Einstein Frames of Reference illusion

I'm not rejecting the use of mathematics.
You don't need to define a frame of reference in Physics unless you want to calculate with mathematics the location or velocity of an object under differing conditions.
So what I'm still trying to get from you is the most basic explanation of how a different view point is supposed to make a remote object physical change,
You have not even attempted an explanation.
Is there some problem?
I've explained why I think that your claims are not rational, but I hear nothing from you in reply.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. Give me an experiment that would lead to a "remote object physical change". Is this some misunderstanding of Special Relativity?

You have to start by understanding Basic high school Physics. Sorry, but that is just reality. You can't learn to read until you have mastered the alphabet.

You really are not getting what I've been saying, even though I've been careful to put it into words a child can understand.
Even Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a 6 y.o. child, you don't understand it yourself."
I never said that the earth was "fixed", not once. I said it orbits the Sun, which itself is in motion.
What I did say was that there is no possibility that any observer located anywhere could ever decide that the cars were stationary and the earth rotating under them.
Can you identify any "FoR" where the observer could suggest that the car was stationary? No.

So I can have it both ways.

The epitome of ignorance is when you reject something before you understand it.

You don't want to do math. You don't want to talk about experiments. You don't want to work through problems. You don't want to learn about Isaac Newton. You just want to make up your own concepts and argue random ideas.

That isn't how science works.

Forget about a child. Put it into words a Physicist can understand. All you need to do is suggest an experimental result that would prove your theory wrong. Any scientific fact has such an experimental result that would prove it wrong.



I can easily suggest a FOR where the car is stationary.

1. If you accept that the Earth moves (in some FORs). Then there is a frame of reference where the Earth is moving at 80 mph in direction A. If it helps, think of a spaceship with Ogg sitting on board saying he is not moving while the Earth moves by him.

2. You have the car move at 80mph in the direction opposite to A (measured relative to the Earth).

3. To Ogg, the car will be motionless... and the Earth will be moving under it.

Before you reject this in ignorance.... try to think about it. I did exactly what you asked of me. And tell me an experiment that Ogg (or anyone else) could do to show that the car is moving?

Here are pictures pictures...

From Ogg's Frame of reference (the Earth moves to the left. Ogg and the car are both not moving.)


From the Earth's FOR (Ogg and the car both moving, the Earth stationary).

If I gave this thought experiment to an smart high school student (and actually when I was a teacher I did exactly that) they are going to understand this example perfectly... but then when they think about it, they always ask the question about acceleration.

Under Isaac Newton all inertial reference frames are equivalent. But you have to work through problems with Newton's mathematics before you really understand this. The math isn't that complicated, but it is a little counter-intuitive.

Newton made a distinction between inertial and non-inertial reference frames. This is one of the places where Einstein departs from Newton. But, you have to understand Newton first before you can really understand this.

No, you are wrong AGAIN.
You are STILL claiming that there is some deep dark secret that I'm ignorant of. Something I just don't understand.
There is a difference between not understanding what you are saying, and just not accepting that you are making correct statements.

I've explained several times not WHY its not yet the appropriate time to examine the Math or the possibly supporting evidence, and I've repetitively requested that you explain yourself, which you have repetitively failed to even attempt.

And I'm arguing that Newton and Galileo ARE making sense, and they have the only correct view of Physics of kinematics.

Further I'm arguing that Einstein's abortion of Classical Physics is irrational nonsense. Its NOT built on Newtons Physics, its a deception, a lie built on half truths that SEEM OK, if you just go long with his patter.

But if you challenge Einsteins hypothesis right from the opening sentences, and critically examine how and why he gets to the conclusions of Rational Physics not being valid, THEN you can understand where his mistakes are introduced.

You have never done this, as evidenced by your total inability to think out of the little box in which you have allowed your self to be placed.

If you want to understand what I'm saying, you need to expand your mind a little, and try to think for yourself.
Some people just cant manage to do that.

Or, you could simply explain what I've repetitively asked.

How does the mere observation of a remote objects motion, cause a physical change? What is the mechanism of the change, what forces are involved to cause an increase in an objects actual Mass? What process and forces are necessary to cause a solid object to shrink, but only in one plane?

Explain the Physics of how this all works, THEN we might progress on to some math.

This is interesting. Not sure if relevant, but cool none the less.

You are not much of a Physicist or a decent teacher. Sorry.
Einsteins words should be almost sacred to you as a believer.
"If you cant EXPLAIN it to a child, they you don't understand it yourself"
Are you here admitting that you don't really understand it yourself? and that's why you can not explain to to a child?
I believe that a number of other prominent Physicists also repeated that very phrase, such as Richard Feynman.

You example of the Earth moving and the car stationary is INVALID.
You have chosen o IGNORE the CRITICAL information that I gave to you, the fact that there is a whole Planet crawling with cars, people, horses, all going in every conceivable direction at the same time.
This precludes absolutely any explanation other than the Earth for everything on it, is effectively absolutely stationary, and its the people, horses and cars that are doing to moving. Even an observer in a passing spaceship would conclude the same.

You get to use whatever object is suitable for the task at hand, and can truly say its stationary, FOR ITS IMMEDIATE LOCALITY, pertinent to the situation.
For Earthlings, the Earth is totally stationary, and that is perfectly correct.
For someone on the other side of this universe, who want's to destroy the Earth with a cosmic ray gun, the Earth is anything but "stationary".

"Absolute stationary" is real but its relative to the set of objects that are inter related. The Earth and its mobile inhabitants, the Sun in this solar system, the Center of the Milky way relative to this solar system, these are all correct examples of truly stationary references, because Physics of motion is only valid for the interrelated objects as a set.

My cars engine has a piston which is moving in a totally stationary engine block, irrespective of the motion of the car on the road.

The engine block is moving with the car which will become really apparent when the car meets the stationary Tree.

See, I can easily explain to a child my understanding of Physics, and the child or reasonable adult gets it straight away.

Now lets hear your story.

Acceleration has nothing to do with Einstein's hypothesis on Special Relativity.
He specifically restricts his explanation to Inertial moving objects.
Lets keep with this convention for now.
You student was not near a smart as you thought.

He was too inexperienced to challenge what you and Einstein's were indoctrinating him with.

I'm still waiting for your explanation.

So, for the piston, that engine is permanently stationary. The piston doesn't go any faster or slower because the car moves right? For that piston, the engine block is it's Earth. Is that what you are explaining? The piston would hardly notice that the car is traveling 60 MPH because it just does it's thing. All the pistons moving inside that block don't know that the block is moving rapidly down the road. But, when that car flies past you, you see that block moving really fast.

The pistons don't know it, but they are really moving at 60 MPH at a vector determined by the observer of the car going past. That is observable.

Just like a space ship that watches the Earth flyby.

Did you know that it is faster to fly East across the US than West? The Earth's rotation plays a role in that.

This is an ideal example of the irrationality of Einstein.
Fine, lets say the apple is "stationary" and the earth accelerates upward.... well that ridiculous idea FAILS the second you also imagine a bunch of guys all located at different places around the Earth, all dropping apples.. the Earth can't accelerate UP in all these counter directions can it?
So truly, all the apples are falling down, and the Earth is Stationary, and gravity is a force.

And all these examples of how we can't tell if we are moving or its the other guy that moving, can never cause any actual Physical changes in an object, the way that Einstein claims. (Lengths shrink, Mass magically increases despite a reduced volume, and the concept called Time, also dilates, but only for some, and all these weird "counter intuitive" phenomena are occurring at different rates depending on who is watching from what vantage point.

The people who put these videos together, are professional story tellers, they know exactly how to get you to go along with everything they say.
They lead you along a pre-set path that avoids any issues.
There is no opportunity to be critical of their statements.
The fact is that Einsteins Hypothesis that started the whole Special Relativity religious belief system, is irrational nonsense in a slick shiny package.

You are arguing against Newton and Galileo

1) Newton based his laws of motion of Frames of Reference. You are denying that Frames of Reference are "real" (although you are not providing a definition of what "real" means).

2) You have invented this idea of "apparent" motion. Newton didn't make any distinction between "apparent" and any other type of motion.

If you don't understand that motion depends on a frame of reference, you don't understand classical Physics.

That is your problem.

This is a fake quote. There is no record of Einstein ever saying this.

I am not sure if this fact matters to you any more than any other fact.

You made this up. This has nothing to do with Physics. It also doesn't make any sense.

1) Consider when the Apollo mission landed men on the Moon. The capsule started out motionless in a rocket attached to the Earth. Then it blasted off. I assume you would call the Earth "Absolutely stationary" at that point.

2) But then sometime it started orbiting the moon... and then it landed on the Moon. At that point you would have to say the Moon is "absolutely stationary".


3) And in between would the Sun be "absolutely stationary".

.... and when the rocket ship went from Earth absolutely stationary to moon absolutely stationary, presumably this would be an acceleration?

There are so many contradictions to the idea starting with the fact that if the Earth is absolutely stationary... then the Sun orbits the Earth.

My story is Isaac Newton's Story.

Newton said that the laws of mechanics work in any inertial frame of reference. In his classic work "Principia" he outlines his work transferring between frames of reference to show that they are equivalent.

You are rejecting Isaac Newton.

Of course. When you apply Newtons laws, it says that the piston in a moving car has the combined velocity and momentum of its own motion, as well as the added speed and direction of the car.
But did you think that an engineer is designing a piston to cope with the forces of the pistons movement inside the cylinder, or do you think they also add in the additional forces of the car doing 60 mph, turning corners and hitting bumps in the road? Of course they never do.
These added forces are really there, but they are insignificant to the "Physics of the kinematics of moving bodies", because Physics is necessarily only valid in a localized sense. Otherwise we would need to factor in the 67,000 mph that the earth is doing in its orbit around the Sun, AND the 448,000 mph that this solar system is doing in the milky way!, Wow, the forces acting on that Piston are incredible!
So because the effects of Physics are mostly totally localized, we can assign a suitable object as the "stationary" part, and calculate the forces on the piston from that origin. (the engine block)
You think that the Apollo mission was accomplished by just letting the Earth move away from the rocket, and then it waited in space till the moon came over to it?

So why are you later tossing it out in favor of Einsteins Physics, which is incompatible.?

This is exactly the opposite of what Newton said.

Your views of "Physics" are from 1000 years ago.

I am saying that you have a problem. You don't understand Newton... which is why you can't understand Einstein. Einstein's Physics are based on Newton's Physics.

If you ever took Relativity courses in college, you will have to do the math yourself to show that Newton's laws are derivable from Einstein's findings. Newton got a couple of things wrong (most famously his declaration that time is absolute). But within normal experience (i.e. velocities much slower than c and the masses we experience), Newton's laws can be derived.

I have done this myself.