. You first say any inertial reference frame is valid. Then you say that an inertial reference frame is invalid.

You are contradicting yourself

Nice try with your strawman argument. I did not make any such claims so "my" argument, as you are imputing it to me,, cannot be "contradictory."

Newton NEVER said that all frames are "equally valid." Only Einstein made that claim.

If Newton (or Galileo for that matter) ever believed that, then they would never have made the claims that they did.

1 Reply

@layman,

Look. Here's the thing that you cannot seem to get through your thick skull:

Saying that the laws of physics are the same in any inertially moving frame does not say (or even imply) that all frames are "equally valid" for physical purposes.

That is an equivalency that you are making without any rational basis for doing so.

'Any given frame of reference could be (inertially):

1. motionless
2. Travelling at 1 million miles an hour
3. Travelling at .5 c
4. Trevelling at .99c.
5. or any speed in between.

In each case, the "laws of physics" would be he same within the confines of that frame.

But that does not tell you a damn thing about which ones are moving, or at what speed.

There is simply no connection between the two.

1 Reply

@layman,

OK, to me "equally valid" means "the laws of Physics operate the same". I shouldn't have used the word "invalid". You still have a problem.

You accept that Newton's laws work in all inertial frames of reference, and that the mathematics works in all inertial frames of reference. Then it raises the questions you have been dodging?

I have given you detail explanations of two frames of reference. One of them has the Earth motionless at the start of the launch. The other has the rocket motionless at the end of the launch.

1 ) Are either of these correct? (The first means that the Earth doesn't move)

2) If the Earth does move, then there would be some acceleration to get to the point where it was motionless, right? How will we calculate what that is?

Again, this has nothing to do with Einstein or SR.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

OK, to me "equally valid" means "the laws of Physics operate the same". I shouldn't have used the word "invalid". You still have a problem.

You accept that Newton's laws work in all inertial frames of reference, and that the mathematics works in all inertial frames of reference. Then it raises the questions you have been dodging?

I have given you detail explanations of two frames of reference. One of them has the Earth motionless at the start of the launch. The other has the rocket motionless at the end of the launch.

1 ) Are either of these correct? (The first means that the Earth doesn't move)

No, in the "other," as you refer to it, the rocket is never "motionless" at the end of the launch. It never stops moving (unless acted upon by a force). This is basic Newtonian mechanics.

Quote:

2) If the Earth does move, then there would be some acceleration to get to the point where it was motionless, right? How will we calculate what that is?

Again, this has nothing to do with Einstein or SR.

Of course the earth does move while the rocket is travelling. If nothing else, it continues to move in its orbit around the sun. But this is a de miniums factor which all the literature ignores when "explicating" the situation.

But once again, I never said the earth was (absolutely) motionless. I just said that, vis-a-vis the rocket (which has been accelerated) it is the one which is "motionless." The earth has not been artificially accelerated, as the rocket has been.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Again, this has nothing to do with Einstein or SR.

It is only in your mind that it has "nothing to do with SR."

The fact thatr you to even say that exposes your lack of understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of SR.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I asked someone to explain how an imaginary frame of reference, or one observer not knowing very much about his situation, can make real physical changes to matter.
In reply you ask me about some claim our government has made about satellites in space.
I trust the government as far as I can throw them. They are habitual liars, no need to think they are suddenly being truthful with this claim.
I can debate the validity of the claim that they really do adjust the satellite clocks, but as neither you nor I can confirm it, the argument is pointless.

Its much easier for you to just explain how an imaginary frame of reference, or one observers ignorance of his physical situation, can cause big changes to physical matter.

Go ahead, the floor is yours, explain it.

0 Replies

@layman,

You really are a champion of double speak.
One one hand, you state that Time does not slow, no, its only the clocks that slow, but then in the next breath, you say that well, really Time must have slowed, because the traveling Twin is really younger.

You are a good wordsmith, but your logic is flawed.
You have one foot in each camp. Covering all bases.
And still unable to answer my simple question.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

I never said that "clocks and only clocks" slow down. I explicitly said that all regularly recurring processes occur at a lower rate. This would include heartbeats, cell division, etc.

Either way "time" does not change. Time does not stop if some guy is put into suspended animation for 100 years.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok then

Under your understanding of Physics, I want the rocket to become motionless... actually, truthfully really motionless.

How do I accomplish this?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The fact thatr you to even say that exposes your lack of understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of SR.

You have a problem with Newton's laws, not with Einstein. Newton's laws were developed hundreds of years before Einstein. That is why I am saying they have "nothing to do with SR".

I suppose I don't disagree with the idea that Newton's laws are the "theoretical underpinnings of SR". I don't see how this matters though.

You are rejecting Physics that were well understood hundreds of years before SR was conceived.

0 Replies

Just to be painfully clear, I am choosing to not respond to justafool.

I have respect for Layman's mind. I disagree with him, and maybe I am being hard on him. But Layman is not stupid, and (more importantly) is not irrational.

We are spending a lot of time on this topic. What I am getting out of this is the mental challenge of clearly explaining Newton's Laws (and Physics in general) in a clear way that addresses the challenges that Layman is raising.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok then

Under your understanding of Physics, I want the rocket to become motionless... actually, truthfully really motionless.

How do I accomplish this?

Layman,

This is the important question I am posing to you. Please answer this one?

I have given you the Newtonian answer from 2 different inertial frames of reference. According to Newton these two frames of reference are equally valid for his laws.

1) In the first frame of reference the rocket started out motionless when it was attached to the launch pad attached to the Earth the instant before launch. This assumes that the Earth was motionless the instant before launch.

2) In the second frame of reference the rocket started out moving when it was attached to the launch pad attached to the Earth the instant before launch and then became motionless after a period of acceleration. The assumes that the Earth is moving (downward) in the instant before launch.

In you "truth" based view... is the Earth moving? Or is the Earth not moving?

Which leads us back to the important question... what do I have to do to get my rocket to be truly motionless?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Under your understanding of Physics, I want the rocket to become motionless... actually, truthfully really motionless.

How do I accomplish this?

If you're talking about a setting in "outer space," then accelerate it until it is co-moving with the CMB, then put on the brakes.

For purposes of ascertaining motion on an inter-galactic scale, the CMB is the modern-day "ether." With respect to everything else in the universe, it is "at rest."

A way back, I gave you a link to a paper published by the group headed by George Smoot, which explains this.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

]The largest reference frame we know about is that of the cosmic background radiation itself...the fireball light left over from the Big Bang. It samples a scale of the universe over 15 billion light years in radius. If you have no 'peculiar' speed relative to this frame, your galaxy is exactly partaking of the expansion of the universe with no additional local speed added to it. The NASA Cosmic Background Explorer confirmed many previous measurements of the motion of our earth's speed and found that it has a peculiar speed of 360 +/- 20 kilometers/sec in the direction of the constellations Leo and Crater. This means that when you add up all of the speeds and directions of the different local reference frames, the net vector sum is the amount seen by COBE. Astronomers, knowing how fast the sun travels around the milky way, the milky way through the local group, the local group towards the Virgo supercluster etc, have been able to account for much of the COBE result, but it seems that the entire collection of galaxies and clusters of galaxies out to 100 million light years, may have its own residual velocity compared to the cosmic background 'rest frame'.

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10552.html

Prominent physicists have called the CMB such things as the "cosmic rest frame," and the "rest frame of the universe."

1 Reply

@layman,

Interesting... so this is what you are saying about your rocket problem. Correct me if I am wrong.

1. The rocket starts out attached to the launch pad firmly attached to the earth moving at the (Earth's speed in CMB). At this point both the rocket and the Earth is moving.

2. The rocket will accelerate at 30 m/s toward some fixed point in CMB for some amount of time.

3. After the required time of acceleration the rocket will be motionless. The Earth will still be moving at some great velocity.

Is this what you are saying?

(strangely this is very close to what I said in my second frame of reference)

1 Reply

@layman,

But the CMB is not an appropriate "preferred frame" in all setting. Experiments have shown that the "preferred frame" in a particular locality will the the center of mass of the dominant gravitational "force" within the system.

For the solar system, that would be the barycenter. For ascertaining "true motion" of objects at or near the earth, the "rest frame" is the non-rotating, earth-centered inertial frame (the "ECI"). This is what the GPS uses as a preferred (rest) frame.

1 Reply

@layman,

Is my latest explanation of your rocket example correct?

You are implying that a rocket starting on Earth needs to accelerate to become motionless.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Interesting... so this is what you are saying about your rocket problem. Correct me if I am wrong.

1. The rocket starts out attached to the launch pad firmly attached to the earth moving at the (Earth's speed in CMB). At this point both the rocket and the Earth is moving.

2. The rocket will accelerate at 30 m/s toward some fixed point in CMB for some amount of time.

3. After the required time of acceleration the rocket will be motionless. The Earth will still be moving at some great velocity.

Is this what you are saying?

(strangely this is very close to what I said in my second frame of reference)

No, that's not quite what I am saying. At no time will the rocket become truly "motionless." However compared to the earth, it will be moving at a faster speed and, as a result, the clocks on it will slow down. Relative to it, the earth will be "motionless."

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know