The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[Moronium]

Now that really gets on my back. You keep that attitude up, I doubt you will last long. If you want a legitimate discussion you have to be willing to accept experimental facts - you refuse to accept the experimental backup of relativity.

 

 

Six, you simply refuse to accept the fact that you are demonstrably wrong in your claims about "experimental backup" and various other claims.   Try responding to the substance of what I've previously posted for once, why doncha?  

 

If your suggestion that my failure to readily and dutifully accept, agree with, and ratify the outright error and sophistry of forum members in order to gain their "good graces" means I won't last long, then you are correct.  If that's the criterion for participation, as Buffy herself has suggested it is,  then, indeed, I won't last long.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Now that really gets on my back. You keep that attitude up, I doubt you will last long. If you want a legitimate discussion you have to be willing to accept experimental facts - you refuse to accept the experimental backup of relativity.

Keep it up, Reiku, you've nearly got rid of him!

 

Respect! :)

[Moronium]

Keep it up, Reiku, you've nearly got rid of him!

 

Respect! :)

 

Heh, Chem, your precious feelings have been hurt too because you didn't the the complete obsequiousness from me which you crave from others?

 

Time for you to get the mob together, light some torches, sharpen your pitchforks, and get to work, eh?  The monster must be disposed of.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As most of you probably know, in ancient times Socrates was convicted of "heresy" by a mob of his peers.  The standard punishment for this "crime" was death.

 

However, traditionally, the convict was given an opportunity to propose his own punishment, and the suggestion that he be permanently banished from the community was generally accepted as an alternative.

 

So, when it came time for him to speak, Socrates proposed that his "punishment" should be what amounted to an award.  He suggested that he be given housing at City expense and allowed to roam freely among the populace, because, he said, he was providing a public service which was beneficial to the State.

 

Angered, the mob sentenced him to death.

 

What a chump that Socrates was, eh?  He could have just walked away.

[sluggo]

Moronium #3

Wrong, they can absolutely "be considered to be simultaneous" by the train observer.  All he has to do is to acknowledge that he is moving.  He won't "perceive" them, with his eyes, simultaneously but that in no way proves, or even suggests, for that matter, that they did not occur simultaneously. You can't look at a single star in the sky and see how it looks "now,"  and no reasonable would argue that what we see "now" when looking at stars is what is now.

 

------

You refer us to a subtle detail which causes confusion. In the 1905 paper, par 1, Einstein defines the time of an event as the simultaneous reading of a local clock near the event. Then noting the inadequacy of the method as applied to remote events, defines a simultaneity convention. Time of the event vs time of perception of the event, is the issue. An event occurs once but can be perceived many times.

In SR, the observer plays the central role, and the 'time' of an event is assigned after perception/awareness. Additional info regarding distance, allows an extrapolation to determine the 'time of the event' vs 'time of perception'.

 

#15

Say I flip a coin and slam it down on the desktop with my hand covering it.  What are the chances that the "tails" side will be facing up?  50%? Buzz, wrong.  There is no "probability" to it.  It's a done deal and the outcome has been determined whether you or I or anyone else knows what that outcome is or not.  If it is tails, then the "chances" that it's tails are 100%, and 0% that it's heads.  This in no way depends on what any observer sees, knows, or can know

 

-----
The probability is the ratio of a defined outcome to all possible outcomes, i.e. 1/2.
You only know if you look!

#17

In fact, Einstein lifted them, whole cloth, from Lorentz

 

-----

In the 1905 paper, par 3, Einstein develops the coordinate transformations from first principles, and the two postulates. Both used the principle of constant light propagation speed. More so with Lorentz since he is studying electron behavior, directly dependent on light propagation. A case of two authors with different approaches to a common problem. The transformations can be formed with only the 2nd postulate of constant light speed, and the 1st postulate a consequence of the 2nd. So what's new?

[Moronium]

I agree with virtually all of what you said in that last post, Sluggo, although perhaps not with your interpretation of it.  You say, for example:

 

The probability is the ratio of a defined outcome to all possible outcomes, i.e. 1/2.
You only know if you look!

 

 

This is your positivism coming through. I expressly said that I was NOT talking about what someone "knew" (a matter of epistemology).  I was talking about what "is" the case (a matter of ontology).  It is a serious mistake to equate the two.  It boils down to solipsism (as Einstein himself observed), which is an extremely radical metaphysical stance that is not seriously adopted by anyone except a few kooks, maybe.

 

The "probability" that you refer to in simply the probability of an ignorant person correctly predicting ("guessing," really) what the coin actually is (already).  It is NOT the probability of the coin actually "being" either heads or tails.

 

Can you see the difference?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You say:

 

In the 1905 paper, par 3, Einstein develops the coordinate transformations from first principles, and the two postulates. Both used the principle of constant light propagation speed.

 

 

 

They used it in different manners, though, and there is a very significant distinction.

 

Lorentz merely said that light is "measured" to be constant in all inertial frames, but that is was not in fact constant.

 

Einstein re-formulated SR several times, but finally seemed to settle on a Minkowskian interpretation where is it (inconsistently) claimed that the speed of light IS constant.  That is one reason why it is important, if you care to actually understand these theories, to be able to understand the difference (and there is a difference) between measurement and underlying "fact."

 

I just got through addressing this difference from a different angle in a post I made today, which can be found here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31081-preferred-frame-geometry/?do=findComment&comment=355943

 

Post #2 (and #3 for that matter) in that thread.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Sluggo, you say:

 

An event occurs once but can be perceived many times.  In SR, the observer plays the central role, and the 'time' of an event is assigned after perception/awareness.

 

 

 

I agree, and that is precisely the solipsistic approach which I find to be extremely objectionable

 

Yet you go on to say:

 

Additional info regarding distance, allows an extrapolation to determine the 'time of the event' vs 'time of perception'.

 

 

So you end up agreeing with me, ultimately.  Two distant observers CAN agree on the (correct) time of one or more events, and hence upon whether any two given events are (or were) simultaneous or not.  Similarly a guy on a moving train can correct for the slowing of his watch and agree that the two lightning strikes in question did, in fact, hit the front and rear of the train at the same time (even though he didn't perceive them to be simultaneous).

 

The problem with SR is that it does not permit any such analysis.

 

This prohibition, in addition to being quite arbitrary, must posit and impute underlying factual conditions that cannot possibly be true as an objective matter.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well, Six, I'll give you credit for an least being will to allow thoughts and opinions which you don't agree with, as opposed to being hell-bent on suppressing, prohibiting, and eliminating them, as many are.

[Moronium]

Yeah, you can hold your horses as well.

 

There is such a thing called scientific methodology. You will want to learn what it means to look at things in a true scientific way, using the scientific method. This means respecting scientific discoveries and not, in a very ad hoc way, argue it is all wrong. Do you know how many greater people came before you, thinking the same thing, yet found themselves wrong? Relativity is very well tested and it seems like you need to go away and actually study why and what made it this way and why it has such a massive following.

 

  Heh, Six.  Your presumptuousness, condescension, and arrogance is truly amazing.  You are obviously of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your erroneous tomfoolery doesn't know a single thing about what he is talking about.  Think again.

 

Take your own advice and study the basic premises of SR rather than just continuously making vague arguments from authority which don't even respond to the points I am making.

[Moronium]

I have already said as well, the ''basic premise of special relativity'' is less fundamental than general relativity, because everything is generally related to geometric idea's not related to a flat space scenario. But you totally ignored this as well. Not only this, but those inertial frames of references disappear in general relativity, and you don't seem to be concerned by this in the slightest.

 

 

NO, I did not ignore it.  I addressed your (mistaken) claims at length, citing authoritative references in the process.  You did, however, ignore every word I said, and continue to do so.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here you go again, accusing me of ''making erroneous statements'' when you are throwing crap through the monkey cage. I have not made any erroneous statemens, my statements if you would care to cross check, are in complete harmony with modern relativity as (not just me) many here keep telling you is right and you are wrong. Buffy.. for god sake, who rarely shows up here, stated you where wrong.

 

If you are incapable of listening, maybe your threads should be closed? I would advise not to open any more on the same subject though.

 

 

Heh, Buffy did NOT show "where I was wrong."  In fact she cited an academic paper which agreed with and ratified my position (and the position of many others), to wit:  SR makes incorrect predictions and cannot be used in connection with the GPS.  The relative velocity of SR must be abandoned in favor of an analysis (a theory) involving ABSOLUTE motion.

 

If you read that thread at all, which I doubt, then you obviously didn't understand it.

[Moronium]

I give up.

 

 

I concur that this is the best course.  So far, it has been futile for the two of us to  attempt to achieve any kind of meaningful exchanges on this subject, and the prospects for that changing appear to be virtually non-existent.

 

No hard feelings, I hope, eh, Six?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's brief and partial summary of the points I have, with the assistance of reputable authoritative sources, been making in three or four existing threads for the past couple of weeks;

 

1.  Many people are convinced that SR is "necessary," i.e. that it is the only theory which can explain the phenomena. These same people therefore assume that anyone who questions SR is questioning "all of physics." But their fundamental assumption is false, and has ALWAYS been known to be false.  Einstein knew, and freely admitted it, as did every other competent physicist in his time and at all times in between, right up to the present day.  There are, and always have been, empirically confirmed theories of relative motion which explain the phenomena just as well as as SR does (better than, actually).

 

2.  Many of these same people will repeatedly say that SR has been thoroughly tested and (in their minds, anyway) "proven."  But the decades-old "proofs" they rely on have NEVER even tested (let alone "proved") most of the fundamental assumptions of SR.  They have, almost exclusively, merely tested the accuracy of the LT (time dilation), which were developed for use in a preferred frame theory. The LT are, indeed, highly accurate equations.  Furthermore they have high predictive value, but ONLY if they are used in connection with a theoretical framework which rejects SR and adopts it's antithesis,  i. e., a preferred frame theory (PFT).  When employed in an SR context, the LT only yield useless and incorrect predictions when assessing the relative motion of a variety of moving objects.  This has been empirically demonstrated in any number of modern-day observations (e.g., the GPS) and experiments, beginning with the HK test--many of which I have cited and summarized elsewhere.

 

3.  These days, most people, out of habit, training, indoctrination, and other such pre-dispositions, call the theory of relative motion which is actually used in practice "special relativity" when it is NOT. RMS theory, and the like, contradict the fundamental assumptions of SR.  They are not the "same as" SR, although they may superficially appear to be because, like SR, they incorporate and rely on the lorentz transforms for explanatory and predictive purposes.

 

4. Because SR, from its inception, was based upon solipsistic premises, it has always been highly suspect as an accurate description of "reality."  The math in SR is impeccable, and the logical implications which can be inferred from its premises can be perfectly valid.  In other words, it is not INTERNALLY inconsistent.  That said, its premises are unsound and the philosophical baggage it necessarily imports  stretches the theory to the point where it defies all practical and empirical rationality.  It can in fact make certain (quite limited) accurate predictions, but that's only because in each application it mimics a PFT by adopting a preferred reference frame (i.e., the one you are in), all while denying that such frames exist.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

  It can in fact make certain (quite limited) accurate predictions, but that's only because in each application it mimics a PFT by adopting a preferred reference frame (i.e., the one you are in), all while denying that such frames exist.

 

To elaborate (again, as I have done the same in other posts) on this, let's take a look at the situation.

 

1.  SR starts with the reasonable-sounding proposition that, because the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, all such frames are 'equally valid."  It goes on to assert that, because they are "equally valid," you can randomly and arbitrarily pick "any old" inertial frame of reference from which to assess relative motion, and it will make no difference.  There is no reason to "prefer" any inertial frame over another.  OK, kinda sounds fair enough.  What next?

 

2.  In truth, it's all a "bait and switch" tactic that's being employed. In practice SR does not allow me to freely choose a frame of reference to calculate my relative motion from.  I MUST, instead, treat my own frame of reference as being absolutely motionless (like Lorentz' ether).  If I'm on a train, I cannot adopt the viewpoint that I am moving relative to the earth's surface.  I must insist that IT is moving, relative to me.  I am therefore, by strict mandate of SR's protocols, in a preferred frame which is not "freely chosen," but which is dictated by SR.  SR likes to assert that "you can never tell who's moving,"  but ironically this is all while undertaking to "inform" you about who's moving in every instance where you employ SR formulas (again, it's always all other objects in the universe which are outside of your reference frame--never you).

 

3.  Apart from being intuitively false as an empirical matter, this forced choice of a preferred frame presents other serious problems.  Once you move beyond just two objects, you end up with a infinite number of mandatory "preferred frames," i.e., one for each possible inertial frame.  This ends up in  implying such logical absurdities as asserting that each of two clocks (or every clock, of many) runs slower than the other(s), for example.  Because this is a self-refuting proposition, the theory cannot make empirically accurate predictions with respect to actual tangible objects in the physical world.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Moronium

[DaveC426913]

Now that really gets on my back. You keep that attitude up, I doubt you will last long.

This is what got him boosted from the last forum where he went on and on about his relativity ideas.

I'm seeing history repeat itself.

[Moronium]

This is what got him boosted from the last forum where he went on and on about his relativity ideas.

I'm seeing history repeat itself.

 

I have no idea of what "last forum" you're talking about, Dave.  But you have chosen to take the same tact as virtually every other poster here.

 

I've already discussed my disappointment with the lack of any kind of substantive response to the topic.  As I said, after observing AnnsiH, who I don't think would agree with me on many things, I got the impression that there were some intelligent, thoughtful posters here, who would enjoy responding to ideas rather that just making unsupported pontifical assertions and personal attacks.

 

I realize that the topic is one that many people aren't the least bit interested in.  But the ones who, on the surface, are interested seem to be so only because they feel an obligation to pronounce, with supreme authoritarianism, but without any meaningful substance, that SR is irrefutably correct and "proven."  They display no understanding of the issues, but they nonetheless have "opinions" which they embrace and dispense with utter self-certainty.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Moronium