5
   

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 10:49 am
Quote:
...The second postulate of the theory of special relativity states that light travels at 300,000 km/sec (or c for short) in every inertial reference frame. Einstein adopted this postulate (only to abandon it later for the formulation of his general relativity theory)...


In GR the speed of light is NOT constant, nor will any observer see it to be constant. This is because the distortion of clocks due to gravitation is absolute in GR, not relative. In other words, it is not claimed to be "reciprocal," as in SR.

In GR if A sees B's clock to be running slower than his, B will also see his own clock to be slower than A's, and will see A's clock as running faster than his own.
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 11:03 am
@layman,
Not to worry though. There are theories of motion which predict and explain everything that SR does (and more). They are theories which posit that motion is absolute, not relative. As I said before this is the theory of motion which the GPS uses (because it has to--SR will NOT work in the GPS). Conveniently, such theories are also completely devoid of all the numerous "paradoxes" which arise in SR (due to the logically fallacious claim that the LT are "reciprocal').
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 12:18 pm
@layman,
Quote:
"Anyone who has done an introductory course in special relativity will tell you that the two postulates that essentially define it are more or less covered in the first lecture, after which countless lectures of comparatively complicated mathematical elaboration follow.


Unfortunately, guys like Max never critically analyze what is taught on the first day. Thereafter, the more complicated the math gets, the more cocksure he gets that his answers are "true" if he can mechanically solve the math problems.
livinglava
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 12:28 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Unfortunately, guys like Max never critically analyze what is taught on the first day. Thereafter, the more complicated the math gets, the more cocksure he gets that his answers are "true" if he can mechanically solve the math problems.

Math can be used to subjugate people, instead of just being used to solve problems.

The way you're talking about it here is for subjugation. I.e. you're looking at it getting progressively more complicated for the sake of weeding out everyone except for whoever keeps up.

Then, the people who didn't get weeded out get the privilege of commanding those who did.

The math was never used for anything productive except weeding out those who can't make it to the finish line.

How does that help produce intelligent, critically-thinking, responsible, self-governing citizens?

answer: it doesnt; it produces servitude and general ignorance.
layman
 
  2  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 12:39 pm
@livinglava,
Yes, very astute, Lava. That is suggested in the passage I quoted (and elucidated in much greater detail in many other places).

SR advocates try to insist that math is "true" and then use it to obscure and "mystify" the topic. They claim that anyone who questions them is just too stupid to understand the subject.

Nice try.

As I've said before, math does not, and cannot, provide any substantive content to a theory. It can only assume that the premises are true and then assist you in working out the necessary implications of those assumptions.

Regardless of how sound or unsound the premises may be, there will always be logical implications resulting from those premises. But so what?

Think back to the "all elephants are pink" example I used earlier. The logic used there (same as math) is unquestionably "valid" as a matter of form alone. But, just as certainly, the premises are obviously unsound (untrue). Logic can't tell you that. You need to figure that out for yourself.

Math is really no more than applied logic (in shortcut symbolic form).
livinglava
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:01 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Yes, very astute, Lava. That is suggested in the passage I quoted (and elucidated in much greater detail in many other places).

SR advocates try to insist that math is "true" and then use it to obscure and "mystify" the topic. They claim that anyone who questions them is just too stupid to understand the subject.

Nice try.

As I've said before, math does not, and cannot, provide any substantive content to a theory. It can only assume that the premises are true and then assist you in working out the necessary implications of those assumptions. Regardless of how sound or unsound the premises may be, there will always be logical implications resulting from those premises. So what?

Ok, but my understanding of SR is that it works by relativizing time as having a changing rate from the perspective of observers and sources moving at relativistic speeds vis-a-vis each other.

This makes intuitive sense to me based on the fact that light can redshift or blueshift, meaning its frequency can change in such a way that the same quantity of energy arrives at a different rate than it is sent out.
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:19 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:


Ok, but my understanding of SR is that it works by relativizing time as having a changing rate from the perspective of observers and sources moving at relativistic speeds vis-a-vis each other.

This makes intuitive sense to me based on the fact that light can redshift or blueshift, meaning its frequency can change in such a way that the same quantity of energy arrives at a different rate than it is sent out.


First of all, redshift and blue shift is due to motion (it just tells you the direction of the motion--approaching or receding). It's not a matter of personal perspective. It's inherent in the (external) motion of the objects "out there."

But more fundamentally, the problem with SR is that it tries to equate the words of yours which I have bolded above with "truth," i.e. with objective reality. But your "perspective" has no affect whatsoever on objective reality. The tacit claim is that if that's the way it appears, then, by God, that's the way it IS!

This type of misguided thinking is also called "solipsism."

In the context of SR, the claims are of this nature. If you're travelling at a uniform speed, and therefore cannot sense your own motion, then, by God, you are "in fact" motionless.

Even further, SR tries to claim that your assumptions MUST be true as a matter of fact, because they are "true for you." It's basically saying that your internal mental processes dictate what's true in the external realm. Hence solipsism.
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:40 pm
@layman,
Whenever you hear some SR proponent prefaces an argument with the phrase "But from B's perspective..." you know that an attempt to confuse or mislead you is being made.

I'm not saying this is done maliciously. They actually think that (a perspective) is what matters. They don't know any better. They think that a change in perspective entails a change in "truth."

In SR the term "frame of reference" is just synonymous with "perspective," basically.
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 01:54 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
They think that a change in perspective entails a change in "truth."


A million examples could be given to illustrate the mistake being made here. Here's one:

Suppose there are two telephone poles 100 feet apart.

Now, if I stand in a certain spot, I will only see one of them (because I'm on the same line as they are in so that case I can therefore only see the one in front of me, but not the one behind it).

Does that mean that only one pole exists?

Now I move 5 feet to my left. Suddenly I see two poles, not just one. Has my moving a little bit had any affect whatsoever on either of those two poles, or the distance between them?

Obviously not. My "perspective" does not affect external objects.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 02:47 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Ok, but my understanding of SR is that it works by relativizing time as having a changing rate from the perspective of observers and sources moving at relativistic speeds vis-a-vis each other.


Well, that may be what SR says. The point I'm making is that SR is wrong in that respect. It's true that clocks slow down with speed, but that is not because of a "perspective." It is the product of actual motion, whether it is "perceived" or not. In theories of motion that actually make sense, "time" is not "relativized." Time doesn't change. Clocks slow down with increased speed, that's all.
livinglava
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 04:27 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Ok, but my understanding of SR is that it works by relativizing time as having a changing rate from the perspective of observers and sources moving at relativistic speeds vis-a-vis each other.


Well, that may be what SR says. The point I'm making is that SR is wrong in that respect. It's true that clocks slow down with speed, but that is not because of a "perspective." It is the product of actual motion, whether it is "perceived" or not. In theories of motion that actually make sense, "time" is not "relativized." Time doesn't change. Clocks slow down with increased speed, that's all.

It is 'perspective' because it depends on where you are vis-a-vis the clock.

If you are using GPS on the ground, your perspective on the orbiting clock is different than if you are in orbit with the clock.

Time doesn't exist except in the speed of the clocks that measure it. You can't say that a clock slows down relative to Time, i.e. because there is no 'Time' except the speed of the clock.

I.e. if a clock slows down because of the speed at which its moving or the gravitational position it occupies, and that clock is otherwise functioning properly, that's what you call 'time' in that inertial frame.

layman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 04:59 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Time doesn't exist except in the speed of the clocks that measure it. You can't say that a clock slows down relative to Time, i.e. because there is no 'Time' except the speed of the clock.

I.e. if a clock slows down because of the speed at which its moving or the gravitational position it occupies, and that clock is otherwise functioning properly, that's what you call 'time' in that inertial frame.


Well, Lava, you are falling into the trap created by the long-discredited "positivistic" philosophy of science. The naive idea there is that "time is what a clock measures."

Why it's true that clocks are specifically designed to measure time, the "thing" they are measuring is not a clock. Time is merely an abstract concept. As such it doesn't change with clock rates. I will repeat this example, which I stated earlier, to help illustrate the the difference.

Let's say you have a watch with a waning battery that only registers the passage of 55 minutes of time in an hour.

Does that mean that only 55 minutes have passed (because that's what the clock (mis)measured)? No, it doesn't. An hour has still passed.

Would it be proper to say that "only 55 minutes have passed for "it" (the slow clock)? No, it's still an hour, whatever the slow clock "thinks."

But how do we know what a real "hour" is? We do it by setting a standard for the elapse of time. Time would indeed be meaningless if there were no standard. If every clock on the planet which happened to be running at a different rate (including those which are stopped) had it's "own standard" for time, there could never be any standard whatsoever. This is the mistake that SR makes. It creates an infinite number of "standard" times, not all of which can be "correct," but which are nonetheless all said to be correct. If everything is the "standard" then there is no standard, and the whole concept of time is totally meaningless.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Mon 16 Mar, 2020 09:36 pm
@livinglava,
What's next, you perform surgery because you're not going to submit to the tyranny of people who graduated from medical school? I'm sure that you can understand these things, just stop saying that they're wrong, because you're not qualified to make that judgement. If you do want to understand relativity, listen to Max, because he does understand it.
livinglava
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 08:20 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Well, Lava, you are falling into the trap created by the long-discredited "positivistic" philosophy of science. The naive idea there is that "time is what a clock measures."

Time doesn't exist except as clock-motion. Really there is no such thing as 'time' outside the motion of various moving systems, all of which can be considered 'clocks,' if their motion is regular. The Earth's orbit is a clock, as is its rotation, etc. Einstein writes about 'clocks of equivalent construction' or something like that to denote that you can have two clocks that function in the same way but can be moved at different speeds or into different gravitational situations, but technically any system of regular motion can be used as a 'clock.'

There is nothing outside a clock causing it to move, though. A quartz watch moves because the battery drains through the crystal at a regular rate. Atomic clocks move because the isotope decays at a regular rate. Pendulums swing at a regular rate. All these different forms of motion are caused by the forces and energy that make the parts of the clock move; not by something external called 'time' that influences them from outside themselves.

Quote:
Why it's true that clocks are specifically designed to measure time, the "thing" they are measuring is not a clock. Time is merely an abstract concept. As such it doesn't change with clock rates. I will repeat this example, which I stated earlier, to help illustrate the the difference.

Let's say you have a watch with a waning battery that only registers the passage of 55 minutes of time in an hour.

Does that mean that only 55 minutes have passed (because that's what the clock (mis)measured)? No, it doesn't. An hour has still passed.

Would it be proper to say that "only 55 minutes have passed for "it" (the slow clock)? No, it's still an hour, whatever the slow clock "thinks."

The only reason an hour remains an hour is because there is some other clock, maybe only a hypothetical ideal one, that elapses correctly. The assumption is that a good-functioning clock keeps time in a regular way and doesn't deviate from its pattern. So a watch with a waning battery is deviating from its ideal functioning, and that's why it is running slow. If the battery is renewed and everything else is functioning properly, 1 hour = 1 hour on that clock or any other clock like it that's running properly.

Quote:
But how do we know what a real "hour" is? We do it by setting a standard for the elapse of time. Time would indeed be meaningless if there were no standard. If every clock on the planet which happened to be running at a different rate (including those which are stopped) had it's "own standard" for time, there could never be any standard whatsoever. This is the mistake that SR makes. It creates an infinite number of "standard" times, not all of which can be "correct," but which are nonetheless all said to be correct. If everything is the "standard" then there is no standard, and the whole concept of time is totally meaningless.

The standard is whatever clock is chosen and/or accepted as a standard. This discussion isn't about the politics of choosing which clock and/or method of comparing multiple clocks gets used as a standard for 'Time.' The only point I was making is that there is no 'Time' outside of individual clocks that is causing clocks to run. Clocks run because of their internal mechanics and the forces and energies that make them operate. That's all.

So when two clocks of equivalent function are accelerated relative to each other, or when one is in a different gravitational situation than another, and an observer can see them elapsing at different rates despite their functioning properly, that can be interpreted as a change in the rate at which time elapses, but you have to realize that it's the same observer watching both clocks moving at different rates. There could be an observer somewhere else that observes the ratio of time between the two clocks differently, e.g. because they are accelerating in a different direction relative to the two observed clocks.
layman
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 08:28 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

If you do want to understand relativity, listen to Max, because he does understand it.


Max has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not "understand" SR at all. He has never even tried to critically assess and truly understand the postulates of SR. He is merely told to accept them as "true," and he does. All Max "understands" is how to rotely use a calculator in the manner he is instructed to (apply the given formula).

A chicken can be trained to play "Camptown Races" on a piano. But that certainly doesn't mean that the chicken 'understands" music.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 08:39 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
The standard is whatever clock is chosen and/or accepted as a standard. This discussion isn't about the politics of choosing which clock and/or method of comparing multiple clocks gets used as a standard for 'Time.' The only point I was making is that there is no 'Time' outside of individual clocks that is causing clocks to run


You simply repeat yourself without considering my criticism of your analysis. Perhaps the great Issac Newton's words can help convince you that time is not "what a clock reads." He makes a sharp distinction between what he calls "true time," and "relative time."

Quote:

Newton: "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration:

...relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ..."

According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the Moon or Sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.


We can't "directly perceive" an abstract concept, but that doesn't mean that what we can perceive IS the abstract concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time#:~:text=
layman
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 09:11 am
Lava, I think you would agree that a skilled watch-maker could, if he chose, calibrate a clock in such a manner that, after only 30 minutes had passed, the clock would register the passage of an hour.

This is in fact what the GPS does to "synchronize" clocks. Even though clocks on moving and elevated objects run at different rates than a clock at the ECI, they can be calibrated to "register" the same amount of time elapsed as has the "master clock" at the ECI, notwithstanding the fact that the rate at which they tick differs.

So the time elapsed at the ECI is the "standard" time. For purposes of theories of motion, such as SR and competing theories, this would be called the "absolute time." The standard never changes, even if and when assorted clocks may be running at different rates.
layman
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 09:23 am
@layman,
Quote:
For purposes of theories of motion, such as SR and competing theories, this would be called the "absolute time."


The theoretical problem for SR posed here is that as soon as you measure the passage to time by only one clock (not every clock) you have abandoned (rejected) SR as a viable theory of motion.

You have, in effect, established a "preferred frame" which SR absolutely prohibits.

The respective motions (or lack thereof) are now treated as being absolute, not relative.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 10:04 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
The standard is whatever clock is chosen and/or accepted as a standard. This discussion isn't about the politics of choosing which clock and/or method of comparing multiple clocks gets used as a standard for 'Time.' The only point I was making is that there is no 'Time' outside of individual clocks that is causing clocks to run


You simply repeat yourself without considering my criticism of your analysis. Perhaps the great Issac Newton's words can help convince you that time is not "what a clock reads." He makes a sharp distinction between what he calls "true time," and "relative time."

Quote:

Newton: "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration:

...relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time ..."

According to Newton, absolute time exists independently of any perceiver and progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe. Unlike relative time, Newton believed absolute time was imperceptible and could only be understood mathematically. According to Newton, humans are only capable of perceiving relative time, which is a measurement of perceivable objects in motion (like the Moon or Sun). From these movements, we infer the passage of time.


We can't "directly perceive" an abstract concept, but that doesn't mean that what we can perceive IS the abstract concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_space_and_time#:~:text=

This is my point: mechanical system ('clocks') move because of the forces and energies that propel their motion. Everything is in motion in some way or other, either because of momentum/inertia and/or because there is force or work impelling it.

The reason two clocks of equivalent construction operate at the same rate under the same conditions is because there is consistency in the fundamental physical mechanics that cause them to operate, not because of something external called, 'time' acting on them to cause them to move.

E.g. if you are ice skating and you stop pushing yourself, you continue gliding not because time is causing your motion to continue but because you have inertia keeping you in motion by means of your momentum.

Likewise, a clock with a swinging pendulum keeps time because the pendulum is swinging due to gravity. The gravity causing the pendulum to swing is not caused by 'time.' Time is something extrapolated from motion, not the cause of it.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Tue 17 Mar, 2020 10:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Max comes in here with a pronounced and devout attachment to the philosophy of solipsism, all while proclaiming that he eschews all philosophy. He doesn't even understand what "philosophy" is or the essential part it plays in formulating and assessing scientific theories.

He spouts (but does not really understand or adhere to) his positivistic philosophy of science and vaguely insists that science is experiment. All the while he ignores, and in fact rejects, the experimental evidence that is readily available to him if he chose to consider it.

He doesn't choose to. In fact he deliberately chooses NOT to. He doesn't really need or want, empirical evidence to tell him what's "true." He believes he can deduce the"truth," a priori, from the premises of his philosophical convictions. No real need for evidence. The "truth" is self-evident, in his mind.

Philosophically speaking, he is strictly a "rationalist," not an "empiricist."
 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 09:23:02