Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@layman,

layman wrote:

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.

So you're only real concern is establishing that one observed clock is right and the other is wrong?

What do you have to say about the fact that two clocks that tick at the same rate elapse at different rates due to motion and/or gravitation?

Do you acknowledge that a single observer can observe two different time-rates from the same vantage point without their subjective perception affecting either time-rate?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

So you're only real concern is establishing that one observed clock is right and the other is wrong?

No, it should be obvious that the odds are astronomically high in favor of the proposition that both are wrong, but that's another issue. Either way, the issue isn't about "who's right."

Quote:

What do you have to say about the fact that two clocks that tick at the same rate elapse at different rates due to motion and/or gravitation?

Nobody disputes that, other than the fact that they're not ticking at the "same rate at the same time" under those circumstances. You have no clue about anything I've said if you think I deny that clock rates vary with motion, even if they're not malfunctioning in the least. That's not relevant to the issue at all, though.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

So you're only real concern is establishing that one observed clock is right and the other is wrong?

No, it should be obvious that the odds are astronomically in favor of the proposition that both are wrong. The issue isn't about "who's right."

So your point is that all properly-functioning clocks deviate from some universal 'Time' that elapses simultaneously throughout the universe, and that all local clocks fail to measure that 'universal Time?'

I don't understand people who think that time exists other than as something expressed by moving systems?

Do you think that there is something external to clocks and other moving systems that causes them to move besides just the natural forces and energies that cause their motion?

Do you think, for example, that if a clock could somehow be cut off from 'Time' that it would stop moving, like pausing a video and getting it to freeze-frame?

Inertia and momentum don't obey any master except the mechanics they are subject to due to interactions and inertial momentum. Clocks are mechanically induced to 'tick' in a regular way, and we interpret those regular ticks as a measuring stick for 'time,' but what we call 'time' is just an abstraction derived from comparing various systems of regular motion, i.e. 'clocks.'

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

I don't understand people who think that time exists other than as something expressed by moving systems?

No, you don't. And you apparently didn't understand a thing that Newton said (which I quoted), either.

But again, nothing you've said addresses the issue.

And your questions are silly.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or patience to repeat everything I've said in this thread already.

I suspect you haven't read many of them to begin with. For the most part, you only comment about the methods of others.

To the extent you make positive claims, you just dogmatically assert them, providing no basis. If the assumptions underlying your claims are questioned, you just ignore it and glibly restate the claims.

I don't think there's anything to be gained, for either of us, by pursuing this further.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I don't understand people who think that time exists other than as something expressed by moving systems?
No, you don't. And you apparently didn't understand a thing that Newton said (which I quoted), either.

The word, 'time,' has a meaning, but that doesn't make it a physical thing. Just because Newton or any other physicist uses a word doesn't make it a physical thing. Inertia is a property of an object or substance, for example, but not an object or substance in itself. Likewise, time is a property of synchronization among moving systems of similar construction. E.g. If you drop two bowling balls from the same height, they are going to reach the ground simultaneously because gravity, inertia/momentum, wind-drag, etc. is the same for both; not because 'Time' is causing them both to move at the same rate.

Quote:

But again, nothing you've said addresses the issue.

And your questions are silly.

I'm sorry, I just don't have the time or patience to repeat everything I've said in this thread already.

You just prefer to maintain the illusion of 'time' as a substance, I think. Why don't you just want to get down to the essence of it, which is that motion is caused by forces and energy/propulsion and not 'time?'

Quote:

I suspect you haven't read many of them to begin with. For the most part, you only comment about the methods of others.

To the extent you make positive claims, you just dogmatically assert them, providing no basis. If the assumptions underlying your claims are questioned, you just ignore it and glibly restate the claims.

I don't think there's anything to be gained, for either of us, by pursuing this further.

Dogmatically assert them, maybe, but only until you explain why I'm wrong and how you can observe time as a thing/substance that causes observed motion of clocks. You can dissect a clock and figure out how the pendulum, battery/crystal, radioactive isotope, or whatever regular 'ticking' mechanism works from a physics perspective, but none of those ticks are caused by anything except the forces and motion/energy that cause them to operate.

There are all these people that want to dream about controlling 'time,' travel through it, etc. All of that is just a deviation from the physical mechanics that actually cause motion to happen. Energy isn't created or destroyed, so it persists on in one form or other.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

The word, 'time,' has a meaning, but that doesn't make it a physical thing.

Exactly. It isn't. A point I have repeatedly stressed in the prior posts I've made (which you never read).

Quote:

You just prefer to maintain the illusion of 'time' as a substance

Nobody thinks that except for relativists. That you impute it to me just shows how badly you misread/misunderstand my posts. That's one reason I say that I don't think either one of us have anything to gain by pursuing this topic.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

The word, 'time,' has a meaning, but that doesn't make it a physical thing.

Exactly. It isn't. A point I have repeatedly stressed in the prior posts I've made (which you never read).

Then why do you think it should be uniform throughout the universe? Why can't you accept that looking out from a given vantage point can reveal different rates of time relative to the time-rate at the vantage point?

Quote:

Quote:
You just prefer to maintain the illusion of 'time' as a substance

Nobody thinks that except for relativists. That you impute it to me just shows how badly you misread/misunderstand my posts. That's one reason I say that I don't think either one of us have anything to gain by pursuing this topic.

Then why do you see it as a problem for the rate of time to appear differently from different vantage points?

Why do you call it a problem of subjective perception when the rate of time observed in a GPS satellite is different than the rate of time in an equivalent clock at sea level?

Why does it bother you that two observers can be measuring each others' times differently in comparison to their own? Your main problem seems to be the issue that the GPS satellite measures time as constant despite it elapsing slower from an observation point on the ground. You want to say that the slower rate is a distortion instead of acknowledging that it is actually the rate of time of that satellite as measured at sea level.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Why can't you accept that looking out from a given vantage point can reveal different rates of time relative to the time-rate at the vantage point?

Then why do you see it as a problem for the rate of time to appear differently from different vantage points?

Why do you call it a problem of subjective perception when the rate of time observed in a GPS satellite is different than the rate of time in an equivalent clock at sea level?

Same old thing from you: You don't understand a word I say. The rate at which clocks run on satellites IS different. It's not a matter of "subjective perception" at all. You can't tell the difference, that's your problem.

Contrary to the theoretical dictates of SR, the moving clock on a satellite would "see" the clock at the ECI running faster, not slower. To simply assume otherwise, and then insist to the death that those assumptions are indubitably "correct," is something only an SR "observer" would do.

1 Reply

SR insists that there are, and can be, no "preferred (motionless) frames." Yet every time a calculation is made in SR, it posits one. It has to, in order to get any kind of answer at all, no matter how incorrect it may be.

What is the "preferred frame" posited by SR?

It's YOU, whoever and whereever you are.

Every inertially-moving SR observer is forced, by the theory, to claim that he is absolutely motionless. Anything and everything in the universe that is moving relative to him is "moving." But not him. He is absolutely motionless. He is the "aether."

1 Reply

@layman,

If Max would come back, calculator in hand, he could "prove" this for us.

Here's a little elementary physics question for you, Max, or Brandon, if you're paying any attention.

Assume that two observers, A an B, are approaching each other at .6c

1. How does the LT math work out "from the perspective of" A?

2. How does the LT math work out "from the perspective of" B?

The "same" (if you ignore all relevant differences), right?

But now tell us--when you do your mathematical calculations:

1. Who is presumed to be motionless in 1?

2. Who is presumed to be motionless in 2?

That aint "the same," is it?

But both are "correct," because both are motionless, right?

If you say "yes," then forget math. You are desperately in need of a course in logic.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The rate at which clocks run on satellites IS different.

Are you now claiming that redshift can be observed by an observer within the redshifted frame? E.g. do you think observers in a redshifted galaxy measure the hydrogen spectrum of stars there as having a lower frequency than we would for stars in the Milky Way?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

layman wrote:
The rate at which clocks run on satellites IS different.

Are you now claiming that redshift can be observed by an observer within the redshifted frame? E.g. do you think observers in a redshifted galaxy measure the hydrogen spectrum of stars there as having a lower frequency than we would for stars in the Milky Way?

Your post refers to "the redshifted frame" as if there were only one, so it doesn't make sense to begin with. If A and B are receding from each other at .5c, then A will see the light emitted from B to be redshifted, and vice versa. That's why they agree that they are moving relative to each other.

But that doesn't tell them a damn thing about who is moving, or at what speed(s).

Do you have anything to say pertaining to the topic? You seem obsessed with the doppler shift, but that plays no part in the postulates of SR whatsoever.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

layman wrote:
The rate at which clocks run on satellites IS different.

Are you now claiming that redshift can be observed by an observer within the redshifted frame? E.g. do you think observers in a redshifted galaxy measure the hydrogen spectrum of stars there as having a lower frequency than we would for stars in the Milky Way?

Your post refers to "the redshifted frame" as if there were only one, so it doesn't make sense to begin with. If A and B are receding from each other at .5c, then A will see the light emitted from B to be redshifted, and vice versa. That's why they agree that they are moving relative to each other.

But that doesn't tell them a damn thing about who is moving, or at what speed(s).

Do you have anything to say pertaining to the topic? You seem obsessed with the doppler shift, but that plays no part in the postulates of SR whatsoever.

My understanding of relativity is that it allows for time to vary between sources and receivers of light as a way of preserving conservation of energy in situations where gravity and/or motion cause doppler shift

So if you have some way to explain how energy isn't conserved, e.g. by a time-shifted frame returning to a previous location without as much time having elapsed as did for the previous location, I would like to understand how that could be possible.

Otherwise I just understand clocks as moving at different rates in order to conserve the energy they must due to the doppler effect changing the frequency.

My understanding could be wrong, but energy can't be created or destroyed, so the wave peaks have to add up at the source and reception sites.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

[I believe your understanding is wrong.

A doppler shift is phenomenological in nature, not physical. It does not "cause" anything, per se.

SR mainly concerns itself with the putative "constancy of the speed of light."

Speed is simply the distance travelled divided by the time it takes to travel it. Time and distance are both distorted, to a greater or lesser degree, with speed. This does not affect the way the speed of light would be calculated in the moving frames, using only the (also shrunken) measuring instruments available within that frame. Using instruments from another frame would give a different "speed of light" in the moving frame.

All theories of motion recognize that the speed of light will be measured to be constant within any given inertial frame of reference. But only SR says it actually IS (as opposed to measured to be) constant in every frame.

But, either way, speed has nothing to do with light frequency or the doppler shift.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

If Max would come back, calculator in hand, he could "prove" this for us.

Here's a little elementary physics question for you, Max, or Brandon, if you're paying any attention.

Assume that two observers, A an B, are approaching each other at .6c

1. How does the LT math work out "from the perspective of" A?

2. How does the LT math work out "from the perspective of" B?

The "same" (if you ignore all relevant differences), right?

But now tell us--when you do your mathematical calculations:

1. Who is presumed to be motionless in 1?

2. Who is presumed to be motionless in 2?

That aint "the same," is it?

But both are "correct," because both are motionless, right?

If you say "yes," then forget math. You are desperately in need of a course in logic.

This is the setup, as I understand it: "Two observers, A and B, are approaching each other at .6c."

I have no reason to assume either to be motionless. If I wanted to, I could define a reference frame attached to A or B, but there is no reason for me to do that. The sentence above stating their relative motion is all I need.

A sees B's clock running slowly. B sees A's clock running slowly.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

A doppler shift is phenomenological in nature, not physical. It does not "cause" anything, per se.

1. If two objects are not moving relative to each other, there will be no doppler shift.

2. If they are moving toward each other the waves will be received (perceived, if you prefer) at a greater frequency. But that is NOT because the frequency of the light has actually (as opposed to apparently) changed.

3. If they are moving away from each other the waves will be received (perceived, if you prefer) at a reduced frequency. But that is NOT because the frequency of the light has actually (as opposed to apparently) changed.

Do you have a different understanding of how and why a doppler shift is perceived?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

I have no reason to assume either to be motionless.

You also say:

Quote:

A sees B's clock running slowly. B sees A's clock running slowly.

That statement entails certain assumptions.

Let's take this one step at a time:

I didn't ask YOU to assume anything, Brandon.

I asked you what the formula for the lorentz transformations of length and time required you to assume, when you use them.

Just answer the question, instead of evading it, eh?

2 Replies

@layman,

You're awfully slow in replying, Brandon.

Need a hint?

OK, here's one: You don't need to calculate the relative speed between A and B, because it is given to you. It is .6c

The question is, how do you (i.e., the formula you are using) allocate that combined speed between A and B? Half (.3c) to A, and half (again .3c) to B, or what?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

[I believe your understanding is wrong.

A doppler shift is phenomenological in nature, not physical. It does not "cause" anything, per se.

I don't know what you mean by 'phenomenological in nature." Is that another term for subjective perception? If so, that's incorrect. Doppler shift is actual compression/decompression of waves that results in frequency change.

Light delivers more energy at higher frequencies. Radio waves, microwaves, and infrared are less energy-dense than visible light, UV, Xrays, and Gamma rays. So when a redder frequency shifts to a bluer one, the same quantity of energy arrive at a faster rate, which means time has to speed up at the source relative to the receiver.

Quote:

But, either way, speed has nothing to do with light frequency or the doppler shift.

If a distant galaxy is redshifted, the spreading-out of the wave peaks could hypothetically be explained if the light slowed down. Slowing down would also cause the wave peaks to arrive at a slower rate.

The assumption, however, is that light doesn't slow down; otherwise there would be different light waves moving at all sorts of different speeds everywhere you look. So assuming that light moves at only one speed in any medium, you can't explain redshifting of light's frequency by claiming the light slowed down. As such, the only other option is to accept that time slows down at the source relative to the observer.

For people living in that distant redshifted galaxy, time might not be slowed; but there is no way we can observe that galaxy moving at its non-redshifted speed because we can't get information (light waves) to arrive at a faster rate than they come.

Maybe there is some way to accelerate toward the galaxy and get its light to blueshift in a way that compensates for the redshift and thus gives us an accurate time-rate and light-frequency image of the galaxy, though.

But to sum up, it's not 'phenomenological.' It's wave-compression or expansion.

This video sums it up well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5tKC3nEx2I

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

But to sum up, it's not 'phenomenological.' It's wave-compression or expansion.

No, the waves are NOT being compressed or expanded. You only perceive them that way because you are moving.

If I am moving away from you, you will "get smaller" in my perspective with each passing minute.

If I am moving toward you, you will "get larger" in my perspective with each passing minute.

But that is only due to my perception, which changes with motion.

At no time to you actually get any smaller or larger, my subjective perceptions notwithstanding.

This ia a very simple point which you seem utterly incapable of comprehending.

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know