Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

layman wrote:

Do you think that any tangible physical change has taken place in the object (football field) being observed?

What is meant by 'tangible physical change?'

When you observe the sun by receiving its light and then you move away from it and observe it at a lower frequency, did the sun change? No, but did the light you are receiving from it change? Yes, you are receiving light at the frequency you receive it. moving away from the source.

So, the answer is both "yes and no?"

One is the frequency itself. The other is an observer's distorted (by motion) "perception" of that frequency.

You've never really given an unequivocal answer to my question, to wit:

Do you think subjective perception can in any way alter or affect the actual physical characteristics of the object being observed?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Any accurate measurement is correct.

So you say, but the proposition leads to absurd conclusions. As long as you embrace that position, then I'm sure you and I will never agree on anything regarding this topic.

Of course I'm assuming that you are not simply trying to state a meaningless tautology. That is, I'm assuming that you are not using the word "accurate" to mean the exact same thing as "correct."

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

In short, you're being assumptive/presumptive instead of just reviewing information directly.

Yes, you may have noticed, as I have, that Brandon has not made a single comment of substance here. He has not agreed or disagreed with any post made. I ' think realizes that he doesn't have the necessary comprehension of the topic to even try.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

layman wrote:

Do you think that any tangible physical change has taken place in the object (football field) being observed?

What is meant by 'tangible physical change?'

When you observe the sun by receiving its light and then you move away from it and observe it at a lower frequency, did the sun change? No, but did the light you are receiving from it change? Yes, you are receiving light at the frequency you receive it. moving away from the source.

So, the answer is both "yes and no?"

One is the frequency itself. The other is an observer's distorted (by motion) "perception" of that frequency.

There is a difference between received frequency and subjective perception of it. If the sun emits yellow light and then it shifts to orange, both frequencies are actual frequencies. Now, if you see the orange light and subjectively perceive it as red, that is your subjective perception, which doesn't alter the fact that the light you are seeing is actually orange OR the fact that the sun emitted yellow light.

Quote:

You've never really given an unequivocal answer to my question, to wit:

Do you think subjective perception can in any way alter or affect the actual physical characteristics of the object being observed?

You are altering it by assuming that a shifted frequency is less real than an emitted one. They are both real frequencies and neither is altered by subjective perception.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Neither Max nor I give a **** about philosophy or solipsism. This is physics, and people who will fail every time they are given an elementary physics problem are in no position to say that the accepted view is "nonsense."

You can't test someone on one subject and then declare that they are incapable of understanding anything about another.

It may work pretty well in school to assess someone's capacity to succeed in a higher level class by testing them on prerequisites, but you are overextending that logic to deny even giving any consideration to what someone has to say on a topic....

I agree, but I was talking about one subject - physics. If someone demonstrates absolute ignorance of the subject, yet still presumes to tell people who have studied it extensively that they don't know what they're talking about, it's really just a psychiatric issue.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Moving away from an object does not change the object, it just distorts your subjective perception of it (distorted by motion, in this case).

The more I move away from you, the smaller you will appear to me. But that does not alter your size in the least.

You will get a distorted image of yourself if you look in a funhouse mirror. Yes, that's what you're actually "seeing," but that's not the way you actually are..

You don't seem capable of making this distinction.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Neither Max nor I give a **** about philosophy or solipsism. This is physics, and people who will fail every time they are given an elementary physics problem are in no position to say that the accepted view is "nonsense."

You can't test someone on one subject and then declare that they are incapable of understanding anything about another.

It may work pretty well in school to assess someone's capacity to succeed in a higher level class by testing them on prerequisites, but you are overextending that logic to deny even giving any consideration to what someone has to say on a topic....

I agree, but I was talking about one subject - physics. If someone demonstrates absolute ignorance of the subject, yet still presumes to tell people who have studied it extensively that they don't know what they're talking about, it's really just a psychiatric issue.

Even within the same subject category, 'physics,' you are being assumptive. Why can't you just evaluate something someone says based on their claim/reasoning, instead of judging them based on related-but-different pre-requisites?

It would be like me claiming that 5X5=25 and you saying I'm wrong because I can't add 5+5 so how could I multiply 5X5? It might make sense that someone can't multiply without knowing how to add, but it still distracts from the fundamental issue of whether 5X5=25 or not and why.

I think so much of the confusion in these online discussions comes from deciding whether the issue is the content or the people involved. If you are hiring a person, you have to assess the person as a whole and you can't have them lying about their knowledge and skills; but if what you're assessing is information, you don't have to know whether the person knows the entire subject they're talking about or not. You can just evaluate what they said.

1 Reply

Suppose you give me a yardstick, carefully marked at various increments (inches, 1/16 inches, etc.) from 0 to 36" inches.

Now suppose you ask me to measure something with it, say a football field.

Suppose further that I am extremely "accurate" in my measurements and I don't make the slightest error.

Is my measurement now "correct?" Not if the stick you gave me was only actually 35" long, no. The error lies not in the "accuracy" of my measurement. It lies in the measuring instrument itself. It is still an error, and the measurement derived from its use is not "correct."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Suppose you give me a yardstick, carefully marked at various increments (inches, 1/16 inches, etc.) from 0 to 36" inches.

Now suppose you ask me to measure something with it, say a football field.

Suppose further that I am extremely "accurate" in my measurements and I don't make the slightest error.

Is my measurement now "correct?" Not if the stick you gave me was only actually 35" long, no. The error lies not in the "accuracy" of my measurement. It lies in the measuring instrument itself. It is still an error, and the measurement derived from its use is not "correct."

Let's say you have a measuring instrument for a two specific frequencies of light. One-third of the stick is painted so it only reflects yellow, the other end of the stick only reflects orange, and the middle is white so it reflects all colors.

Now let's say you have a source of light that only sends out the specific frequency of yellow light your stick reflects. When you hold it up to the light, you see both the yellow end and the middle reflect the yellow, while the orange-painted end is totally black, i.e. because there is no orange light for it to reflect.

Now, you go into a situation where the yellow light is redshifted to the orange frequency that is reflected by the other end of the painted stick. Now you see the orange end as orange, and the white middle is orange too; but now the yellow side is black; i.e. because there is no light in that frequency to reflect.

So now the same light is reflecting off the same stick in both situations. The stick hasn't changed, nor has the light; but the light is now received as orange instead of yellow because its frequency shifted.

Your perception didn't change it. The stick didn't change. The light is the same light. It's just that your movement/gravitation relative to the source of the light changed.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Now, you go into a situation where the yellow light is redshifted to the orange frequency that is reflected by the other end of the painted stick...

So now the same light is reflecting off the same stick in both situations. The stick hasn't changed, nor has the light; but the light is now received as orange instead of yellow because its frequency shifted.

... your movement/gravitation relative to the source of the light changed.

Yes, something in the "situation" has changed. And that change is a change in the objective realm, not a change in your perceptions. Your perceptions did not change "the world." Changes in the world altered your perceptions, that's all.

You're making my point for me. Although a change in external reality can cause a change in your perceptions, a change in your perceptions cannot cause a change in the objective physical realm.

1 Reply

You can look at something, say a house, from many different perspectives. From the east, from the west, at noon, at midnite, from a foot away, from a mile away, etc. The possible variations of perspective are virtually infinite, and each will generate subjective perceptions which are different. But in no case will those changes of subjective perspective make even the slightest material change to the house itself.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Yes, something in the "situation" has changed. And that change is a change in the objective realm, not a change in your perceptions. Your perceptions did not change "the world." Changes in the world altered your perceptions, that's all.

You're making my point for me. Although a change in external reality can cause a change in your perceptions, a change in your perceptions cannot cause a change in the objective physical realm.

That's a moot point, though; because subjective perception was never the issue with relativity.

The issue was always how the same light could be measured as having different frequencies depending on the motion/gravitation differences between sender and receiver; and thus how the rate of time can differ.

So without interference from subjective perception, the two equivalent clocks elapse at different rates from the same vantage point, and both rates of time are correct as long as the clocks are functioning properly.

If the rate of time wouldn't vary, then you'd have to say that hydrogen or helium spectra differ depending on their situation of motion/gravitation, and that would make less sense than saying that the rate of time differs.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

[url][/url]

livinglava wrote:

That's a moot point, though; because subjective perception was never the issue with relativity.

Hardly moot. It's always been "the issue," as far as the flaws in theory go. In effect, SR holds that your subjective perception are invariably correct.

Quote:

So without interference from subjective perception, the two equivalent clocks elapse at different rates from the same vantage point, and both rates of time are correct as long as the clocks are functioning properly.

It's not clear exactly what you're trying to say here. SR concerns itself with the SPEED of light, not the frequency, per se. But I think I get the drift. You subscribe to the logically impossible proposition that any and all mutually exclusive subjective assumptions about motion are "correct." I don't, and never will, sorry.

Carry on.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Hardly moot. It's always been "the issue," as far as the flaws in theory go. In effect, SR holds that your subjective perception are invariably correct.

I've explained in several posts how the actual light frequency changes regardless of how you perceive it at the subjective level. I think you are just reading subjectivity into the concept of frequency-shift.

Quote:

Quote:
So without interference from subjective perception, the two equivalent clocks elapse at different rates from the same vantage point, and both rates of time are correct as long as the clocks are functioning properly.

It's not clear exactly what you're trying to say here. SR concerns itself with the SPEED of light, not the frequency, per se. But I think I get the drift. You subscribe to the logically impossible proposition that any and all mutually exclusive subjective assumptions about motion are "correct." I don't, and never will, sorry.

What "mutually exclusive subjective assumptions about motion" are there?

The speed of light is measured as being the same in all frames. That means that wherever you are, whatever your motion or gravitation, you always measure the speed of light the same.

So if light's speed is constant, and the frequency shifts, then the wave peaks, i.e. the energy, is arriving at a shifted RATE. The wave peaks are arriving less frequently, i.e. at a lower frequency. So if light is moving at the same speed but it is arriving at a slower rate, then that means time is elapsing slower at the source.

It's not subjective perception. It is that the rate of time differs depending on where you are measuring it from. When you look at your wristwatch, it never differs because it is never in motion relative to you or in a different gravitational situation.

When you look at a distant galaxy, however, its light's frequency is shifted relative to you because of either its motion or gravitational situation. You could say that the light slowed down, but light doesn't slow down or speed up relative to observers; so the only conclusion you're left with is that the rate of time at that distant galaxy is different from your local time rate, at least it elapses differently as you observe it from where you are. For people living in that distant galaxy, they observe their local star(s) as being less redshifted, just as we observe our sun's light at a higher frequency than would an observer in a distant galaxy.

Now you want to say that our measurement of our sunlight is more correct than the redshifted light measured in the distant galaxy, but it's not because it is the same light being measured there as by us. Only space/time is warped in such a way that the frequency of light is received at different rates in different situations. So relativity is about interpreting that real variation in light frequency in terms of time rate differences.

Now you want to say that the differences in time rate are just theoretical because everyone observes their own sunlight without the level of redshift that is observed from a distant galaxy, but that assumes constancy of time in the universe that just doesn't exist. The rate of time is just slower at further distances; not because it is slower for the people there, but because it's slower for us here observing it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

What "mutually exclusive subjective assumptions about motion" are there?

You may or may not have read this prior post, but I have already addressed that question here:

https://able2know.org/topic/545476-25#post-6974249

I haven't read the balance of this post carefully, but I have skimmed it, and you seem to be imputing positions to me that I never said, and don't hold.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I didn't say you aren't qualified to discuss the subject because you don't know about elementary mechanics. I am saying that there is no area of physics in which I could give you a problem that you could solve. You have no education in the subject whatever. If you disagree, tell me an area of physics in which you think you can solve a high school level problem. I promise to give you a non-trick problem at the high school level in that exact area.

If you are completely ignorant of a subject in its entirety, then you shouldn't be saying that long established theory is wrong. You are not qualified to make such a judgement.

By the way, if someone claims to be capable of performing brain surgery, but cannot answer elementary questions about anatomy, then he probably doesn't know enough to perform the surgery, even though brain surgery involves other areas of medical knowledge as well. People who know medicine (not one myself) usually study anatomy first, so if they don't know that, they probably haven't had the later classes either.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:
What "mutually exclusive subjective assumptions about motion" are there?

You may or may not have read this prior post, but I have already addressed that question here:

https://able2know.org/topic/545476-25#post-6974249

I haven't read the balance of this post carefully, but I have skimmed it, and you seem to be imputing positions to me that I never said, and don't hold.

Well, if you're not going to read posts, I guess there's no point in me writing them, is there?

I went back and read your linked post, however, and your contention is with the claim that both times can be right simultaneously. You can't accept that time can elapse at different rates from the same vantage point because time doesn't elapse at the same uniform rate everywhere in the universe, which seems to be your assumption.

What I keep trying to explain to you is that if there are two different time rates observed from the same vantage point, one doesn't have to be more right than the other. Of course you are going to choose to go by the time on your local clock, but that doesn't make the other clock wrong; it just means it is elapsing at a different rate because of its situation of motion/gravitation relative to you as its observer.

You have to distinguish between a clock whose function is impaired and causing it to run slow/fast and one that is functioning accurately, but it is running slow/fast due to its motion/gravitational-situation.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't say you aren't qualified to discuss the subject because you don't know about elementary mechanics. I am saying that there is no area of physics in which I could give you a problem that you could solve. You have no education in the subject whatever. If you disagree, tell me an area of physics in which you think you can solve a high school level problem. I promise to give you a non-trick problem at the high school level in that exact area.

I don't discuss things online to prove anything about myself. I discuss things to see what can be elucidated from discussing them.

If you want to discuss some physics issue, post a thread about it and I will participate. If you post some math problem about calculating speeds of motion of a box sliding down an inclined plane or an elevator with a counter-weight, etc. I might not remember how to do those kinds of calculations, but I could certainly help you analyze the forces and energies at work in any real-world scenario that you are trying to model.

Quote:

If you are completely ignorant of a subject in its entirety, then you shouldn't be saying that long established theory is wrong. You are not qualified to make such a judgement.

You don't even know what "a subject in its entirety" means. You think if you memorize all the physics textbooks from front to back that you "know the subject in its entirety" but physics or any other subject goes beyond its academic manifestations and even what canonical scientists have researched and written about it.

You need to understand that Newton, Planck, Maxwell, Lorentz, Bohr, Schrodinger, Einstein, etc.etc. are just very smart, devoted human beings trying to study something that exists beyond themselves, something that exists objectively and is thus accessible to anyone and everyone who experiences consciousness and can think critically.

Science is ultimately a collaborate process of thinking critically about the nature of the universe. The fact that academicians divvy up the work that's been done and organize it into chapters and lessons and exams and research studies and so forth is just part of the larger equation.

Quote:

By the way, if someone claims to be capable of performing brain surgery, but cannot answer elementary questions about anatomy, then he probably doesn't know enough to perform the surgery, even though brain surgery involves other areas of medical knowledge as well. People who know medicine (not one myself) usually study anatomy first, so if they don't know that, they probably haven't had the later classes either.

Surgery has dire consequences when you make mistakes. Physics and other academic subjects benefit from mistakes because people learn from their own mistakes as well as from others.

So when you are discussing physics or other topics online or offline, it is just discussion not surgery, so you don't have to worry about stopping people from making mistakes. If you notice mistakes, use it as a 'teachable moment,' and don't teach by ridiculing people but by explaining what you understand to them.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

...

Quote:
By the way, if someone claims to be capable of performing brain surgery, but cannot answer elementary questions about anatomy, then he probably doesn't know enough to perform the surgery, even though brain surgery involves other areas of medical knowledge as well. People who know medicine (not one myself) usually study anatomy first, so if they don't know that, they probably haven't had the later classes either.

Surgery has dire consequences when you make mistakes. Physics and other academic subjects benefit from mistakes because people learn from their own mistakes as well as from others.

So when you are discussing physics or other topics online or offline, it is just discussion not surgery, so you don't have to worry about stopping people from making mistakes. If you notice mistakes, use it as a 'teachable moment,' and don't teach by ridiculing people but by explaining what you understand to them.

Regardless of the consequences, if you cannot answer basic anatomy questions, it is almost certain that you lack the knowledge to perform brain surgery competently, because it is likely that everyone who has the requisite knowledge to perform brain surgery passed an anatomy and physiology class early in his education.

Your basic argument seems to be that people who know nothing about a subject are qualified to tell people who have degrees in the subject that they're wrong - not ask how something that strikes you as wrong could be true, but to tell them that they're full of crap.

You can ask all the questions you want, but asserting that you should be regarded as an equal participant in an argument on the subject is unreasonable.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

What I keep trying to explain to you is that if there are two different time rates observed from the same vantage point, one doesn't have to be more right than the other. Of course you are going to choose to go by the time on your local clock, but that doesn't make the other clock wrong; it just means it is elapsing at a different rate because of its situation of motion/gravitation relative to you as its observer.

OK, it's official. You're hopeless. You don't understand anything being said. Your response does not even begin to address the point in any intelligible manner.

1 Reply

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know