The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[Moronium]

, why is it that you suppose the CMB is a cosmic rest frame?  This is not a conclusion that I am familiar with, but if you can provide convincing evidence, I am willing to change my mind.  It seems to me that while the CMB is a useful reference, there is no reason at all to define the CMB as a universal rest frame.  

 

I am legitimately interested in why this should be the case, and if you know of any reasons why the CMB should be regarded as a universal rest frame.

 

 

Here, give me a minute and I will refer you to (some of) the posts where I have discussed this:

 

See post 19 (and also 27) here:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30976-the-twin-paradox-made-simple/page-2

 

If you're truly interested in the topic, read that whole thread.   Many, like you, came in blustering about how absolutely right SR is and how utterly wrong I was.

 

I responded to all of them, so you can see the "arguments" on both sides.

 

I put "arguments" in scare quotes, because most of the blowhards had none.  They simply endlessly restated the (unproven) premises, and implications, of SR.

 

In other words, they tried to "prove" that SR was correct by presupposing that it was correct.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

OK, a preferred frame theory is not something I am familiar with, as my understanding is that there can be no preferred frame.   The claim that simultaneity is absolute rather than relative contradicts everything I've learned, but if you're willing to explain your point then I won't interrupt.

[Moronium]

I just supplemented my post 184 (above) with another reference.  But again, read this whole thread (and the one I just cited) if you want more information.  I can't type all that crap all over again.  I've also discussed this general issue at some length in the "strange claims" forum.

[Moronium]

I've said this before (probably more than once), but I'll repeat it here.

 

Unlike SR, a PFT does not, in the least, concern itself with the thoughts, beliefs, conjectures, opinions, perceptions, assumptions, or conclusions of OBSERVERS.

 

It deals with matter in motion (physics), not human psychology, as SR does.

 

That said, if you asked a PFT observer, such as the travelling twin in the twin paradox, he would NOT claim that he is at rest. Instead he would concede that he is moving.  He would NOT claim that his earth twin's clocks were slower and lengths were shorter than his.  He would make the opposite claim, i.e., that the earth twin's clocks are faster than his, and his lengths longer.  And, as a result of seeing things as they "really" are, he would, unlike the travelling chump in the twin paradox, make the correct prediction about who was aging less.

 

SR's numerous fallacious arguments designed to show the opposite are all solipsistic in nature.  They attempt to make the "truth" dependent on what an observer "thinks."  Worse yet, SR sets up a dictatorial regime where thought is controlled, and it tells the travelling twin what he MUST think, credible, or not.

 

Taken to its logical conclusion SR simply implies that there is no truth, no standards for assessing objective reality, and that no one can possibly make any coherent claims whatsoever about motion, other than what some guy thinks it is without even having any valid basis for thinking what he thinks.

 

There are reasons why SR does this, i.e., because without it the whole theory crumbles.  Without different observers making mutually exclusive claims, with each insisting that he, and only he is right, there is no SR.

 

In my book that does not provide a sufficient reason to devote myself to a metaphysical ontology which embraces solipsism, all so that I can "accept" the truth of SR.   Instead it provides me with a sufficient reason to reject the premises of SR.

 

In the end SR is forced to concede its inconsistencies in the twin paradox.  It ends up saying that the earth twin "really" ages more and that the space twin was wrong to think otherwise.  Put another way, SR itself treats the earth twin's frame as the preferred frame in that case, all while continuing to claim, as a general matter, that "there are no preferred frames."

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

My idea of a PFT is a physical fitness test, but I will readily admit that I am not a mainstream physicist.

 

Again, I will readily admit ignorance.  How does "lorentzian relativity" differ from "special relativity"?

 

Also, because I don't want to waste your time drawing out questions, why is it that you suppose the CMB is a cosmic rest frame?  This is not a conclusion that I am familiar with, but if you can provide convincing evidence, I am willing to change my mind.  It seems to me that while the CMB is a useful reference, there is no reason at all to define the CMB as a universal rest frame.  

 

I am legitimately interested in why this should be the case, and if you know of any reasons why the CMB should be regarded as a universal rest frame.

In fact the CMBR definitely isn't a universal rest frame.

 

Because the metric itself is expanding, an object at rest w.r.t the CMBR at one point will be moving relative to an object at rest w.r.t. the CMBR somewhere else. 

 

We had a discussion about this on another forum, here, where I learnt this :)  : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/measuring-speed.160692/page-2#post-3514716 

Edited May 21, 2018 by exchemist

[Moronium]

In fact the CMBR definitely isn't a universal rest frame.

 

 

It is called that (perhaps somewhat loosely), but, whatever you call it, it is a preferred frame precisely because, with respect to it, the expansion is isotropic.

 

This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic.  (Prof. George Smoot)

 

 

 

In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame

[Moronium]

A point need not be at absolute rest to serve as a highly reliable preferred frame in a given locality--generally this is the center of gravity of the prevailing gravitational force.

 

Using the solar barycenter, with respect to which everything else in the solar system is moving (even the sun revolves around it), as a preferred frame, Newton calculated the speeds, directions, and precise orbits of all the planets.

 

He said it might well be that the entire solar system was itself moving (turns out that it is), but that those motions were irrelevelant for his purposes because they were shared by everything in the system (and therefore changed nothing as far as they were inter-related amongst themselves).

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Two words that are thrown around in talks about SR with often vague and equivocal intended meanings are "absolute" and "relative."  Guys like A-wal, for example, thinks "relative motion" means "relative to something else."  Assuming we could absolutely identify a truly motionless "aether" and then spoke of the motion of an object "relative to the aether"  A-Wal would say that's "relative motion."  But in fact it would be the epitome of "absolute motion" from the standpoint of physical theory.

 

"Relative" just means "frame-dependent."

 

People often use the word "absolute" in a platonic sense as though it means eternally and immutably true in all contexts.

 

"Absolute" just means "frame-independent" in physics.

 

All non-inertial (accelerating) motion is "absolute motion" in physics.  That just means that all frames will perceive the accelerating object to be changing speed (and/or direction) with time.  It doesn't mean "acceleration with respect to absolute space or the aether" or anything like that.  It doesn't mean the object has an "absolute" speed.

 

Now, for no good reason, SR claims that all inertial motion is "relative."  Why?  Because, it dictates that every object in inertial motion MUST consider itself to be "at absolute rest" (like Lorentz's aether).  That's the only reason.  If any observer (say a passenger on a train) EVER concedes that he is moving, then he has violated the rules of SR.  He is attributing "absolute" motion to himself because he is not declaring HIMSELF to be absolutely motionless.

 

But, let's face it, SR has no business postulating that any particular (let alone every particular) object in the universe is absolutely motionless.  There is no empirical or theoretical basis for asserting that.  Yet SR fancies itself to be superior to LR because it "doesn't posit an aether."  SR posits an aether every time it makes a calculation.  Go figure, eh?

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-8  see the paper cited in post 135 for more details, if desired.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I wonder why nobody ever told the relativists this, eh?

 

Technically, Earth Does Not Orbit Around the Sun

 

The discovery that Earth revolves around the Sun was revolutionary. It fundamentally changed how we viewed the cosmos, as well as ourselves.   But the Earth does not revolve around the Sun

 

"Technically, what is going on is that the Earth, Sun and all the planets are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system," writes Cathy Jordan, a Cornell University Ask anAstronomer contributor. Everything in the solar system orbits around that point.

 

 

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/technically_the_earth_does_not_orbit_the_sun.html

 

It's amazing the revisionists now say that, Galileo, who was striving to prove absolute motion despite the fact that we don't "feel" it when moving at a uniform speed, declared that it is impossible to detect which object is moving when motion is inertial.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I invite you to consider the motion of the moon round the Earth, and the planets round the sun, and the sun round the Milky Way galaxy. Who is to say that any of these is at rest, while the others are in motion around it? You can choose any of them as the origin of a coordinate system, relative to which the motion of the others can be observed and quantitatively measured. There are no grounds for preferring any of these to the others.

 

 

 

Hmm, "no grounds," eh?  Well, let's see here.  It appears we have a choice between:

 

1.  The earth being motionless and the whole universe, being forced, by some magic, to revolve around the earth at speeds greatly exceeding that of light, and generally rejecting all known laws of physics, on the one hand, or

 

2. The Earth being actually and truly in motion, thereby affirming the oft-verified "law of gravitational attraction,"  affirming laws of conservation of mass/energy, momentum, and a general rational order, etc.on the other hand.

 

That's a tough one, sho nuff!  I think Imma go with door number 2, Monty, for some damn reason, God only knows why.  Call it a "hunch," ya know?  Something just kinda tells me my solipsistic homeys done gone wrong on this one.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Hmmm, says here that:

 

Philosophical Controversy Over Absolute and Relative Motion

 

Leibniz, later, articulated a more general “equipollence of hypotheses”: in any system of interacting bodies, any hypothesis that any particular body is at rest is equivalent to any other. Therefore neither Copernicus' nor Ptolemy's view can be true—though one may be judged simpler than the other—because both are merely possible hypothetical interpretations of the same relative motions.

 

 

For Leibniz and many others, this general equivalence was a matter of philosophical principle, founded in the metaphysical conviction that space itself is nothing more than an abstraction from the geometrical relations among bodies.  Yet it was flatly incompatible with physics as Leibniz himself, and the other “mechanists,” actually conceived it. For the basic program of mechanical explanation depended essentially on the concept of a privileged state of motion...

 

Oddly enough, no one in the 17th century, or even before the late 19th century, expressed this equivalence of reference-frames more clearly than Newton himself. Newton explicitly derived it from the laws of motion as Corollary V...

 

Newton, in his controversial Scholium on space, time, and motion,  was arguing that a conception of absolute motion was already implicit in the views of his opponents—that it was implicit in their conception, which he largely shared, of physical cause and effect. The general equivalence of reference-frames was implicitly denied by a physics that understood forces as powers to change the states of motion of bodies.

 

 

 

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-iframes/#pagetopright

 

"Yet it was flatly incompatible with physics as Leibniz himself, and the other “mechanists,” actually conceived it," eh?

 

Looks like there's a long history of preaching (metaphysically) one thing and practicing (physically) another, as SR does. And here I thought this philosophical "insight"  came from Einstein's genius.  Who knew?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

More from the same source:

 

Newton understood the Galilean principle of relativity with a degree of depth and clarity that eluded most of his “relativist” contemporaries...The Galilean relativity principle thus expressed the insight that different states of uniform motion, or different uniformly-moving frames of reference, determine only different points of view on the same physically objective quantities, namely force, mass, and acceleration...Newton thus recognized the powers distinguished by Leibniz as the same thing seen from different points of view.

 

 

Technically, every person on the planet has a "different point of view" with respect to everything empirical.  No two different set of eyes can occupy the same space at the same time.  But a "point of view" cannot alter objective reality itself.  Well, unless maybe you're some kinda solipsist, I mean, eh?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If you're going to claim that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, then you're going to have to say that simultaneity is relative and that the lorentz transformations are reciprocal.

 

But, what if you don't claim that?  Well, then you are free to say that simultaneity is absolute and that the LT go only in one direction (i.e., that the contractions occur in ONLY the moving frame of reference).

 

Yeah, but if you say that, you would be WRONG.  The postulates of SR have been PROVEN!

 

Fraid not:

 

Summarizing these results we may say that the following statement is in perfect agreement with all experimental evidence: A preferred system of reference, the ether system, exists. Clocks are slow when moving with respect to the ether system and measuring rods shrink. As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated.

 

 

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Eather/MANSOURI/MANSOURI1.pdf

 

That quote is not from some "crank" and it is not "false."  That statement is affirmed by both modern and historical theoretical physics.

 

Put another way, LR has been confirmed millions of times.

 

I realize that making note of this fact will lead to my stern condemnation by fanatical SR dogmatists, but, hey, what am I gunna do?  It aint my damn fault.

Edited May 22, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

If you're going to claim that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference, then you're going to have to say that simultaneity is relative and that the lorentz transformations are reciprocal.

 

But, what if you don't claim that?  Well, then you are free to say that simultaneity is absolute and that the LT go only in one direction (i.e., that the contractions occur in ONLY the moving frame of reference).

Then what exactly are you spending so much effort arguing for? Nobody is disputing that SR is only an accurate description if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, it's only right if it's postulates are true. If it's postulates are true then it's the simplest description of relative motion but if it's postulates aren't true then we'd need a different description.

 

If you want to claim that the speed of light isn't the same in all inertial frames then you need to explain why experiments showed that it is. Even if the speed of light isn't constant, there would still be absolutely no need for a preferred frame. A variable speed of light could depend entirely on the relative velocity of the emitter.

 

If the speed of light is defined by a preferred frame then if an object were moving 1km per hour under the speed of light relative to that preferred frame the light emitted by them would by moving away from them at almost twice the speed of light in one direction and at 1km per hour in the opposite direction, doesn't seem very plausible that there's this magical frame that light cares about.

[Vmedvil]

There is nothing "Metaphysical" about Special Relativity it is a law of nature nothing more or less basically time rate is not constant in the universe is the only big thing about it along with space lengths are not constant, just a physical event nothing more or less.

[Moronium]

 

 

If you want to claim that the speed of light isn't the same in all inertial frames then you need to explain why experiments showed that it is.

 

  No experiment has ever shown that c IS the same in all inertial frames, A-Wal.  None.  Ever

 

You STILL can't make a distinction between a measurement and a distance, eh?  Here, let me remind you again for the 1001st time:

 

 

You admitted, in the "two poles in a field" hypothetical, that the poles do not "really" move just because someone flying at a high rate of speed "measures" them to be closer together than they are.

 

Yet you want to continue to say that there are two different distances, just because two differing measurements have been made.  But, in fact, there is only ONE (unchanging) distance, not two.  There are two different measurements of that self-same distance, sure.  But still only one distance.  Two measurements, one distance.  NOT two distances.  You can't seem to understand that an incorrect measurement does NOT change the distance.  But because there is only one distance, at least one of the two measurements MUST be wrong (if they are not the same).

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31062-the-relative-simultaneity-of-special-relativity-is-only-plausible-to-solipsists/page-8 (post 125)

 

 Nobody is disputing that SR is only an accurate description if the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, it's only right if it's postulates are true.

 

 

 

 

 

I 'll grant you that your claims have been just as hollow as this tautology, but don't try to pretend that's "all" you've been saying,  A-Wal.

 

You have consistently and sophistically treated your taut as a proof.  In essence your claim has been:  "Because we know that SR is indubitably true, we therefore know that SR is indubitably true."

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is nothing "Metaphysical" about Special Relativity it is a law of nature nothing more or less basically time rate is not constant in the universe is the only big thing about it along with space lengths are not constant, just a physical event nothing more or less.

 

 

You sound like you are treating the Lorentz transforms as though they were "special relativity," eh?  They aint the same things.