Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@livinglava,

You're the one who just keeps changing the topic and never responds to the questions posed to you. How about this? Just answer, one at a time, yes or no, the 3 questions posed here:

https://able2know.org/topic/545476-31#post-6976135

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

You're the one who just keeps changing the topic and never responds to the questions posed to you. How about this? Just answer, one at a time, yes or no, the 3 questions posed here:

https://able2know.org/topic/545476-31#post-6976135

That post describes a situation where two spaceships are moving away from a starting point and being observed at some other point, but it's unclear what you're asking.

The first thing you need to do is come to terms with the fact that light is a series of waves that exist between source and receiver before they are observed by the receiver.

The source sends the waves out at a certain frequency, but the receiver can receive them at a different frequency due to motion and/or gravitation.

There's no problem with you controlling for the frequency shift in your interpretation of what the light tells you about the source; but you have to acknowledge that the frequency measured by the observer is whatever it is in the measuring tool.

It would be the same for any other situation where a wave frequency is altered in some way. If you sing a C note into a pitch-shifter, which converts it to a C#, the note coming out of the pitch-shifter is really a C# even though the one you sang into it was a C.

The wave frequency is what it is in whatever inertial frame you measure it, even if you deem as being 'shifted' relative to its frame of emission.

I think you're whole issue is with making sure that the sending frame is prioritized as the 'real' frame, while the receiving frame should be classified as an 'altered' frame. That's fine, but it's a parallel issue that has nothing to do with the relationship between light frequency shifts and the rate of time as measured by an observer.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Still evading the questions, still mindlessly reasserting your incoherent position, and still wallowing in your solipsism, I see.

Carry on.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Still evading the questions, still mindlessly reasserting your incoherent position, and still wallowing in your solipsism, I see.

Carry on.

Please explain your model of the relationship between source, light, and receiver; and what happens when they are in motion relative to each other and/or have gravitational differences.

I want to understand how what I'm saying sounds so solipsistic and incoherent from your POV.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

The wave frequency is what it is in whatever inertial frame you measure it

I'll say it one last time (I've already explained why I say it a million times).

You are treating the word "is" in an ontological sense. That's where you consistently go wrong. Your assertion is only true in a trivial phenomenological sense, but you think otherwise.

Most of of us realize that any given measurement and/or sense perception can be wrong, or deceptive. You don't. You think that your sense perception is infallibly "true."

You can't distinguish between illusory appearance and truth.

Like I said, you're the perfect candidate for conversion to the religion of SR.

You can convince a chump of just about anything, except one. You can NEVER convince him that he's done been played.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Please explain your model of the relationship between source, light, and receiver; and what happens when they are in motion relative to each other and/or have gravitational differences.

For the millionth time? I don't think so. Scroll up and read the posts I've already made.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
The wave frequency is what it is in whatever inertial frame you measure it

I'll say it one last time (I've already explained why I say it a million times).

You are treating the word "is" in an ontological sense. That's where you consistently go wrong. Your assertion is only true in a trivial phenomenological sense, but you think otherwise.

Most of of us realize that any given measurement and/or sense perception can be wrong, or deceptive. You don't. You think that your sense perception is infallibly "true."

You can't distinguish between illusory appearance and truth.

Ok, now I get it. You think that things exist and that light is not a thing except insofar as you use it to gather information about what you are seeing or measuring with it.

So, to you, light waves are not an actual thing that exists with an actual frequency within each frame in which they are measured. Rather, the only things that exist are the things sending or receiving the light, so you insist that there is a reality about both and the frequency of the light is just a perception of the observer that can deviate from the reality of the object sending the light, which in your mind determines 'the real frequency' of the light, such that any observer measuring a different frequency is simply misinterpreting the light due to distortions caused by the frame or whatever.

Ok, got it. That's how you think and I'm not going to be able to convince you that light waves are a thing outside of the sender and receiver.

So in your perception, your room is not filled with light waves at all. You use them to see things around you, but you don't consider them actual waves like waves in an ocean.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

livinglava wrote:

Please explain your model of the relationship between source, light, and receiver; and what happens when they are in motion relative to each other and/or have gravitational differences.

For the millionth time? I don't think so. Scroll up and read the posts I've already made.

"Don't think so," what? I just asked you to explain how you model the relationship between source, light, and receiver; and what happens when they are in motion relative to each other and/or have gravitational differences.

I just want to see how you understand light from your perspective, so I can understand why I can't get you to understand how I model it.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

Ok, now I get it.

You get nothing, chump. I have said nothing of the kind. Building up strawmen to knock down may help you avoid admitting your folly and convince yourself that you're somehow right. But that sophistic tactic won't persuade any other reasonable person, sorry.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Ok, now I get it.

You get nothing, chump. I have said nothing of the kind. Building up strawment to knock down may help you avoiding admitting your folly and convince yourself that you're somehow right. But that fallacious tactic won't persuade any other reasonable person, sorry.

I've asked you to explain how you see things, how your model works; but you won't because you are afraid I will criticize it.

Have you ever considered how a solipsism in no way prevents any solipsist from attributing solipsism to anyone who disagrees with him? In that sense, solipsism is a stupid label that just evades reasoning about shared-reality as much as any other solipsistic thought-process.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

I've asked you to explain how you see things, how your model works; but you won't because you are afraid I will criticize it.

I've explained it a million times. You've essentially completely ignored all my criticism and offered none of your own. Instead you just proceed to flatly reassert your woefully mistaken views as though they are indubitable.

Keep on truckin.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I've explained it a million times. You've essentially completely ignored all my criticism and offered none of your own. Instead you just proceed to flatly reassert your woefully mistaken views as though they are indubitable.

You haven't ever explained it, though. You've talked about a lot of scenarios with regard to the way you see it, but you haven't ever clearly explicated it systematically.

Instead of pre-emptively arguing with me about it, why don't you just put down in a single post exactly how you understand the relationship between source, light, and receiver/observer and go ahead and explain what happens as a result of motion and/or gravitation between source and observer?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

You haven't ever explained it, though.

If you could comprehend what you read (if you read it) you would know better. I'm through trying to discuss this topic with you.

If anyone else has any questions or comments about anything I've said, I'll respond to those.

1 Reply

@layman,

yes, explain why one should consider it necessary to modify a simple Galilean transformation with a Lorentz math fudge?
I see no need or physical reason to do such a thing.

1 Reply

@justafool44,

justafool44 wrote:

yes, explain why one should consider it necessary to modify a simple Galilean transformation with a Lorentz math fudge?
I see no need or physical reason to do such a thing.

It is because clocks REALLY do slow down with increased speed, an empirical fact which has been experimentally demonstrated thousands of times.

At low speeds there is no need to use the LT, really. But the Galilean transforms cannot accommodate the clock retardations which occur at relativistic speeds. For the GT to work the symbol "t," standing for time, must be the same in every frame. Therefore, clocks in both frames of reference must be running at the same rate for the GT to work.

Of course, if one ignores all the experimental evidence and claims (as I think you do) that clocks rates can't change, then you will never "see a physical reason" for the LT.

2 Replies

@layman,

As I recall, you dogmatically reject the notion that clock rates can change with speed. It is nonsensical and "impossible," you assert. You therefore reject SR.

SR is definitely a flawed theory, which should be rejected. You can see the inconsistencies in SR and point to those as reasons for not accepting SR. In that respect, your arguments are valid.

But, ultimately, you reject SR for misguided "ideological" reasons which are contrary to established scientific knowledge.

You end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and also reject theories of motion which are perfectly coherent and consistent, both logically and mathematically, and which present a picture of "reality" that is completely in accord with "common sense."

As I've pointed out before, Einstein did NOT "discover" the LT. He simply took them from other theories which were, themselves, "perfectly valid" to begin with.

Of course, for the reasons stated, those theories necessarily employ the Lorentz Transformations. You therefore reject them too.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

As I recall, you dogmatically reject the notion that clock rates can change with speed. It is nonsensical and "impossible," you assert. You therefore reject SR.

Do you mean to imply that an observer in the same inertial frame as the clock sees the clock speed up as part of their own frame?

If that's the case, then what else would speed up along with the clock? Would water flow faster, for example? Would atoms vibrate faster and thus exhibit higher temperature?

If time speeding up doesn't also increase temperature, how does 'time' determine what to speed up and what not to? e.g. the clock but not the molecules and the running water?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

layman wrote:

As I recall, you dogmatically reject the notion that clock rates can change with speed. It is nonsensical and "impossible," you assert. You therefore reject SR.

Do you mean to imply that an observer in the same inertial frame as the clock sees the clock speed up as part of their own frame?

Your question is vaguely stated. What clock "speeds" up?

But I'll respond to what I think you are asking. Let's assume that a clock in a moving frame has in fact slowed down relative of another clock which has not been accelerated.

He will not "see" his clock as having slowed down. Nor will he "see" the other clock as run faster than his. That can't be "seen."

He will simply deduce those things from what he pre-supposes. They are conclusions, based on premises, which are not inherent in anything he sees. I have addressed this point in prior posts. I'll find one and refer to it later.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I have addressed this point in prior posts. I'll find one and refer to it later.

It's too hard to find. It's easier to just briefly re-state the point.

Suppose you are sitting on your porch watching the sun "go down." What can you conclude about this perception? Nothing, without some interpretation, which entrails some assumptions.

1. If you assume that the earth is motionless and that the sun revolves around the earth, then you would conclude, as I first put it, that the sun just "went down."

2. If you assume that the sun is in fact stationary, and that the earth is rotating on an axis, then you would conclude that the earth had rotated and that's what caused the sun to disappear from view.

Either case could, in theory, be true. But the point here is not about what is "true."

The point is about what you "see." Would what you "see" be any different in either case?

No, the perceptions would be identical in either case. It's only your INTERPRETATION of what you are seeing that differs (depending on your assumptions).

1 Reply

@layman,

Relativists like to say that A "sees" B's clock running slower. This is false. But it serves to convey the misleading impression that this is a matter of empricial fact, not assumption.

A does NOT "see" B's clock slowing down. He can deduce that the B's clock is not running at the same rate as his. Just as he can deduce that either the sun or the earth must be moving in my last example.

But the conclusion about which clock is slower and which is faster is merely a matter of deduction. It's not something you can directly "see."

3 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know