Einstein Frames of Reference illusion

RECOGNITION, not "recolonization".
Damn auto spell check.....

Please explain how these guys are wrong.

You are still not getting it are you? The delusion runs deep, taught from an early age I suspect.
One's point of view, only effects your subjective experience of whats happening.
And there is only ever one thing happening, not one thing for me and some other thing for you.
Only your personal subjective experience has made you believe what you see.
Calling this a "frame of Reference", does not turn it into Physics.

Did the puck on the table do two different actions, one action for each observer?
No, it did not.
Either you changed the conditions, or you changed your point of view, but in any case, the puck only did one thing, and if both men watching it took all the circumstances into consideration, then they too would both agree that there was only one physical action, maybe a combination of the puck moving and the table rotating at the same time, but at no point can you say that the motion has actually changed, simply because some one watched from a different point of view.
If what you are claiming is true, then at what point did the distances, mass and Time change for one observer but not the other? Because they should have, as we were seeing two different versions of "reality" so the only possible way to reconcile these two different but equally valid versions is if Time and Space change, right? That's the exact basis of Einsteins claims anyway.

ok, cool. I will put you down as a Flat Earther then. Good luck with your ideas.

That's right, when confronted with something too hard for you to accept, you run a mile, like every Relativist, and you have the gall to blame it on me!
Wheres your sense of pride?
At what point did I mention Flat Earth?
You are only adding weight to my statement that Relativists are delusional.

One's point of view is a FoR. That is EXACTLY what it is. Einstein said a FoR is "where a person (or other observer) happens to be standing".




Did you not watch the video? Because if you did, that is EXACTLY what happens. The puck did one thing in on FoR and something completely different in another FoR. That is why I used that specific video as they actually show you that. Do you not believe them or your eyes?




That is EXACTLY what it did. That was the whole point of what the video is about. If you didn't see that, you didn't watch the video. Shame on you.



Changing your point of view is the same exact thing as changing your FoR which is the whole point. 2 people watch the same event and see different things because their FoR is different.

It's not magic or witchcraft. It's science. Go and actually watch the video. You might learn something.

The problem is that you don't understand Galileo and Newton. When you use the phrase "appear to be moving" and "observational positions" you are missing the entire point.

Galileo and Newton understood what velocity is, and they understood that you can't measure velocity without establishing a frame of reference.

If you don't understand this basic point of Physics, then you can't discuss Einstein intelligently.

(and... actually, yes it is rocket science).

I am curious.

You are rejecting all of Physics (or at least all of Mechanics) for the past 600 years since Galileo. You have invented this term "Relativist"... with the exception of a few wack-jobs on the internet, every Physicist is a Relativist.

What other science do you reject? Do you feel the same way about evolution that you do about Physics?

That particular video is part of my collection of excellent teaching videos from the period in time when they actually did a decent job of teaching, unlike today, where dumbing down is the standard.

"2 people watch the same event and see different things because their FoR is different.
It's not magic or witchcraft. It's science. Go and actually watch the video. You might learn something."

Its not witchcraft until Einstein concluded that altering Time, Space and Mass was the only way to reconcile the two SUBJECTIVE views OF THE ONE THING.

What you SUBJECTIVELY observe when it comes to objects in motion particularly, can SEEM to, or APPEAR to be doing different motions.
This is how magicians can perform their tricks, by diverting your attention to whats actually happening, to subjectively focus on something that's not important.

The puck did ONLY ONE REAL MOTION, relative to ALL the other objects that HAVE A PART TO PLAY in the scenario.

If you isolate the puck from other critical objects, then the motion SEEMS to be behaving weirdly. This is exactly what the video shows, they REMOVE some CRITICAL information from the physics experiment, (the fact that the two players, the table and the puck are on a turntable, and the whole shebang is on the Planet Earth subject to its gravity.)

Ignore these facts, remove them from the view, discard them from the analysis, and sure, it looks really weird. But if all the pertinent facts are included, then the puck is ONLY DOING ONE THING, according to the LAWS of Newtons mechanics, according to the various forces applied to the puck, turntable and gravity.

But the critical point is that the OBSERVATION has NOTHING to do in the tiniest bit, with the entire experiment. NOTHING.

What you need to do is explain how the WATCHING by an observer, changes the physics of the experiment. You need to explain how observing from a remote unconnected location, is actually causing the Mass Increase, the Length Contraction, and the Time Dilation. No one has ever explained how that is supposed to occur.
Since you claim to have a knowledge of this, please feel free to go ahead and explain.

So far we have only learned that FoR's are imaginary.

How do you get from there, to Time, Space and Mass changing?

By the way, IF you really think that the Puck IS REALLY doing two different motions, to suit the different ways of observing it, then you have a massive problem.
Because Einstein used exactly the same thought to conclude that the ONLY way to resolve the two APPARENTLY different motions, was Time dilation, Mass Increase, and Length Contraction.

So, logically, as you have just discovered another example of two observers seeing two different motions for the puck, you need to also resolve this discrepancy mathematically, by also warping Time, Space and Mass. Be my guest, go ahead, lets see how you resolve this mathematically.

I asked you to stop claiming that I fail to grasp the physics of either Galileo, Newton or even Einstein.
That has nothing to do with the hypothesis of Einstein, even if you were correct.

"When you use the phrase "appear to be moving" and "observational positions" you are missing the entire point."

OK, what is the point according to you exactly?

(I've read what mainstream Science has to say about it, what Newton has to say and what Einstein had to say.)

Maybe you won't be able to explain it very easily, because you clearly are struggling with it, believing that this basic Physics of moving bodies is akin to "Rocket Science".

Of course it does.

Newton based his work on the work of Galileo. Einstein based his work on the work on Newton (and Galileo). You don't understand or accept Newton and Galileo. That is your problem.

Do you think you will be able to solve basic problems in Newtonian Physics? I will give you some if you want. It might be instructive.

You have a basic misunderstanding of Isaac Newton. That is why you are having trouble with Einstein. You can't grasp Einstein until you have grasped Newton. That is why when we teach basic Physics, we start with Newton.

Science (and particularly Physics) is based on things that are testable and predictable. When you make a statement about a scientific fact, you need to be able to describe how you would test if it was not true. Any scientific statement I make... I can tell you what experimental result would disprove it.

The phrase "appear to be moving" as opposed to "actually moving" is scientifically meaningless unless you can give me an experiment that would show that something isn't actually moving when it is "appears to be moving". Then we can run this experiment and everything will be fine.

You are making up pseudo-science terms that are meaningless because they can't be tested.

(What exactly do you think "rocket science" entails?).

I'm not interested in working through 'problems'.
You need to back up your claims first, with an explanation of Classical Physics that shows where I'm getting it wrong.
My claim is that F0R can never make any actual difference to a Physical process. You claim that they do.

This is what we are waiting for:
Your explanation that shows where I'm getting it wrong, and how Einsteins version is correct.

Now is the ideal time to launch into your explanation.

"But you don't understand it" is not a good way to begin.

Einstein in his 1905 paper and in his later books and lectures, actually uses phrases that equate to "appears to" and "seems like". to explain what the experiment reveals to the observers.
It's an entirely "subjective opinion based" theory, and therefore its more mystical in concept than actual objective Physics.

At the beginning of this thread, I specifically asked for contributors NOT to jump the gun by calling on any claimed result of Experiment to 'prove' their claim.
Please restrict your explanations to the exact same methods employed by Einstein, as its his Hypothesis that we are examining.

He explained using Thought Experiments as an aid to back up his description of the process.
And in point of actual fact, I do believe that you are trying to make claims that are unverifiable. But really I don't want to talk about that till we have discussed the hypothesis in detail, to see if its rational.

That is a problem. If you are not interested in working through problems then you will never learn science. All you are doing is making up stuff and pretending you know what you are talking about.

Real scientists are interested in working through problems.



You have a basic misunderstand about what motion means. You are suggesting there is a "imaginary" motion (which must be different from what you might call "real motion"). It you want to understand even this basic principle you need to be willing to work through the problems.

Yet you can't tell me any experiment that would determine what motion is "real" and what motion is 'imaginary". This idea is your own misunderstanding. It has nothing to do with Physics.

When I taught high school Physics, I would explain to the students what motion means (and how to measure it) in the first couple of weeks. You haven't gotten that far.

This is dodging the issue.
I'm asking for your explanation how two different opinions of the apparent motion of an object can make any physical difference to what the object is actually doing.

You are skirting around this simple question.
Unless you can explain why your hypothesis might possible be valid, I'm not interested in playing math games with you. What are we trying to figure out with math, when you cant even explain what is supposed to be happening?

Jumping onto math before you have any real notion of what you are looking at is only asking for trouble, as math can easily support almost any hypothesis, depending on the inventiveness of the mathematician.
I can dig up examples of Published Papers that are directly opposite in hypothesis, yet both Papers are full of the most perfect, flawless Math used to support the hypothesis, yet both cant be right, and maybe both are wrong, but the Math is flawless. Math can't explain anything.

Math can accurately capture the parabolic arc, but it does not 'describe' it.
I can explain a parabola in 10 seconds with a ball, a stick and a clear area of sand. Unless you understand the physics, the Math is not going to help, and its always possible that your math is based on a false concept of the Physics, making your equations faulty, giving false answers.
Physics understanding first, math next.

"Yet you can't tell me any experiment that would determine what motion is "real" and what motion is 'imaginary".

When I hop in my car, its the car that's moving on the Earth, never the other way around. My car is moving, the Earth is not.
It all depends on whats pertinent to the objects in question. If I'm in a rocket trying to reach Mars, then I'm moving, but so are the planets.
But there is not one single instance ever where cars, animals are stationary, and the Earth rotates under them. This is an absolute factual example of moving and not moving.
In the trip to Mars example, we might find the trajectory calculations for my trip would be easiest calculated by using the Sun as a convenient origin, with Alpha Centuri as a convenient direction, which would allow me to reach Mars having an understanding of the motions of The Earth, Mars, the Moon,
and my ship.
So there is an example where the Sun is suitable as the Stationary origin.
Of course the Sun also moves, but its motion relative to the center of the Milky Way is not going to affect my calculations to get to Mars.
When considering travel on Earth then the Earth is most certainly STATIONARY and the vehicles are certainly in motion. When considering my car engine (in isolation) the cylinder block is most certainly STATIONARY, and its always the Piston that is moving, never the other way around.

OK, your turn, explain what motion is then, as you have all that experience.

They don't that is the whole point. That is exactly what you don't understand.

And further more, you insist on using the word "apparent motion" when the word apparent has no meaning. There is no difference between "apparent motion" and any other type of motion.



So you believe that the Earth is not moving.



I think that shows a problem in your thought process.

Isaac Newton had a mathematically consistent way of describing motion. It works to define and describe motion.

1. Newton defined a frame of reference. And from the frame of reference he defined location.... without a frame of reference you can't define a location. Location is what in mathematics is called a "vector", but you can think of it as (x,y,z) coordinates).

2. Then Newton defined velocity. This is V = ds/dt (where t is time). This is calculus, but if you don't understand it you can think of it as "change in location divided by change in time". In truth, you can't really understand Newton without a basic understanding of calculus.

Once you define velocity, then V = 0 means not moving. V not equal to 0 is moving. But you can't make this calculation without first defining a frame of reference. Physics is based on measurements, and you can't make measurements without some reference point to measure from.

These definitions are the definitions used by Newton, and taught in high school classrooms around the world. (And yes, used in rocket science.)

You are rejecting them... but that is your problem. Physics goes on.

You are getting confused with Galileo's problems with the religious beliefs of his day, (the Earth was the center of Gods creation), and Physics.

And there is every difference between apparent and actual motion.
David Copperfield "apparently" made a 747 disappear in front of a live audience, but in fact he did no such thing.

" Seems like" and "appears to be" are subjective viewpoints, they are not objective reality useful in Physics.

And I explained that as far as every car, horse, worm and person on Earth, the Earth is perfectly stationary, and that's a solid fact.
But if your planing to go to Mars, then you will have to consider more factors such as the rotation and orbiting of the Earth around the Sun, which CAN be considered as a Stationary reference, not because it is really "stationary" in the Universe, but because its common and conveniently located point of reference when you want to calculate you trip to Mars. Its not so useful as a reference if you wanted to go to the next Galaxy.

So you need to keep thinking here, as your statements, "So you believe that the Earth is not moving".....
"I think that shows a problem in your thought process."
are clearly not accurately representing what I keep explaining to you.

You are still failing to understand what I'm saying. It's some form of Cognitive Dissonance that prevents you from putting two and two together.

And still you have not even attempted to explain what I have requested more than once.

Wait....

Do you believe "the Earth is fixed"... or do you believe the Earth orbits the Sun. You can't have it both ways.

There is some cognitive dissonance. I understand Isaac Newton. I don't understand you. Either you or Isaac Newton are totally confused.

There is no contradiction in Isaac Newtons mechanics (until you get to the point where you understand enough to see the problems with electromagnetics).

You give me any problem involving motion... and I can use Newton's Laws to solve them. You are having trouble deciding whether the Earth moves or not.