Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

layman wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

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

Where?

We are going around in circles here. I am trying to make this crystal clear and extraordinarily simple. Again, let's just talk absolute motion.

Situation A:
1. If there is a stationary train (i.e. fixed in space as in "asbolute" motion)...

2 And there If the Earth is moving...

3. Then people looking out the window will see the trees, houses and everything else on the Earth apparently moving "backwards" past the motionless train.

Situation B:
1. The earth is stationary.

2. And the train is moving

3. Then people looking out the window will see the trees, houses and everything else on the Earth apparently moving "backwards" past the moving train.

The contradiction.

1. In both of these Situations, the passengers will observe the exact same things.

2. You claim that "The Earth is moving". In Situation B the Earth is not moving (as in fixed in space).

3. This means that Situation A is the only one that is possible.

1 Reply

@layman,

The scientific consensus today is that the earth is:

1. orbiting the sun
2. rotating on it's axis
3. Orbiting the center of mass in the Milky Way, and
4. Moving in a straight line at a high rate of speed toward the so-called "great attractor."

We don't feel any of this motion. Nor can we ever detect it by doing physical experiments in a closet. So what?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

We don't feel any of this motion. Nor can we ever detect it by doing physical experiments in a closet. So what?

Exactly! I have been trying to make this point.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Your hypothetical propositions are impossible, and they completely ignore questions of motivating "forces"

Given their relative masses, the train will always remain "attached" to the earth, due to gravity. Like a 10 ton boulder in your front yard, it's not going to move on its own. It will simply follow whatever path the earth is following.

It takes energy (a "force') for something to accelerate. And that's one simple way to determine which one is moving relative to the other. To which one is a discernible force being applied?

0 Replies

I want to ask Does anyone care about what I am writing?

I have been very patiently working out the actual Physics to each situation that Layman comes up with. I used to get paid for this. Now I am giving it away for free. To be honest, I am a little tired.

Does anyone find what I am writing to be at all helpful or interesting? Layman is just trying to win an argument, I don't think he cares.

If people are actually finding my Physics lessons interesting, I will keep going.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

layman wrote:

We don't feel any of this motion. Nor can we ever detect it by doing physical experiments in a closet. So what?

Exactly! I have been trying to make this point.

A "point" that is not a point at all, for purposes of this topic. I don't know the misguided and unstated premises which lead you to believe that it is somehow relevant. They're unfathomable.

1 Reply

You never gave me a direct answer to this, so I will ask it again;

Is it your position that, IF newton's laws are the same in all inertially moving frames, THEN that proves that you can never know if you're moving?"

Yes or no?

3 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Is it your position that, IF newton's laws are the same in all inertially moving frames, THEN that proves that you can never know if you're moving?"

It is a badly formed question because you are confusing two ideas... let me answer both of them. Hopefully this tells you want you want.

- I can certainly tell you if I am moving relative to a specified frame of reference.

- I can not tell you if I am moving in an absolute sense.

You need to specify a fixed reference point before motion is measurable.

1 Reply

@layman,

A blind man may never know that he's about to walk straight into a telephone pole and get his sorry face bashed.

Does that mean there is no telephone pole?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You never gave me a direct answer to this, so I will ask it again;

Is it your position that, IF newton's laws are the same in all inertially moving frames, THEN that proves that you can never know if you're moving?"

Yes or no?

Acutally, on second thought. According to Newton's laws... I would say this that is wrong.

1. Newton defines Velocity with the function

Code:V = dD/dt

(this is calculus, but you can understand this as "change in distance" over "change in time".

2. The change in Distance can be measured in any frame of reference (of course you will get different answers depending on the frame of reference you are using). Under Newton dt (the change in time) is absolute -- and this case you can find a direct quote saying so.

3. You measure your position at the beggining of the time period, and then you measure your position at the end of the time period. Then you can calculate your velocity in any frame of reference. So if V = 0 you are not moving. If V is not 0 you are moving.

4. So yes.... I will answer yes. You can do an experiment to determine if you are moving in any frame of reference. And therefore you can know if you are moving.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

A blind man may never know that he's about to walk straight into a telephone pole and get his sorry face bashed.

Does that mean there is no telephone pole?

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with Newton's laws.

If someone can make an observation that there is a telephone pole, then they can avoid walking into it. Being blind has nothing to do with Newton's laws.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I can not tell you if I am moving in an absolute sense.

Smoot, and Feynman, and a million others (me included) disagree with this.

But keep on truckin, ya know?

You are the one confusing speed with motion itself. Newton believed (unlike Smoot with the advantage of highly advanced technology) that we would never be able to detect a (the) rest frame of the universe.

For that reason he said that we can never ascertain our absolute SPEED, only our relative speed. But he never said we cannot detect our motion. In fact, he said the exact opposite.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

[url][/url]

maxdancona wrote:

4. So yes.... I will answer yes. You can do an experiment to determine if you are moving in any frame of reference. And therefore you can know if you are moving.

Well, good. At least we can agree on one thing. One problem with SR is that it claims (because it has to in order to be at lease superficially coherent) that it is impossible to tell if you're moving.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I honestly don't understand what this has to do with Newton's laws.

If someone can make an observation that there is a telephone pole, then they can avoid walking into it. Being blind has nothing to do with Newton's laws.

Being blind, in this example, is the equivalent of being handicapped by virtue of being is a closed closet, unable to observe anything else.

But since we now agree that such circumstances do not entail the conclusion that the pole (movement) is not there, it's not important.

I have repeatedly heard SR proponents argue, quite fallaciously, that Galilean Relativity "PROVES" that you can never know if you're moving. You had appeared to making the same mistaken claim. But you've recanted, so....

0 Replies

I am sorry Layman. I am getting bored of this.

I am trying to patiently explain how basic Physics works. You are trying to win an argument. As, I said... I used to get paid for teaching people Physics. Now I am spending too much time doing it here for free.

I don't think anyone here is interested in how Physics actually works.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

OK, Max, catch you later. Be sure and come back to chime in when one of your ill-formed homeys announces (without any substantive comment) that I am "completely wrong," as you always do, eh?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

OK, Max, catch you later. Be sure and come back to chime in when one of your ill-formed homeys announces (without any substantive comment) that I am "completely wrong," as you always do, eh?

You are mostly wrong. I have never said you are completely wrong. There is a difference. We disagree on the meaning of Science. I am Ok with that.

I have big issues with LivingLava (who is a bit crazy) and even bigger issues with JustaFool (I don't take antisemitism too lightly). If I were you, I would distance myself from them.

0 Replies

@layman,

By way of snarky parting salutation, let me add this. You owe whoever "paid" you to teach SR a refund. Man up, and pay it.

1 Reply

@layman,

By the way, there are a great many professers, at Harvard and elsewhere, who "teach" SR while being fully aware that it is a crock of ****.

They're not "unethical," because it is their job to teach SR and the logical implications of its premises. Fair enough.

They simply say that "If you accept the postulates of SR, then you must conclude this." They don't pretend to claim that the postulates "should" be accepted.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

Have you thrown away your GPS? Do it!

0 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know