The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[JMJones0424]

I will make a falsifiable claim, a la Popper.

 

The speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same, regardless of the relative velocity of the observer.  This is a claim that can be shown to be false, and yet it has not been.  This is the claim that Special Relativity is based upon.  Falsify this claim, and by extension, you will falsify SR.  You needn't rely on bad arguments of misunderstood philosophical ideas of solipsism to show this claim to be false.  All you need to do is point to one experiment that shows that the speed of light is variant depending upon one's velocity.

 

Deduction doesn't have anything to do with science, read the gd wikipedia articles moron.  Special Relativity does have quite a bit to do with the fact that the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of the speed of the one making the measurement.

 

You're doing a good job convincing me I was wrong.  Perhaps you are in fact a liar, not just an idiot.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

I will rave on.  Name one experiment that disproves the universal constancy of the speed of light.  Otherwise, take your smug ignorance and choke on it.

 

 

Heh, read the thread, fool.  Start with posts 132-134, which kinda reviews some of the most elementary principles of scientific "proof."  I say this, rhetorically, of course.  I know from long experience with you that you will be incapable of understanding a word of it.

[Moronium]

The speed of light in a vacuum is measured to be the same, regardless of the relative velocity of the observer.

 

 

 

Of course.  I have said so myself, many times.  If only you knew what that "proved," eh?  Try reading post # 125.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

i am a moron.  Point me to the place where you magnificently incorporate the invariant speed of light with the solipsism of SR and determine that your explanation of reality is correct.

[Moronium]

YES!!!!!!!

 

This is the single reason why SR exists.  Every measurement we have made shows this to be accurate.  Nothing shows this claim to be false.

 

 

If you want to know why SR "exists," try reading post 137.

[JMJones0424]

Years before Einstein (1901, as I recall), Poincare made the observation that you could, by employing Lorentz's transforms, achieve a "subjective" form of the relativity principle if each observer was, and remained,  ignorant of his own motion.  In that case, all observers would measure the speed of light to be the same, and there would be no way to discern one inertial frame from another.

 

For Poincare, this was merely a curious observation.  It was based on ignorance and had nothing to do will objective reality, in his view.  Such observers were mistakenly equating what Lorentz called "local time," with actual, or "standard" time.

 

Lorentz created the concept of local time, but, like Poincare, attributed no physical significance to it.  For him it was just a fictitious device which could be profitably used as a calculational shortcut.  It was a "mathematical trick," no more, no less.

 

Then Einstein came along and said that "local time" was "true time."  Voila!  SR had been created, with all it's solipsistic implications.

 

Neither Poincare nor Lorentz ever believed SR had any relationship to physical reality.  But this was NOT because they didn't understand it.   They were the ones who came up with the ideas to begin with.  They "understood" what Einstein was saying perfectly.  They just didn't think it had anything to do with physical reality.  In their view, the theory was not physics, but rather metaphysics.They were NOT solipsists, so they weren't good prospects for recruitment to the club which marvelled at the "truth" of SR.

I don't understand your claim that local time equals true time.  If anything, Einstein argued that because local times can not be the same, there can be no such thing as true time.  Instead, time, like dimension, was a relative measure.  True time sounds pretty aether like to me.  What do you suppose true time is?  Time, like velocity and position, can only be relative.

 

Regardless of the beliefs of Poincare or Lorentz, SR does, in fact, describe physical reality pretty well outside of gravitational influences.  GR makes up the difference there.  I don't give a crap what you think they thought, all I care about is how well it describes reality.  The answer is, outside of atomic scales, pretty freaking good.

 

So here's another falsifiable claim for you.  SR accurately describes the movement of massive objects in inertial frames and how we can translate that movement from one observer to another.  When you throw gravity into the mix, then GR accurately describes the movement of massive objects.

 

Even if you're a solipsist observing shadows in a cave, the above claims are falsifiable.  As far as I know, they have not been falsified.  Relative simultaneity is a function of these claims, and unless you can falsify them or you can provide a better explanation of reality, then you are continuing to spew bullshit.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[JMJones0424]

We've already established that your idea of true time has been shown to be false.  Do you need me to cite those sources again, or are you willing to concede that there is no such thing as "true time"?

 

Please, allow me to state it another way.  The falsifiable claim that there is a "true time" has been shown to be false.  I have already shown you how this claim was falsified, but do you need me to repeat my justification?  Here's a hint, it's the reason I first started calling you a liar.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

I don't understand your claim that local time equals true time.  If anything, Einstein argued that because local times can not be the same, there can be no such thing as true time.  

 

 

 

He tried to say both, but of course both cannot be true.  Take one or the other.

 

At the time, Einstein was a devout disciple of the quintessential positivist, Ernst Mach.  He later rejected Mach's naive philosophy of science (positivism).  I have demonstrated this by Einstein's own words, in other threads.

 

Even so, positivism was the widely accepted philosophy of science until around 1950.  It's fatal flaws have since been completely exposed and positivism had been discredited and discarded by virtually every theorist.

 

In 1905, Einstein said something like:  "Time is what a clock reads."  Again, this is a view he later rejected.  But, he argued at the time that "local time" was "true time."  Hence SR.

 

But, despite his equivocation, you're right.  The whole solipsistic "rationale" of SR is that there is no "true time."   Therefore, there simply is no objective truth about time, distance, speed, or anything else involving relative motion.

 

That's why everybody is at rest at all times and motion is just an illusion.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

He tried to say both, but of course both cannot be true.  Take one or the other.

 

 

 

In essence, Einstein was saying "The truth is that there is no truth."

 

A claim that is self-refuting.  If it's true, then it's false, because the statement itself is then false.  The statement purports to know, and to be revealing, the "truth" (which it says doesn't exist).

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I don't care.  You may be an excellent historian.  This is irrelevant to the question at hand.  If your argument is that local time is true time, then the distinction between the two is kinda moot.  My point is that there can only be local time, as suggested by SR.  The idea that there exists a time by which all can compare their times is silly.  This is the aether.  There is no universal time.  There is no "true time".  I make this claim regardless of who made claims previous to me.  I make this falsifiable claim simply because I understand the consequence of the invariant speed of light.  This claim can be shown to be false, and yet, it has not, and despite your rhetoric, you have not shown it to be false.

 

Time is what a clock reads is a very good description of time, but it says nothing at all about the difference between observer A's clock and observer B's clock.  Einstein also fervently argued against quantum mechanics.  I'm not interested in taking historical people's words as fact, I am interested in falsifiable explanations of reality.  SR is a pretty damn good explanation of reality in an inertial frame.  GR is an even better explanation of reality when you throw in acceleration due to gravity.  The only thing it doesn't take into account is sub-atomic interactions where gravity is no longer the dominant force.  But nothing I've read in this now 12 page list of crap from you, in any way contradicts anything about SR or GR.

 

So what if you are solipsitically the only observer in the universe.  You can still create an accelerometer and move away from it to make more than one measurement.  Your claim of solipsism is unwarranted.  Your claims on moral relativism are entirely off topic.  You have not provided a single reason why SR or GR should not be regarded as accurate descriptions of reality.  Both of these theories make falsifiable claims.  All you need to do is provide one instance that shows that these descriptions are not accurate.

[Moronium]

  But nothing I've read in this now 12 page list of crap from you, in any way contradicts anything about SR or GR....You have not provided a single reason why SR or GR should not be regarded as accurate descriptions of reality.  

 

You have not read the thread, so why do you pretend to know what I've said in it?

 

Try reading posts 125-128 (ending with an analysis of the H-K experiment).  Then tell me what I've said that is wrong.

 

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

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

I've answered this a thousand times, A-wal.  You never pay a bit of attention.

 

Measured to be the same is, or at least can be, completely different than actually being the same.  Example:

 

A, which we'll call the rest frame, MEASURES the speed of light to be c.  Now how about frame B which is said to be moving at .87c relative to A?

 

B also MEASURES the speed of light to be c, but it does so with lengths that are only 1/2 as long as those in frame A and with clocks that run 50% slower.  

 

If the speed in B was "actually" c, then B would NOT measure it to be c, because his times and lengths have become distorted by speed.  Since B DOES measure it to be c, then the speed of light in that frame is NOT actually c.

 

Let's say you have a stick that is 18" long, but which you call a "yard" and you measure some distance to be 100 "yards."  I have one that is 36" long and which I call a yard.  I also measure some distance to be 100 yards long.  Now we have the same measurement, but the distances we are measuring are not the same. Using my yardstick, I will measure what you say is 100 yards long to be only 50 yards. 

 

Let me return to the standard (100 yard) football field example. The distance is 100 yards by A's standards. Say a sprinter runs that distance in 10 seconds by A's clock.  So the sprinter is, according to A, running at the rate of 10 yards every second.

 

B, whose lengths have contracted, would say the distance is only 50 yards.  And, because his clock has slowed down, he would say that sprinter ran it in just 5 seconds, so the measured speed is the same (10 yards per second).

 

They have "measured" the speed of the sprinter to be the same, but it aint, because they are not measuring  with the same units of time and distance.  They are only concluding that it actually IS the same (as opposed to just being measured to be the same) because B is DENYING that his instruments are inaccurate.

 

The Lorentz transforms do NOT say that clock retardation and length contractions are reciprocal  Only SR says that, not the LT.  The LT says the MOVING clock (and ONLY the moving clock) has contracted lengths and slowed clocks.

 

In the twin paradox, the LT says the stay-at-home twin ages more, because he is not moving, and therefore his clocks have not slowed down.  In the same paradox, the LT says the space twin's clocks have REALLY contracted.  Therefore he will age less (which SR says he does).  IF the space twin makes the mistake of DENYING that his standards of measurements have contracted, then he will mistakenly say the earth twin is ageing less because, according to the space twin, the earth is the moving clock and his clock is NOT moving.  He is wrong.  He is moving.  The earth aint (as between the two of them, that is).

 

They both measure the speed of light to be the same, but only because the space twin is mistaken about his own motion and the consequent distortion of his clocks and rods.  The speed of light is not "actually" the same in his frame, but he mistakenly measures it to be the same.

 

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 measurments 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).

 

 

First of all, thank you for pointing me directly to the posts in question.

 

HOLY **** WE HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH!

 

 

For goodness sake, you have here clearly identified why the invariant speed of light must mean that distance is variable.  The only thing you are missing here is that both observers measure their yardstick to be 36" long, but because they are not in the same inertial frame, and because the speed of light is invariant, and because the speed of light is distance over time, then something has to give.  The ruler is what gives.  It is absolutely plausible that observer A observes that observer B's yardstick is the equivalent of 18" long, and therefore what observers A measures to be 100 yards should be measured as 200 yards by observer B.  But, observer b sees their yardstick as being 36 inches long and observer A's yardstick as being 18 inches long, and so the paradox is reversed.

 

If we assume that both observer's measurements are valid, then we need to come up with a standard to convert observer A's measurements to agree with observer B's.  In mathematics, this is called a transformation.  The transformation that works for three dimensions plus time in physics is the Lorentz transformation.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

 

I've linked to this wikipedia page before, but I'm not sure that you have actually read it, Moronium.  Please do so.

 

Also, since the twin paradox seems to be an important part of this discussion, the wikipedia page explains why it is that the stationary observer will observe time to pass at a different rate than the traveling observer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

For goodness sake, you have here clearly identified why the invariant speed of light must mean that distance is variable

 

 

You obviously didn't understand the point being made about "measurement" not being the same as "distance."  Here, I'll repeat it once again:

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 measurments 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).

 

 

 

The only thing you are missing here is that both observers measure their yardstick to be 36" long, 

 

 

No, I didn't "miss" that at all.  That's why I said the guy "calls" his 18" stick a yard.

 

If we assume that both observer's measurements are valid...

 

 

 

You can assume that, or you can not assume it.  Both assumptions are completely consistent with all empirical tests.

 

Of course what you mean by "valid" is vague.

 

If the guy with the 18" stick would merely admit (rather than deny) his own motion, then he would concede that it is an 18" stick and not a true "yard."

 

In SR, he REFUSES to make that admission.  In LR he doesn't refuse.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

What is LR?  I'm an idiot, indulge me.

[Moronium]

What is LR?  I'm an idiot, indulge me.

 

 

It stands for "lorentzian relativity."  Not to be taken too literally.  Also known as "neo-lorentizian relativity;" a PFT (preferred frame theory); an AST (absolute simultaneity theory); and an RMS (Robertson, Mansouri, Sexl--all names of theoretical physicists) theory. Most generic is PFT, I suppose, as advocated by virtually every mainstream physicist today, who concede that, in violation of the tenets of SR, the CMB is, by virtue of its measured qualities, a valid "preferred frame"--a "cosmic rest frame," as it's been called.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

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.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

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

 

 

Read the thread.  Or read other threads I've posted in which relate to similar topics. I've explained this many times.  I just cited you to a series of 4 posts.  You responded to one of them.  Read the others.

 

A "technical" way to explain it is to say that in a PFT, simultaneity is absolute, not relative.

 

Another way is to say that in a PFT, LT changes are NOT "reciprocal" as SR claims.

 

Yet another way is to say that in a PFT, motion is absolute, not relative.

 

But simplest is just to say that a PFT establishes a "preferred frame" and does NOT (as SR does) pretend that "all inertial frames are equally valid."

Edited May 21, 2018 by Moronium