What The Observer Saw

[A-wal]

Try to understand this, A-wal:  Although SR glibly asserts, as a philosophical matter, that all inertial frames are equally valid, the theory DENYS this in practice.

 

In SR, an observer is not free to treat the "other guy" as the one moving  That is strictly prohibited,  You cannot just arbitrarily chose an inertial frame to use for calculation purposes in SR.  You MUST (absolutely mandatory, no exceptions) treat the (inertial) frame you are is as a PREFERRED frame which is "at rest."

Utterly false. Any inertial frame can be thought of as at rest. Whenever there's inertial motion there's no distinction between which objects are in motion and which are at rest. There is no preferred inertial frame.

 

I understand the claims of SR perfectly.  Don't take my rejections of the absurd implications of the theory as a "lack of comprehension."

 

By "understand," I actually mean understand, which is different from merely being able to parrot, from memory, the dictates I have been told to accept without any satisfactory rational explanation.

Yea you say that but then you talk utter nonsense and claim that there are logical contradictions so you clearly don't understand it because if you did you'd see that there are none in sr. You haven't given a single example of how sr is logically inconsistent, all you've done is say that it doesn't make sense to you. You clearly aren't equipped to judge the validity of a model that you're not even capable of grasping yet you think your lack of understand is somehow evidence of a problem with the model.

 

As much as you smugly and arrogantly pretend to superior understanding, I'm afraid you display none of it.  You are, however, a good tool, who will zealously and faithfully recite the "talking points" of SR advocates reflexively and automatically.  But that's not "understanding," I'm araid.

Yes, I'm a prime example of a parrot of memorised mainstream science dogma I am.

 

Smug? Hmm, yea okay fair enough.

Edited April 16, 2018 by A-wal

[Moronium]

A-wal said:

 

Utterly false. Any inertial frame can be thought of as at rest.

 

No, you are the one who is utterly wrong, and, in fact, you are now contradicting your prior claims that every observer must consider his inertial frame to be at rest.

 

SR does NOT allow an observer who is using SR to make calculations to make any assumptions OTHER THAN that HE is at rest and that anything else in the universe which is moving with respect to him, is "moving."

 

This is why, for example, you insist that astronauts flying toward the moon "will see" themselves as "stationary."  No, they won't "see" any such thing.  They will presume it, if at all, only by capitulating to the mandatory dictates of SR.

 

Real life astronauts who are familiar with SR wouldn't make any such assumptions, because (if for no other good reason) they would have learned the lesson taught to the travelling twin in the twin paradox.  That poor chump assumed he was motionless (as required) and, as a consequence, he insisted that his twin on earth was the one who was aging slower.

 

It was only when he got back that he learned how utterly mistaken he was.  He was younger, and his twin was older.  Pursuant to the premises of SR, that proves that HE had the moving clock and that he was not motionless as he had been taught by SR to erroneously believe.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The accepted resolution to the twin paradox simply adopts the earth's frame of reference as the preferred (as between the two twins) inertial frame of reference.

 

The earth twin assumes that he is motionless, and calculates the time dilation experienced by his travelling twin accordingly.  As it turns out, his calculations are 100% correct, and his twin's calculations (which are premised on the incorrect supposition that HE is "at rest") are 100% wrong.

 

Many people who discuss this issue don't even know what the perceived "paradox" is.  Many claim the "paradox" consists of the fact that clocks on moving objects tick at a slower rate than stationary ones.  That is not a paradox at all, although the reasons for it might be mystifying.  

 

The true paradox, which has never been resolved (by SR, anyway), lies in the inconsistencies generated by SR itself.  If, as SR claims, all inertial frames are "equally valid," then why is the earth's frame preferred in this case?  That inconsistency is what creates the paradox.

 

Put another way, how is it possible to get an absolute answer from a theory which posits that all motion is strictly relative?  An absolute answer should be impossible to arrive at if the premises are correct.  

 

The term "paradox" has been defined and explained as follows:

 

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

 

 

 

another definition:

 

a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

 

 

The way to resolve a paradox is NOT to accept mutually exclusive claims as both being true. That is what creates the paradox, not what resolves it. The solution is to determine what aspect of a claim is, despite being "apparently sound," actually unsound, and then reject, rather than accept, that aspect.

 

The twin paradox is easily resolved by rejecting the self-contradictory claim that "all inertial frames of reference are equally valid."  Once that's done, all of the numerous "paradoxes" generated by SR disappear.

 

An apologist for SR is prone to say that the stay at home twin and the travelling twin are "both correct" in their calculations.  But this is logically impossible, and so, not surprisingly, the accepted resolution denies that they are "both correct."  The resolution says that only one (the earth twin) is correct in his calculations and that the other (the travelling twin) is incorrect in his calculations. 

 

So then, SR "resolves" the paradox it creates in the only way it can--it denies the soundness of its own premises. In order to resolve the paradox, it must abandon the claim that all inertial frames are equally valid and that therefore absolute motion cannot be detected.

 

SR apologists are also prone to point out that the situations of the two twins are "not symmetrical."  This is absolutely true, of course, but does nothing to answer the question posed.  Of course they are not symmetrical--one is moving (relative to the other) and one is not.  What the SR apologist does not, and cannot, explain or reconcile, is the concomitant claim that absolute motion cannot be detected.

 

Feynman said that the answer to the twin paradox is simple:  The one which has accelerated is the one who experiences time dilation, he says.  He's undeniably correct, because it is the one who has accelerated that is moving (relative to the one who has not).  And in SR (and every other theory which adopts the LT, for that matter) it is the moving clock which slows down.  Acceleration is universally admitted (even by SR) to be absolute motion, not relative motion.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

To elaborate somewhat, the proposition that "all inertial frames are equally valid" is, in certain respects, true, (the laws of physics are the same, for example).  But one of the conclusions drawn from this "equality" by SR is unwarranted and fallacious.

 

The unwarranted conclusion is this:  Therefore you can never say which of two objects is moving relative to the other.  That by no means follows.  There are a great number of ways to determine which (of two) clocks is moving relative to the other.  SR itself (the LT, actually) provides the means to determine that, because it holds that the "moving" clock will run slow.   

 

Empirical experiments, such the one performed by Hafele and Keating, show that clocks do tick at different rates due to varying speeds.  So, when the experiment is complete, you only need see which clock(s) have slowed down.  Those are the ones that were "moving."

 

Needless to say, notwithstanding the incoherent claims of SR to the contrary, the H-K experiments empirically prove that each of two clocks do NOT record elapsed time which is less than is recorded by the other.  Time dilation is simply not "reciprocal," as SR claims.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Please someone show me how an imaginary, temporary, unnecessary and arbitrarily chosen "origin and direction" can possibly have any affect on physics? The Frame of reference is not a "thing", and the statement that says that inertial motion will simulate the condition where you are not in motion is not a complex and mind bending proposition.

 

The truth is there are no frames of reference inertial or otherwise in the whole universe. They are all man made geometrical constructs uses as an aid to figure out car crashes, billiards and the next full moon. Knowing how fast a rocket is moving (A) compared to Earth, and {B} compared to the Asteroid it is trying to land on is an example of the use of frames. I note that these are not inertial frames.

 

"Inertial" frames are in most cases, useless as there is nothing in nature that can be considered as "inertial". (light being the exception.)

 

Everything else is experiencing acceleration, including those GPS satellites, the moon, earth, airplanes, cars with GPS, the Solar System, the Milky Way.....there is no inertial.

 

So explain to me again how SR works in the real world? When the guy on the station is NOT in an inertial reference frame, and the guy on the train is NOT in an inertial reference frame. Add to that the fact that both guys, the Earth and the rest of the universe is just one big collection of matter, ALL in the ONE big "frame".

 

Relativists need to first establish that an imaginary origin and direction can have any effect in the slightest on anything in the real world.

This has never been done, and seems to me to be the catch 22 in SR.

Edited October 14, 2018 by marcospolo

[exchemist]

Please someone show me how an imaginary, temporary, unnecessary and arbitrarily chosen "origin and direction" can possibly have any affect on physics? The Frame of reference is not a "thing", and the statement that says that inertial motion will simulate the condition where you are not in motion is not a complex and mind bending proposition.

 

The truth is there are no frames of reference inertial or otherwise in the whole universe. They are all man made geometrical constructs uses as an aid to figure out car crashes, billiards and the next full moon. Knowing how fast a rocket is moving (A) compared to Earth, and {B} compared to the Asteroid it is trying to land on is an example of the use of frames. I note that these are not inertial frames.

 

"Inertial" frames are in most cases, useless as there is nothing in nature that can be considered as "inertial". (light being the exception.)

 

Everything else is experiencing acceleration, including those GPS satellites, the moon, earth, airplanes, cars with GPS, the Solar System, the Milky Way.....there is no inertial.

 

So explain to me again how SR works in the real world? When the guy on the station is NOT in an inertial reference frame, and the guy on the train is NOT in an inertial reference frame. Add to that the fact that both guys, the Earth and the rest of the universe is just one big collection of matter, ALL in the ONE big "frame".

 

Relativists need to first establish that an imaginary origin and direction can have any effect in the slightest on anything in the real world.

This has never been done, and seems to me to be the catch 22 in SR.

"Effect". "

 

"Affect" is a verb".  

 

We see a practical demonstration of SR in the lifetime of muons, for a start: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

[marcospolo]

"Effect". "

 

"Affect" is a verb".  

 

We see a practical demonstration of SR in the lifetime of muons, for a start: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html

 Yes, terrific, well thanks for the lesson in grammar.  I came here for that.

But how does that address any of the problems of SR that I mentioned?

 

And what Earthly good is the Muons information to the discussion?

 

Experiments can't "prove" anything is correct, you know that.

And the import of that particular experiment relies on a bunch of assumptions one must subscribe to, prior to interpreting the results. SR is not the only explanation, nor is even the best explanation.  Even the explanation "we don't know whats happening" is a more rational one than" time, space and mass must be shrinking, but not for everyone!"

 

Maybe you can discuss the validity of Frames of Reference as used in the hypothesis of SR and the abuse of them in order to make nonsense seem like physics?

[exchemist]

 Yes, terrific, well thanks for the lesson in grammar.  I came here for that.

But how does that address any of the problems of SR that I mentioned?

 

And what Earthly good is the Muons information to the discussion?

 

Experiments can't "prove" anything is correct, you know that.

And the import of that particular experiment relies on a bunch of assumptions one must subscribe to, prior to interpreting the results. SR is not the only explanation, nor is even the best explanation.  Even the explanation "we don't know whats happening" is a more rational one than" time, space and mass must be shrinking, but not for everyone!"

 

Maybe you can discuss the validity of Frames of Reference as used in the hypothesis of SR and the abuse of them in order to make nonsense seem like physics?

My pleasure.

 

You are of course right that experiments can't prove anything, since no theory of science can be proved true. But if you want to use that as a reason for rejecting experimental evidence, then you are rejecting all evidence for all theories, leaving nothing to discuss.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

My pleasure.

 

You are of course right that experiments can't prove anything, since no theory of science can be proved true. But if you want to use that as a reason for rejecting experimental evidence, then you are rejecting all evidence for all theories, leaving nothing to discuss.  

Not quite, I am happy to examine and try to interpret the reason why certain evidence seems to lean one way or the other, but before I bother with observational evidence, I like to have a decent hypothesis first.  Thats where I find Einsteins hypothesis on Special relativity and General Relativity fall over, at the hypothesis stage, so with no rational sensible story to tell, I fail to see what is remaining to test.  Rationality is not based on opinion, and if something is nonsensical, its that way regardless of one's opinion.

 

Would you go out to search the sky looking for invisible fairies that I claim must exist as they make the moon cross the sky every night?  Not likely, as the hypothesis is nonsensical.  Well its the same with Relativity.

[exchemist]

Not quite, I am happy to examine and try to interpret the reason why certain evidence seems to lean one way or the other, but before I bother with observational evidence, I like to have a decent hypothesis first.  Thats where I find Einsteins hypothesis on Special relativity and General Relativity fall over, at the hypothesis stage, so with no rational sensible story to tell, I fail to see what is remaining to test.  Rationality is not based on opinion, and if something is nonsensical, its that way regardless of one's opinion.

 

Would you go out to search the sky looking for invisible fairies that I claim must exist as they make the moon cross the sky every night?  Not likely, as the hypothesis is nonsensical.  Well its the same with Relativity.

If you think SR is wrong, you need to come forward with:

 

a ) an alternative explanation for the observed atmospheric muon lifetimes I directed you to, and also,

 

b ) an alternative explanation for the observed mass defect in atomic nuclei and nuclear reactions, which derive from E=mc², another result from SR. 

 

Don't forget that science is about making predictive models to account for observed features of nature. So, if you want to chuck away relativity, you need to offer something that works as least as well in exchange.  

 

Just arguing about the assumptions relativity makes isn't good enough when it demonstrably works. 

Edited October 15, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

If you think SR is wrong, you need to come forward with:

 

a ) an alternative explanation for the observed atmospheric muon lifetimes I directed you to, and also,

 

b ) an alternative explanation for the observed mass defect in atomic nuclei and nuclear reactions, which derive from E=mc², another result from SR. 

 

Don't forget that science is about making predictive models to account for observed features of nature. So, if you want to chuck away relativity, you need to offer something that works as least as well in exchange.  

 

Just arguing about the assumptions relativity makes isn't good enough when it demonstrably works. 

This is not logical thinking.

Why on earth would I need to offer my own theory on anything?  That is not scientific.    Person A has a hypothesis about why cats can fly. Person b points out that the hypothesis is stupid.   But person A says "you need an alternative explanation before you can say my hypothesis is wrong, until then I must be considered to be the best hypothesis we have!"

 

Go see my SR paradox and get back to me when you figure it out.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

[exchemist]

This is not logical thinking.

Why on earth would I need to offer my own theory on anything?  That is not scientific.    Person A has a hypothesis about why cats can fly. Person b points out that the hypothesis is stupid.   But person A says "you need an alternative explanation before you can say my hypothesis is wrong, until then I must be considered to be the best hypothesis we have!"

 

Go see my SR paradox and get back to me when you figure it out.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

Not so. Science makes models that predict physical behaviour. Relativity makes correct predictions, as has been verified repeatedly, in a wide range of fields.  

 

No scientist is interested in arguments about "person A" or "person B" or flying cats, unless you can show that either relativity makes wrong predictions or that your new theory makes the same correct predictions more economically or simply. 

 

In science, if it works, we use it. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

 

Not so. Science makes models that predict physical behaviour. Relativity makes correct predictions, as has been verified repeatedly, in a wide range of fields.  

 

No scientist is interested in arguments about "person A" or "person B" or flying cats, unless you can show that either relativity makes wrong predictions or that your new theory makes the same correct predictions more economically or simply. 

 

In science, if it works, we use it. 

 

 

Its accepted knowledge that it is entirely possible to have a wrong concept, with incorrect assumptions but still have results that seem to reasonably fit the observations.

 

So if that is your only reason for hanging on to a clearly faulty model, then you stand no chance of ever finding a better one to replace it. You are only looking for better models that just "improve" on it, when what is required for breakthroughs is a brand new perspective.

 

There is nothing useful in SR that needs to be clung to desperately. Its actually preventing the development of real physics.

[exchemist]

   

 

Its accepted knowledge that it is entirely possible to have a wrong concept, with incorrect assumptions but still have results that seem to reasonably fit the observations.

 

So if that is your only reason for hanging on to a clearly faulty model, then you stand no chance of ever finding a better one to replace it. You are only looking for better models that just "improve" on it, when what is required for breakthroughs is a brand new perspective.

 

There is nothing useful in SR that needs to be clung to desperately. Its actually preventing the development of real physics.

The "only" reason for hanging onto SR is that it makes correct predictions and nothing it has predicted has been found to be in error. Only an idiot would throw out a theory that works so triumphantly well without anything to replace it.

 

In fact, science often finds that theories shown to be wrong, incomplete or of doubtful physicality, are still so useful that they continue to be used, albeit with caveats around the scope of application. This applies to Newtonian mechanics and gravitation for instance, but also to such things as the octet rule in chemistry and the "arrow-pushing" method of analysing organic chemistry reaction mechanisms. So even if we were uncomfortable with SR (as some people are with QM for instance), we would not throw it out while it works.  

 

As I say, anti-relativity cranks are two a penny. So nobody is going to think you are any better than the rest until you can at least account for the things SR accounts for. Can you do that? If not I suggest that is a piece of further work you need to do, before you demand that people watch videos or visit unknown websites.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

 

The "only" reason for hanging onto SR is that it makes correct predictions and nothing it has predicted has been found to be in error. Only an idiot would throw out a theory that works so triumphantly well without anything to replace it.

 

In fact, science often finds that theories shown to be wrong, incomplete or of doubtful physicality, are still so useful that they continue to be used, albeit with caveats around the scope of application. This applies to Newtonian mechanics and gravitation for instance, but also to such things as the octet rule in chemistry and the "arrow-pushing" method of analysing organic chemistry reaction mechanisms. So even if we were uncomfortable with SR (as some people are with QM for instance), we would not throw it out while it works.  

 

As I say, anti-relativity cranks are two a penny. So nobody is going to think you are any better than the rest until you can at least account for the things SR accounts for. Can you do that? If not I suggest that is a piece of further work you need to do, before you demand that people watch videos or visit unknown websites.  

 

 

What you mean is that you watched my videos, but have no answer, so you are dodging and ducking.

 

There is no useful "prediction" of SR that works any better than other explanations. I cant see whats so great about it. What magic science can you only do with SR that cant be done without it?

If you did not watch the information you have no idea what i'm on about. You remain ignorant about that. And you put the cart before the horse with your attitude.

[exchemist]

   

 

What you mean is that you watched my videos, but have no answer, so you are dodging and ducking.

 

 

If you did not watch the information you have no idea what i'm on about. 

So you have no idea whether I've watched your videos or not, apparently. 

[marcospolo]

So you have no idea whether I've watched your videos or not, apparently. 

Trigger Warning!  Information ahead, may  not fit your religious views.