The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[Moronium]

Here's an excerpt from an authoritative source that you might want to consider, Six.  I suggest this despite now knowing that, like A-wal, it is highly unlikely that you will "consider" anything that doesn't conform to your existing preconceptions (misconceptions):

 

When Einstein wanted to extend the principle of relativity to deal with all  forms of motion, he immediately ran into a problem. Gravity bends lightbeams, and a lightbeam that seems straight and constant for an inertial observer can appear to mark out a variable-speed curved path for an accelerating observer. So special relativity's concept of lightspeed constancy didn't work in a more ambitious theory that also had to be able to deal with accelerations and gravitational effects...

 

Under general relativity, the user can respond to these variations by deciding to define distances and times locally. It's no longer necessary for us to apply the earlier SR idea that lightspeed has to be globally constant across the region, it turns out that Nature is happy to violate that rule, as long as lightspeed is still locally constant.... If it seems to have a different speed somewhere else, well, that's someone else's problem.

 

 

 

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/c_speedoflight.html

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Another excerpt of interest from that same site:

 

It could now be argued that since we had learnt that only local c-constancy was necessary (and that SR's "law" of the propagation of light wasn't a law after all), perhaps the geometrical basis of the earlier and more restricted"special" theory wasn't valid. Einstein preempted this argument by designing his general theory to reduce to the special theory over small regions of spacetime. He then argued that the special theory wasn't invalidated by general relativity, but instead lived on within it as a limiting case....Towards the end of his life, Einstein wrote that he no longer considered the decision to construct general relativity as a two-stage model, with "curvature" arguments built on top of a flat-spacetime "SR" foundation, as justifiable. It had been the best that could be achieved at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight he didn't deem it to be defensible.

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

One might ask just what, exactly, is meant by "local" in this SR vs GR analysis, and, for that matter, just what is meant by "inertial?"

 

This academic paper from the Harvard/NASA website addresses those issues:  http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1964ApNr....9..161K&classic=YES

 

Because of the formatting, I can't copy and paste from it.  But anyone who looks will see that it says:

 

1.  In GR only a freely-falling object is considered to be "inertial."  This is a radical departure from the way "inertial" is defined in the context of special relativity theory (which was simply Newton's definition).

 

2.  The  "local" space within which it is said that SR is supposedly a "limiting case" of GR is only valid in an "infinitesimal space time region," i.e. one that is so small as to be immeasurable, like a "point" in euclidean geometry--which is non-existent as a practical matter.

 

In short, this is just an idealized conception which does not exist as a practical matter.

 

One should keep in mind the last two sentences of the excerpt quoted in my last post, where it is noted that Einstein himself later considered this "construction" to be unjustifiable and indefensible.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I will take a minute to focus on this portion of the scholarly paper previously quoted:

 

So special relativity's concept of lightspeed constancy didn't work in a more ambitious theory that also had to be able to deal with accelerations and gravitational effects...

 

 

Trying to apply a constant light speed to an accelerating frame (which is at least theoretically equivalent to a gravitational field in GR), wouldn't work before the advent of SR, and it didn't work after the advent of SR, either, which is precisely why the S in SR stands for "special."

 

One seeking to understand why this is so should ponder it.  For my purposes it will suffice to once again note that a theory incorporating absolute simultaneity makes perfectly accurate predictions in ALL frames of reference, both inertial and non-inertial (accelerating).  It is not "special," i.e, not strictly limited in theoretical application. Such a theory does not, of course, attempt to maintain the fiction that the speed of light "really is" constant in every frame.  It would give inaccurate predictions if it did that (as SR does).  However, such a theory does acknowledge that the speed of light is always "measured to be" (as opposed to "really is") constant in inertial (as defined by Newton) frames of reference.

 

As has been pointed out in other posts, SR attempts to have it both ways when it comes to time dilation and length contraction as such affect the speed of light.  However, it is logically impossible to have it both ways.  SR borrows the LT from theories incorporating absolute simultaneity because it has to in order to get any semblance of a correct prediction.  Fair enough, but then it also claims that the speed of light "really is" c, rather than just "measured to be" c.  If the speed "really is" c, and is also "measured to be" c, then SR would have to claim that the changes predicted by the LT didn't exist.  It would have to say that here is NO time dilation and/or length contraction.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

You can include me out on this proposition.  When I'm on a train I never ask the conductor if Chicago stops here.  I acknowlege that I am moving toward Chicago, and that Chicago is not coming to me while I remain motionless.  I would go so far as to assert that anyone who actually believes otherwise is mentally unbalanced.

 

Face it, no reasonable person does that.  I agree, however, that pursuant to the protocols of SR, they are REQUIRED to maintain such absurd claims in SR.  This does not make it true, it just makes the premises of SR highly suspect.

Or the passenger is at rest while the train is in motion carrying him toward Chicago?  Perhaps who/what is in motion simply depends on what topic you want to stress.  I.e.:  The planet is in motion while it carries all its "resting" passengers around the sun. 

[Moronium]

What's an assertion? The speed of light has been measured in moving frames, do you think we haven't done this?

 Your claim was, in part:

 

You say we are talking about special relativity here, well I am sorry, but the issue of inertial reference frames vanish in general relativity and is most pertinent to this discussion.

 

The speed of light is very much constant no matter what the frame, this has been experimented and varified as well.

 

 

 

Your claim was not that it has been "measured," but that it is "constant no matter what the frame."   This is false.  Period.  Whether it's SR or GR.  Read the excerpts I cited for you, why doncha?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

  The planet is in motion while it carries all its "resting" passengers around the sun. 

 

 

Indeed, as modern physicists will attest.  This motion can be detected, the claims of SR notwithstanding.  It is absolute motion, not "relative motion."  The Sun is NOT orbiting the earth.  The orbit of the earth can, for that matter, be plotted without any reference to the sun whatsover by triangulation with other objects (stars) as it moves through it's orbit.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Indeed, as modern physicists will attest.  This motion can be detected, the claims of SR notwithstanding.  It is absolute motion, not "relative motion."  The Sun is NOT orbiting the earth.  The orbit of the earth can, for that matter, be plotted without any reference to the sun whatsover by triangulation with other objects (stars) as it moves through it's orbit.

I was relating my post to the claim that a passenger on a train is in motion.  My point was that a passenger being carried somewhere is at rest.  It is the carrier which is in motion.  My humble opinion anyway.  Or, is it my pompous opinion?  Whichever, it is my opinion.  We are all entitled.

[Moronium]

I was relating my post to the claim that a passenger on a train is in motion.  My point was that a passenger being carried somewhere is at rest.  It is the carrier which is in motion.  My humble opinion anyway.  Or, is it my pompous opinion?  Whichever, it is my opinion.  We are all entitled.

 

 

I agree with you.  He is "at rest" in a relative sense (relative to his own frame of reference), but he, and his entire frame of reference, is also "moving" with respect to other objects (Chicago, the Sun, etc.)

 

SR prohibits anyone from acknowledging the second part of that.  It requires that every observer claim that he is ABSOLUTELY at complete and total rest.  Anything else in the universe which is moving with respect to him is a ("the") moving object, never him.  He is not moving, Chicago is, for example.  He is not moving "down the line" on the railroad tracks, he (and the train he is on) is absolutely motionless and it is only the tracks that are moving under him (and his train).

 

If you don't agree with that, then welcome to the club of normal people who are not solipsists.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

I agree with you.  He is "at rest" in a relative sense (relative to his own frame of reference), but he, and his entire frame of reference, is also "moving" with respect to other objects (Chicago, the Sun, etc.)

 

SR prohibits anyone from acknowledging the second part of that.  It requires that every observer claim that he is ABSOLUTELY at complete and total rest.  Anything else in the universe which is moving with respect to him is a ("the") moving object, never him.  He is not moving, Chicago is, for example.

Hmmm.  Now there is a thought.   Seems everything is relative.  This is about as far as my brain goes with relativity but it at least has something concrete to offer to my confusion.

 

I have a book on special relativity written by Einstein in 1915.  He wrote it "especially for (those who are interested in the theory of relativity) but are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.  His idea was to explain the theory of relativity without using math.   He got  almost to the end but finally broke down and inserted a few equations.  Even that would have been all right if he had translated those.  But there you go. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by hazelm

[Moronium]

Hmmm.  Now there is a thought.   Seems everything is relative.  This is about as far as my brain goes with relativity but it at least has something concrete to offer to my confusion.

 

I have a book on special relativity written by Einstein in 1915.  He wrote it "especially for (those who are interested in the theory of relativity) but are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.  His idea was to explain the theory of relativity without using math.   He got  almost to the end but finally broke down and inserted a few equations.  Even that would have been all right if he had translated those.  But there you go. 

 

Hazel, the word "relative" is often used in ambiguous and equivocal, and therefore confusing, ways.  The word "relative" might mean one thing in one context, and something else entirely in another.  It is important to understand in what sense you, and others, are using it in.  Often it is used inappropriately, and unwarranted inferences are therefore drawn from that misuse.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Hazel, the word "relative" is often used in ambiguous and equivocal, and therefore confusing, ways.  The word "relative" might mean one thing in one context, and something else entirely in another.  It is important to understand in what sense you, and others, are using it in.  Often it is used inappropriately, and unwarranted inferences are therefore drawn from that misuse.

True of the whole American language.  :-)

[Moronium]

No my claim is that these things are actually experimentally varified. You keep trying to side-track with the hog wash - you said these things cannot be true and I have clearly remarked the evidence is against you.

 

 

I honestly can't comprehend even what you think you are saying here, Six, sorry.  Apparently we read and speak entirely difference languages.

 

What are "these things?"  You have provided absolutely NO evidence of any claim you've made--just rank, unadorned and unsupported, assertions, that's all.

 

Why don't you try reading and understanding the authoritative explications I have provided for you?

 

For that matter, why don't you try reading and understanding my posts before you respond to them?

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Hazel, the word "relative" is often used in ambiguous and equivocal, and therefore confusing, ways.  The word "relative" might mean one thing in one context, and something else entirely in another.  It is important to understand in what sense you, and others, are using it in.  Often it is used inappropriately, and unwarranted inferences are therefore drawn from that misuse.

 

 

Here's a little elaboration on the point I'm trying to make.

 

The term "motion" is, at least tacitly, inherently relational.  Like the word "taller," for example.  It makes no real sense to say something is "taller," without more.  The next question will always be "taller than what?"

 

The same applies if you say something is "moving."  The obvious next question is "moving in relation to (relative to) what?  The beer can on my desk?  The Milky Way?  The sun?  The earth?  What?"

 

In that sense, all motion can be said to be "relative," because it can only have some concrete meaning if you specify what the object which is alleged to be moving is moving "relative to."

 

Some people will then take this obvious truism (i.e. all movement is "relative to" something else) and then claim that "all motion is relative," when they are using the word "relative" in an entirely different sense when they say it.  Some use it to essentially claim that, because all motion is "relative," motion cannot be detected, for example, which is an obviously fallacious conclusion, given the premise.

 

This is the kind of ambiguous, equivocal usage that the Pitt philosopher which you quoted in the other trread was resorting to.  He's really not saying a single substantive thing about "simultaneity," per se, although it's obvious that he thinks he is.

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[hazelm]

Here's a little elaboration on the point I'm trying to make.

 

The term "motion" is, at least tacitly, inherently relational.  Like the word "taller," for example.  It makes no real sense to say something is "taller," without more.  The next question will always be "taller than what?"

 

The same applies if you say something is "moving."  The obvious next question is "moving in relation to (relative to) what?  The beer can on my desk?  The Milky Way?  The sun?  The earth?  What?"

 

In that sense, all motion can be said to be "relative," because it can only have some concrete meaning if you specify what the object which is alleged to be moving is moving "relative to."

 

Some people will then take this obvious truism (i.e. all movement is "relative to" something else) and then claim that "all motion is relative," when they are using the word "relative" in an entirely different sense when they say it.  Some use it to essentially claim that, because all motion is "relative," motion cannot be detected, for example, which is an obviously fallacious conclusion, given the premise.

 

This is the kind of ambiguous, equivocal usage that the Pitt philosopher which you quoted in the other trread was resorting to.  He's really not saying a single substantive thing about "simultaneity," per se, although it's obvious that he thinks he is.

Thanks.  Don't run off with that Milky Way!

[Moronium]

Well, you are saying things like the speed of light is not constant in every frame of reference and as I have told you, these things have been experimented on and found to be true, regardless of your defiance to believe in the experimental varification backing the claims of relativity.

Yes, you have "told me" that, and here you "tell me" yet again.  But you are wrong.  I have cited authorities who expressly say otherwise.  Rather than just continuing to repeat your error, why don't you cite me to at least one reputable physicist who claims  that the speed of light is "constant in every reference frame?"

 

1.  In the context of SR, this is only misleadingly true and even then it only applies in inertial frames, not EVERY frame as you assert.

 

2.  But you denied that SR is even applicable, and said that GR was the only relevant theory.  This too is wrong.  GR is NOT, as I have noted before, a theory of relative motion to begin with (it is a theory of gravity).  But, even assuming that GR is the relevant theory, Einstein and every physicist since that time have expressly said that the speed of light is not constant in all frames within the context of GR.  You don't even have to do any research to find that out, because I already quoted citations to that known fact for your convenience, which you apparently can't read, or can't understand.

 

Your claims are simply wrong.  You are mistaken if you continue to believe otherwise in the face of the citations I have given you. You re-asserting your erroneous claims ad nauseum does not change that, sorry.  

Edited April 24, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In a thread  which she immediately locked after firing off some "parting shots" at me, Buffy said:

 

Are there "inconsistencies" from what is "expected" in tests that *interpret* SR? You betcha. Are we learning more and coming up with more refined theories like "frame-dragging" to explain what we see? Of course.

 

Do such refinements constitute "abandon(ing) it as a model?" Most assuredly not.

 

And that's your problem. 

 

Now, I'm buried in getting a new release out the door and don't have time to play with you

 

Given the article she is referring to, and which we had been addressing in that thread, the correct answer would have been "most assuredly SO."

 

To say otherwise is merely to display a lack of understanding of the most basic and fundamental premises of SR.

 

As an analogy, if the Catholic Church suddenly renounced all of it's previously espoused positions about God, etc., and adopted devil worship as it's new creed, it would be absurd to argue that they had merely "refined their theology" and did not change it in a radical and fundamental way.

 

It is rather ironic that someone this lacking in basic understanding heavily "sighs" and laments that she doesn't have the time to "educate" others.

 

Perhaps her efforts would be better directed to educating herself, know what I'm sayin?

 

She accused me of being, and issued a stern warning against my continuing to be, an "annoyance" because I believe she is incorrect.  My hopes for reasonable discourse in this forum have been extremely disappointed, I'm afraid.    Not just because of Buffy, but because of the so-called "responses" (which have been routinely non-responsive to the points I bring up) which I have received from most posters.  Ad homs, non-sequiturs, (incorrectly stated) appeals to authority, and similar fallacious "reasoning" seems to rule the field here.  I guess one could consider it a redeeming quality that these responses at least seemed to be accompanied by intense emotions.

 

After seeing AnnsiH calmly, thoughtfully and intelligently discuss various theoretical topics, I had come to the mistaken impression that this was a rational forum which was open to legitimate discussion.  I guess I should have known better.  Apparently AnnsiH ceased coming to this forum, which is unfortunate.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium