Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 It's obvious that you don't even understand the topic here, and chances are you never will, because you misunderstand the role played by math. The Lorentz transform was invented by Lorentz, but that is NOT what SR uses. In SR the v (velocity) is relative. In Lorentz's theory it is absolute. HUGE difference, notwithstanding that the FORM (but not the substance) of the formula is exactly the same. The two theories do have one premise in common, i.e. that it is ONLY the moving clock which slows down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Feel free to do so as its clear you refuse to understand simple vector and geometry changes under differential geometry its meaningless to you understading those postulates to begin with. Start with postulate the Laws of physics are the same in each reference frame. What laws are they specifically describing ? show them under Galilean tranformation rules and Newton laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) The two theories do have one premise in common, i.e. that it is ONLY the moving clock which slows down. precisely because regardless of Alice measuring Bobs clock or BoB measuring Alice's clock they will always see the other as slower. Gravitational time dilation is a little different than the inertia in this case. You need to apply the addition of tidal forces in the former case. So for gravitational time dilation they are not symmetric due to tidal forces Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Feel free to do so as its clear you refuse to understand simple vector and geometry changes under differential geometry its meaningless to you understading those postulates to begin with. Start with postulate the Laws of physics are the same in each reference frame. What laws are they specifically describing ? show them under Galilean tranformation rules and Newton laws. Do you have a point? That's relevant to the discussion, I mean? I am not, and never have, tried to deny the clear mathematical implications of SR postulates. That's not the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Then you need to accept the postulates as well if you accept the mathematical accuracy as the math directly applies those postulates. Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) precisely because regardless of Alice measuring Bobs clock or BoB measuring Alice's clock they will always see the other as slower. This s WRONG as a practical matter. It is correct that SR sets up an authoritarian, dictatorial regime of thought control, which it rigidly imposes on so-called "observers," sure. But that's the problem, not the answer to the problem. It is enforced ignorance, which requires "observers" to parrot what they're told by SR to say, no matter how obviously it may contradict the empirically known facts. Again, you seem to just want to religiously chant the mantras of SR, not discuss it. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 What a lame argument response to my telling you to understand the mathematical basis of the model your discussing to begin with. That is the most common lame brain excuse most laymen resort to when they refuse to in religiously argue against their personal beliefs when everyone is telling them they are wrong. If your discussing a physics model YOU are discussing its mathematical postulates and axioms. Arbitrarily ignoring those when they argue against you is based on your religious personal belief to begin with. Its plain and clear you will not accept any argument that counters you regardless of how many posters are telling you otherwise. 56 pages worth of clear cut examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Then you need to accept the postulates as well if you accept the mathematical accuracy as the math directly applies those postulates. See if you can understand this: I don't NEED to accept SR, and I DON'T accept SR as a theory which has anything to do with objective reality, OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) If your discussing a physics model YOU are discussing its mathematical postulates and axioms. Arbitrarily ignoring those when they argue against you is based on your religious personal belief to begin with. Its plain and clear you will not accept any argument that counters you regardless of how many posters are telling you otherwise. Again, all I can do is repeat myself: It's obvious that you don't even understand the topic here, and chances are you never will, because you misunderstand the role played by math. I guess I could vary it a little by putting NEVER in all caps. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Don't bother If you haven't convinced anyone your right in 56 pages your not going to Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Feel free to do so as its clear you refuse to understand simple vector and geometry changes under differential geometry its meaningless to you understading those postulates to begin with. That just shows how backwards you have things, and how misguided your conception of "understanding" is. You probably think that the math dictates the postulates, rather than vice versa. The math is what's meaningless, unless you understand the postulates. And, in that last sentence, I don't use the word "understand" to refer to something like "capable of reading English." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) We've covered this before, physics is math. Your metaphysics isn't describing a physics model unless you can understand the math basis. Hence your not employing SR itself. SR is a MATH model. Hence if your discussing SR you are discussing a math model. Perhaps you should have opened a thread instead of hijacking this one from the OP on absolutism and relationalism for your metaphysics. metaphysics is a philosophy field you should have your own thread there in the philosophy section. This is the Physics forum. Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) We've covered this before, physics is math. Covered it? Heh. Just keep telling yourself that over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and.... You are not showing any superior insight or wisdom by doing this. On the contrary, you are just displaying how completely uniformed you are about the fundamentals of theoretical physics (or a theory pertaining to any scientific subject, for that matter). Such naivete is not uncommon with those who have been taught to "shut up and calculate!" Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) LOL another lame blah blah blah. Do you think you can stretch or exercise some brain cells and come up with a more concrete and supportive post in your own defense? Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 At the very least why not google metaphysics already done on this and provide some support for yourself ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Just for the hell of it, I'll repeat this question which was pending when you first got loud about math, and which you have since scrupulously avoided: Each observer will see that the other clock is running at a rate DIFFERENT than his own, but neither will "see" that the other clock is running "slower." That is not revealed by the observation, Any such conclusion is a MERE DEDUCTION from what is seen. Deductive conclusions require premises. What is the premise each must make here? That HE is not moving (because it is ONLY the moving clock which slows down in SR). If he assumed otherwise, then he would conclude otherwise, i.e., he would "see" (deduce) that the other clock was running FASTER, not slower. You still can't understand this? Would a concrete example help? Let's say I'm on a moving train, passing a guy standing by the tracks. Let's say I believe I'm the one moving, not him. Let's say I understand SR. Under those circumstances I would conclude that my (not his) watch is running slower. If he also assumes that he is not moving, then he will reach the same conclusion that I do (mine's slower, his is faster). There is no "reciprocity" about it, now. We don't disagree about whose watch is running slower, we agree. Can you even understand the question? If so, do you disagree with the point being made here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) yes gravitational redshift measurements is your experimental evidence. So your wrong in assuming its not measured. Its much the same as Doppler shift just requires the addition of the Lorentz transforms to be treated as relativistic Doppler. What did you think the M and M experiments is all about ? Your measuring c for one way and two way anisotropy. Again that's already been mentioned this thread but you ignored that as well how convenient for you Its already been discussed how acceleration affects the twin scenario. Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts