Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

Quote:

Heh, again, you understand nothing. Did you ever even read the Smoot article I posted long ago? Did you ever even read the post where I brought it up again? Apparently not.

I have shown you how you are contradicting yourself. I am offering you a chance to explain that contradiction in your own words. Smoot (who I am pretty sure you are misunderstanding) has nothing to do with this.

In one post you say that "an object that accelerates is the one that is moving". In another post you agree that an object that accelerates is motionless.

This is your contradiction to work out. Physicists, from the time of Newton, have understood this in a perfectly logically consistent way.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Heh, again, you understand nothing. Did you ever even read the Smoot article I posted long ago? Did you ever even read the post where I brought it up again? Apparently not.

I want you to explain your answer in your own words. I have shown that you are contradicting yourself (Smoot doesn't say what you claim he says... and isn't relevant here anyway).

I have shown you how you are contradicting yourself. I am offering you a chance to explain that contradiction in your own words.

No, you have not shown that. Explain just how I am "contradicting" myself. Give me a step by step explanation, not a summary conclusion, of the putative "contradiction." I have already explained to you why there is no contradiction, but assume that you haven't even read it, as seems to be the case with most of my posts.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

OK...

1. You are claiming that the object that has undergone an acceleration is "the one that is moving".

2. This is a clear example where the object that accelerated (the rocket) is motionless after the acceleration. And the object that didn't accelerate (the Earth) is moving as it always moves.

3. You claim to agree with the example.

4. That is a contradiction in your own line of thinking.

Don't hide behind anyone else... this is a contradiction in you words. No one else is involved.

Explain why point #1 above doesn't directly contradict point #2 above.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In one post you say that "an object that accelerates is the one that is moving". In another post you agree that an object that accelerates is motionless.

No, I have NEVER said that an object which accelerates is motionless. Nor would I ever say that. Einstein says that, but he is wrong.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

According to you, the Earth is truly moving in some direction with some high velocity. A point in the CMB frame will be truly motionless. Let's draw a picture; E is the Earth, R is the Rocket, C is a motionless point in the CMB Frame.

1. At the beginning of the trip to become motionless, the Rocket is firmly attached to the Earth. The Earth and the Rocket are both moving away from "C".

Code:<---- E C <---- R

2. The rocket applies thrust to accelerate. This changes it's velocity... an in this picture we to thrust our engines away from "C". The rocket will accelerate. It's speed vis-a-vis the Earth will increase. Its true speed (measured by the CMB frame) will decrease).

Code:<---- E C <--R

3. After enough time, the Rocket accelerates enough to math the stationary point in the CMB frame of reference. At this point it will be "truthfully" motionless.

Code:<---- E C R

Do you agree with this analyisis? If not, please correct it.

Yeah, I generally agree with it. But we are not talking about a case where the rocket becomes "co-moving" with the CMB (which would mean it is not moving at all with respect to the remainder of the universe). I assume that you have not read my prior posts about the "proper" preferred frame in any given locality.

In this example the object that accelerates is motionless.

You have said you agree with it. Now you are saying you don't. Do you agree with it or not?

You are contradicting yourself.

0 Replies

@layman,

Let's point out again, this has nothing to do with Einstein.

You are disagreeing with Isaac Newton who wrote Principia hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

OK...

1. You are claiming that the object that has undergone an acceleration is "the one that is moving".

I have consistently said "as between the two." That's what you're not paying attention to.

If I am standing next to a drag racer who suddenly mashes down on the accelerator, as between the two of us, he is the one moving, not me. This is without regard to any other motion in the universe. Accelerated motion is absolute (not "frame dependent') in this case. Everyone in the universe "looking on" will agree that it is the car, not me, which has been accelerated.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let's point out again, this has nothing to do with Einstein.

You are disagreeing with Isaac Newton who wrote Principia hundreds of years before Einstein was born.

Let me point out again that you have no clue about what Newton "has to do" with Einstein.

You can't even grasp what the topic is.

1 Reply

@layman,

In some examples after an acceleration an object is moving.
In other examples after an acceleration an object is motionless.

The fact that you have on example, doesn't change the other example.

In Newton's laws the equation is written

V = V0 + aT.

There is no reason that an object can't start out moving (as you say the rocket on a launch pad is moving while it is attached to the earth). In this case you need a non-zero acceleration in order for the object to end up motionless.

This is basic physics, Newton's laws.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are dodging the questions.

1) Is a rocket attached to a launch pad on Earth moving?
2) What do I have to do in order to make that rocket truly motionless.

- The answer to #2 (and the reason that you are dodging it) is that in the CMB frame, you need to accelerate the rocket for it to be motionless. Those nice diagrams I patiently drew show exactly.

- Then you say that all objects that have accelerated are moving.

The contradiction in your own thinking is pretty obvious. This has nothing to do with Einstein.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Yeah, so?

I have explained this numerous times and have pointed out where I think you are misunderstanding me.

You are not using the word "valid" in the way I am, for one thing.

You also seem to have an understanding of the word "absolute" which is inconsistent with the way I am using it.

Newton claimed that accelerating motion was "absolute,' and on that score Einstein (SR) agrees with him. So does Feynman. Do you disagree with that?

1 Reply

@layman,

Science is on experiment and precise observation. If you are going to ask a scientific question, it needs to be testable. Any other question may be interesting to philosophers, but it not scientific.

I don't know how to design an experiment to test whether something is "absolute". This is a philosophical question that I am not equipped to answer.

Newton says that accelerating motion is "measurable". I can design an experiment, fairly easily to measure acceleration. I can also show experimentally that acceleration measures the same when measured in different frames of reference.

When I use the word "valid" I mean "confirmed by experiment".

0 Replies

Look, with respect to any given object you can always ask two questions:

1. Is it moving with respect to the CMB, and

2. Is it moving with respect to me?

They are two different questions. I have already elaborated on how and why there is no "universal" preferred frame of reference But I don't expect that you have even read that post. If you did, you didn't understand it.

On an intergalatic scale the CMB is the appropriate frame to "prefer." It is the "rest frame of the cosmos." But it is not the preferred frame for assessing the relative motion of objects on or near earth (or Mars, or the Sun, or other objects in the solar system).

I see no reason to keep repeating my posts when you never read them anyway.

2 Replies

@layman,

I have no problem with you using the CMB frame, as long as you use it in a scientific way. This means that any claim you make about the CMB frame needs to be testable and confirmed by experiment.

When you claim "all objects that have been accelerated are in motion", you are making a false. It can be shown experimentally to be false (as I have done). That would be an invalid claim in that it doesn't conform to experiment or observation.

You seem to resist the idea that Physicists since the time of Newton have been able to convert their calculations quite easily between frames of reference, and since the laws of physics are the same in each one, it all works and can be confirmed experimentally. But in this last post you seem at least open to it (although you want some philosophical rules about which is "preferred").

I am challenging you because some of the things you are claiming are contradictory. You are contradicting yourself.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I have no problem with you using the CMB frame, as long as you use it in a scientific way. This means that any claim you make about the CMB frame needs to be testable and confirmed by experiment.

When you claim "all objects that have been accelerated are in motion", you are making a false. It can be shown experimentally to be false (as I have done). That would be an invalid claim in that it doesn't conform to experiment or observation.

You seem to resist the idea that Physicists since the time of Newton have been able to convert their calculations quite easily between frames of reference, and since the laws of physics are the same in each one, it all works and can be confirmed experimentally.

I am challenging you because some of the things you are claiming are contradictory. You are contradicting yourself.

I've already responded to this. Scroll up for a change.

1 Reply

@layman,

Under Newton's laws, any change of velocity is an acceleration. This means

1) When you are slowing down, that is an acceleration.
2) You can tell you are accelerating by experiment and you can tell what direction you are accelerating.
3) Because you can't tell whether you are moving or not, you can't tell whether the acceleration you are measuring (observing) is slowing down the object, or speeding it up.

This is basic Physics. Newton's laws, nothing from Einstein.

Do you accept this?

1 Reply

@layman,

The issue here is decades old, and was resolved long ago.

Hafele and Keating made the first attempt to measure clock retardation due to motion.

There were 3 clocks involved. All three started out sitting on a table at a Naval station in Maryland.

Then two of the clocks were put on planes.

Then each plane was accelerated, IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS to identical cruising speeds (say 500 mph)

Eventually each plane circumvented the globe and returned to the naval station. All three clocks were reunited on the table top. And, as it turned out, each clock had recorded a different amount of time elapsed during the interim. No two had the same reading in this respect.

This was contrary to the original expectations and could not be reconciled by trying to apply SR.

The only frame which could be used to correctly "predict" (actually postdict in this case) the readings actually recorded was the ECI. It had to be used as the preferred frame from which to interpret the data actually gathered empirically.

It's the same with the GPS

2 Replies

@layman,

I should have added that one of the clocks actually "gained" time, and one 'lost" time, when compared to the "stationary" clock at the naval station.

0 Replies

@layman,

You are bringing this up to dodge the contradiction is your own understanding of basic Physics.

You are reading conspiracy theories off of the internet instead of reading Physics textbook which is why you are repeating this debunked attack on Hafele and Keating.

Can you link to a reputable Physicist who repeats this nonsense?

Better yet, it is more interesting to talk about actual Physics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are bringing this up to dodge the contradiction is your own understanding of basic Physics.

You are reading conspiracy theories off of the internet instead of reading Physics textbook which is why you are repeating this debunked attack on Hafele and Keating.

Can you link to a reputable Physicist who repeats this nonsense?

Better yet, it is more interesting to talk about actual Physics.

Wrong. I have read the original Hafele-Keating paper in its entirety. Have you?

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know