Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@maxdancona,

Quote:

my reply to instrumentalism consists in showing that there are profound differences between "pure" theories and technological computation rules, and that instrumentalism can give a perfect description of these rules but is quite unable to account for the difference between them and the theories".

And that is YOUR devout and pronounced philosophy of science--instrumentalism. You betray yourself. You care immensely about your own philosophy, as demonstrated by your rigorous attempts to foist it upon others.

Edit: Oops, I had intended to quote you there, not Popper.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

As a Physicist, I don't care about philosophy. I only care about what theories can make predictions that can be confirmed by experiment or observation.

1. I have shown how Newton's laws work fine in any inertial frame with no contradictions. I have done this for two circumstances that you brought up (the rocket and the train).

2. I have also pointed out the contradiction in your line of thinking ... namely that sometimes you say the Earth is moving other times you act as if the Earth is not moving (as in your thinking about trains) sometimes you suggest that the CMB is not moving and sometimes it is the Sun barycenter that isn't moving

You jump around from "preferred" frame to "preferred" frame more than I do...

And yet you insist that only one can be correct

Max, all you are doing is continuing to display your lack of understanding of the topic, and your inability to understand the difference between absolute and relative motion. I have NEVER said that the earth is not moving. If you can't understand the differences in the contexts where I discuss that notion, there's not much more I can do.

2 Replies

@layman,

Stripped of all the bullshit, your philosophical convictions boil down to the solipsistic proposition that "there is no external reality."

This is true of virtually every proponent of SR, too. They take mental impressions to be the ultimate "reality."

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Max, all you are doing is continuing to display your lack of understanding of the topic, and your inability to understand the difference between absolute and relative motion. I have NEVER said that the earth is not moving. If you can't understand the differences in the contexts where I discuss that notion, there's not much more I can do.

Here is the contradiction in your thinking. Let's just consider absolute motion.

1. You have said very clearly that in absolute motion the Earth is moving.

2. If, in inaccordance with our idea of "absolute motion" the train is motionless then the moving Earth will be moving past (or under) the motionless train.

3. The passengers on the motionless train could look at the window and see the Earth (and trees and houses etc) moving past the train. They might conclude that the motionless train was moving.

4. According to your line of reasoning, these passengers would be wrong. Because in in fact (by your own logic) the Earth is moving and the train is in fact motionless.

This is a pretty big contradiction in your line of reasoning. You sometimes act as if the Earth is fix. Then you say it is motionless. It is like you want to have it both ways.

It is a simple question... is the Earth moving under the fixed train? Or is the train moving over a fixed Earth?

Since you are arguing that the Earth moves (in an absolute sense) the idea that the train is motionless and the Earth is moving underneath it becomes possible.

0 Replies

If we're standing on the roof of a 20 story building, and you fall off, it's self-evident that you, not me, are the one being accelerated. Has nothing to do with the CMB or any other locality-wide preferred frame of reference.

You are quite free to "posit" that, after you leave the rooftop, you are not moving at all, but rather that the whole earth has suddenly decided to start coming toward you. You're also free to be a damn fool, of course. It's America, after all.

Not that it really matters much. In either case your head will soon explode like a watermelon on the sidewalk below.

2 Replies

@layman,

1. You are confusing velocity and acceleration. They aren't the same.

2. You are doing the mathematics wrong. In any frame of reference we know who is doing the accelerating.

Frame of reference one. Assuming the the earth is motionless. I am motionless. I accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 m/s/s. I reach a speed of 19.8 m/s downward. Then I hit the ground (which is motionless).

Frame of reference two The Earth is moving at 19.8 m/s upward. I am moving at 19.8 m/s upward (since I am on the building connected to the earth. I accelerate toward the earth at 9.8 m/s/s. I become motionless for an instant. Then the ground (still moving upwards at 19.8 m/s hits my motionless body.

- In the first example the Earth is motionless (an idea you claim to reject).

- In the second example the Earth is moving.

- In both examples it is me (not the Earth) that is accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s.

- Newton's laws work the same in both frames of reference.

The problem is that you aren't doing the mathematics correctly. When you do the mathematics correctly, you will find that Newton's laws work in any inertial frame of reference.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

In any frame of reference we know who is doing the accelerating.

Yes. It is absolute, not relative, motion, as Feynman points out. If you ever understand that, then maybe you could make progress.

1 Reply

@layman,

Here is your basic contradiction.

- Sometimes you say the Earth is moving.
- Sometimes you say the Earth is fixed.
- Then you say that they can't both be right.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Yes. It is absolute, not relative, motion, as Feynman points out

This is meaningless... I am trying to understand what you are getting at, I think that you are confusing "acceleration" with "motion".

Under Newton's laws, as I have demonstrated now with multiple examples, objects experience the same acceleration in different frames of reference. They do not have the same velocities in different frames of reference.

This is basic Physics from Isaac Newton. It has nothing to do with Einstein.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The problem is that you aren't doing the mathematics correctly. When you do the mathematics correctly, you will find that Newton's laws work in any inertial frame of reference.

I have repeatedly affirmed this proposition. But it has nothing to do with math, per se, so I'm not "doing the math incorrectly." It is also an irrelevant red herring for purposes of the issues under discussion here.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here is your basic contradiction.

- Sometimes you say the Earth is moving.
- Sometimes you say the Earth is fixed.
- Then you say that they can't both be right.

That's not a contradiction. You completely ignore the context(s) in which I discuss those propositions.

Like I said in my prior post, AS BETWEEN YOU AND ME, you are the one accelerating when you fall.

Likewise, AS BETWEEN YOU AND ME, you are the one moving (faster). That doesn't mean that the earth is not also moving as an absolute matter. Nor does it mean that I am "motionless."

1 Reply

@layman,

I have carefully done out Newton's laws in a couple of frames of reference for each of the situations you have brought up (rocket, train, and jumping off of a building). In each I demonstrated mathematics are consistent in every inertial frame of reference.

Newton's laws work equally well in any inertial frame of reference.

Furthermore, Newton's laws have been tested and confirmed by experiment in any inertial frame of reference (understanding the usually negligible effects of Einstein which you reject anyway).

Here is where we are.

1) I have shown by several examples of your choosing that Newton's Laws work and are testable by experiment.

2) I have shown the contradiction in your arguments, that sometimes you declare that the Earth is moving, and sometimes you give examples where it is fixed. This is a contradiction with your own assertion that "they can't both be correct".

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

That's not a contradiction. You completely ignore the context(s) in which I discuss those propositions.

I talked about the train specifically in the context of what you are calling "absolute motion". You didn't answer the contradiction in that one.

I am trying to get you to agree to the fact that according to Isaac Newton, the laws of mechanics work in any inertial frame. Is that what you are saying by "context"?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Here is the set of questions I want you to answer first:

If you have a motionless train on a moving planet:

1) Do you agree that the passengers will see the planet move under or past the train?

2) Do you agree that this will appear to the passengers as if the train is moving forward (even though in "absolute fact" it is motionless)?

3) Do you believe that if passengers (seeing trees move by as the planet moves under the train) conclude that it is the train that is moving, they are wrong?

These are yes or no questions (although after you have answered "yes" or "no", some explanation would be nice).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
That's not a contradiction. You completely ignore the context(s) in which I discuss those propositions.

I talked about the train specifically in the context of what you are calling "absolute motion". You didn't answer the contradiction in that one.

I am trying to get you to agree to the fact that according to Isaac Newton, the laws of mechanics work in any inertial frame. Is that what you are saying by "context"?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I am trying to get you to agree to the fact that according to Isaac Newton, the laws of mechanics work in any inertial frame

I've already said that I agree with it about 25 times. How many more ******* times do I have to say it?

That's no mystery, and it's not in dispute here, in the least.

The problem is that you think it's relevant, when it aint.

1 Reply

@layman,

It absolutely is relevant. Because you keep on saying things that contradict with this basic principle.

This is basic Physics from Isaac Newton.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Here is the set of questions I want you to answer first:

If you have a motionless train on a moving planet:

To begin with you can never have any such thing. If the planet is moving, and the train is on it, the the train is necessarily moving too.

Quote:

1) Do you agree that the passengers will see the planet move under or past the train?

Why should they? by hypothesis it's not moving relative to the planet.

Quote:

2) Do you agree that this will appear to the passengers as if the train is moving forward (even though in "absolute fact" it is motionless)?

Given the set-up, this question is incomprehensible

Quote:

3) Do you believe that if passengers (seeing trees move by as the planet moves under the train) conclude that it is the train that is moving, they are wrong?

Of course not. They are 100% right. As between them and the planet, they, not the planet, is the object "moving."

1 Reply

@layman,

Ok here is an example where you reject the idea that the Earth moves.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Ok here is an example where you reject the idea that the Earth moves.

Where?

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know