Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

Code:

Heh. H-K did the opposite. No two clocks returned with each being slower than the other. Big surprise, eh? It's impossible to begin with.

The H-K experiment proved that their predictions were confirmed by experiment.

The part about "two closes returned with each being slower" is something you just made up. That isn't what the theory says.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Sure. Read any introductory textbook on SR. I take it that you never have.

Humor me, link me to one single example. Factually, I have both taken and taught courses on SR, I have certainly read the textbooks.

You make a lot of stuff up.

1 Reply

@layman,

If you understood SR, you would also understand that any resort to a preferred frame would utterly demolish the entire theory.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

If you understood SR, you would also understand that any resort to a preferred frame would utterly demolish the entire theory.

1. I do understand SR.

2. You are making that up

3. You have provided zero evidence that that is true, other than the fact you state it is true.

0 Replies

@layman,

In science, theories have to be tested. You have to prove mathematical claims mathematically, you have to prove factual claims with facts, you have to prove scientific claims with experiment or observation.

You seem to accept as truth anything that sounds right to you. Anything that seems absurd to you you reject as false.

I don't know how to work with that, if we have to develop science in a way that nothing will seem "absurd" to you, then we will have to reject experimental results.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Try this:

Quote:

...there is no preferred frame and no absolute motion. Einstein incorporated these ideas into his first postulate of special relativity.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/28-1-einsteins-postulates/

2 Replies

@layman,

Newton, by the way, said that the "rest frame" for the universe would be the barycenter of all the mass in the universe.

He did NOT claim that there could not be such a frame. He merely noted that it would be impossible (especially in his day) for us to ever detect it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok... So Einstein said

Quote:

The laws of physics are the same and can be stated in their simplest form in all inertial frames of reference.

The author of this website said "there is no preferred frame". You stated, "if there is a preferred frame all of special relativity falls apart".

The author of the page is elaborating on Einstein a little bit (and I am not sure it is the best way to explain this).

But what you stated.. especially the "falls apart" statement, is something altogether different, and demonstrably false.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Newton, by the way, said that the "rest frame" for the universe would be the barycenter of all the mass in the universe.

I think this is another thing you are just making up (although this time I am not sure). Can you provide a link?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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?

You kind of dodged the problems with Newtonian frames of reference. But I would like to hear you answer to this.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok... So Einstein said

Quote:
The laws of physics are the same and can be stated in their simplest form in all inertial frames of reference.

The author of this website said "there is no preferred frame". You stated, "if there is a preferred frame all of special relativity falls apart".

The author of the page is elaborating on Einstein a little bit (and I am not sure it is the best way to explain this).

But what you stated.. especially the "falls apart" statement, is something altogether different, and demonstrably false.

The same non sequitor which you habitually advance. That's not the issue. Einstein said that you could never prefer one inertial frame over another. All were "equally valid," he said.

But, as I have repeatedly noted. they are not all "equally valid" for physical purposes, even if they are "equally valid' for many mathematical purposes.

These two claims (about the physical world) are mutually exclusive:

1. The earth orbits the sun

2. The sun orbits the earth.

One of those claims (if not both) MUST be wrong. They cannot both be right.

As I said long ago, Newton posited the solar barycenter as his preferred frame. By doing so, he was able to calculat the mass, speed, and direction of every known planet. Without that preferred frame, he would never have gotten anywhere.

2 Replies

@layman,

The question about acceleration is important for the discussion about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa.

Could you answer it please? Then we can talk about how the math works.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

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?

You kind of dodged the problems with Newtonian frames of reference. But I would like to hear you answer to this.

No, I don't fully accept it. 1 and 2 are fine.

3. is wrong because you can, at least in some instances, know if you are moving. Likewise, you can know, if you're on a merry-go-round that the entire earth is not rotating around you while you remain motionless.

With respect to the earth, YOU are the one who "speeded up" and YOU are the one who is moving

2 Replies

@layman,

1. You first said that Newton had the Universe as the preferred frame.
2. Then you said that Newton had the Solar barycenter as the preferred frame.
3. You are kind of misusing the term "preferred"... from my experience as an actual Physicists, we "prefer" the frame of reference that is easiest to do the calculation in. We often switch to an easier frame, and then switch back because we know the the laws work the same in any.

1 Reply

@layman,

Thanks but then I don't know how to proceed.

This is basic Physics from Isaac Newton concerning how acceleration is measured. You are rejecting Newton's laws, but then using them to construct your arguments about the Twin Paradox.

That is called an impasse.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

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.

Obviously wrong. Just think about it.

If you're sitting in a car and increase your speed, inertia will cause you to feel a (fictitious) force pushing you back against the seat.

If, on the other hand, you slam on the brakes, your head will hit the windshield.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Physicists, we "prefer" the frame of reference that is easiest to do the calculation in. We often switch to an easier frame, and then switch back because we know the the laws work the same in any.

That's one way to define a preferred frame, I suppose, but certainly not the only way. A "preferred frame" is also one which allows you to get the correct answer (and it is preferred for that reason)

In the twin paradox, the earth is the preferred frame. It is the only one which gives you the correct answer. The astronaut's frame (at least when it is deemed to be "at rest') is NOT the preferred frame. Using it gives you the wrong answer. Nor can both frames be logically "preferred."

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If you're sitting in a car and increase your speed, inertia will cause you to feel a (fictitious) force pushing you back against the seat.

If, on the other hand, you slam on the brakes, your head will hit the windshield

This is interesting (if not really basic)

Explain experimentally what is the difference between these two phenomena. They are both examples of acceleration.

Consider the case where you are driving backwards (in this case what you said is reversed):

In this case if you slam on the breaks "inertia will cause you to feel a (fictitious) force pushing you back against the seat" and if you punch the accelerator "your head will hit the windshield".

There is no experimental difference. They are both examples of acceleration.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
If you're sitting in a car and increase your speed, inertia will cause you to feel a (fictitious) force pushing you back against the seat.

If, on the other hand, you slam on the brakes, your head will hit the windshield

This is interesting (if not really basic)

Explain experimentally what is the difference between these two phenomena. They are both examples of acceleration.

Consider the case where you are driving backwards (in this case what you said is reversed):

In this case if you slam on the breaks "inertia will cause you to feel a (fictitious) force pushing you back against the seat" and if you punch the accelerator "your head will hit the windshield".

There is no experimental difference. They are both examples of acceleration.

The difference is that you know when you're "driving backwards" and when you're driving forward. They are indeed different things. Just as going east is different from going west.

1 Reply

@layman,

The point is that Newton's laws work in any of these cases.

Consider the case where you are stopped on a highway, and a Truck going 30 mph hits you head on. The truck will accelerate your car. Your head is going to go through the window.

To Newton, there is no difference, experimentally, between this acceleration and the acceleration you get by slamming on the brakes.

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know