Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) How would you identify a difference between frames ? We've already been through all this at great length, haven't we? In connection with theories of relative motion, the "preferred frame" is the one that is posited to be at rest. That has nothing to do with the "laws of physics," per se. Understand? The laws of physics are identical on the earth and on the sun. Yet, as between the two, the sun (more accurately the solar barycenter) is the preferred frame, as it is with all the other planets and all the other material objects in the solar system. The earth is moving around it, not vice versa. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) BORING post got any arguments of substance ? When are you ever going to challenge me with a good argument? Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 You don't even respond to my logic arguments so give me that cop out. I've responded to every fallacious "logical" argument you've made. Which one haven't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Try if the laws of physics is identical between your frame and mine why would you need a transformation.? You have not answered this question you merely resorted to insult or misdirection. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 You might start by telling me what, exactly, is the position you believe yourself to be arguing for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Stop redirecting answer my last post please You know darn well I am addressing the requirement of a privileged observer being false Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 Try if the laws of physics is identical between your frame and mine why would you need a transformation.? Can you even see how self-contradictory you are? A transformation is required for ALL objects moving relative to each other. If your claim is that that proves the "physics are not the same," then you're effectively arguing against your own damn premise--i.e., your claim that all frames are "equivalent" in that sense. You are hopelessly confused, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Your an idiot, I provided the Galilean transform to reflect that. The Lorentz transform is the transform between two Galilean frames. I have already accounted for the internal Galilean reference frames of Alice and BoB by including the Galilean transform. I then provided the Lorentz transforms to go from one Galilean reference frame (object) to the other. Both you and I at our computers have our own Galilean frame. If our reference frames are identical then you don't need further transformation which is the Lorentz portion. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Your an idiot, I provided the Galilean transform to reflect that. The Lorentz transform is the transform between two Galilean frames. I have already accounted for the internal reference frames of Alice and BoB by including the Galilean. I then provided the Lorentz transforms to go from one Galilean reference frame (object) to the other. To reflect WHAT? What position are you even arguing for? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) You are, in effect, merely affirming a point I have made many times, to wit: The very need for a "transformation" implies that the physics are NOT the same in all inertial frames. The transformation is required only to explain why they falsely "appear" to be the same, to different observers. This is what lorenztian relativity explains. For many decades SR took the now-discredited theoretical position that the LT were mere illusions, i.e. the position that time dilation and length contraction are not "real." They are not needed if SR is correct. I agree with that. However, SR had to back off of that interpretation once modern technology proved that the LT distortions, such as time dilation, are real phenomena, not "illusions." Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Do I have to repeat this? You claimed SR involves a privileged observer I falsify this claim. Can you not understand the difference between when you apply Galilean as opposed to Lorentz ? Or can you not distinguish between the two ? The topic is SR so its important that you do in your arguments. Don't you think its important to know when you apply one transform as opposed to the other ? Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 The very need for a "transformation" implies that the physics are NOT the same in all inertial frames. But it is putting it too broadly to say that "the laws of physics" are not the same. They remain unaltered. LR merely point out the suspicious character of the SR postulate that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames." The "speed of light" is NOT "the laws of physics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 Do I have to repeat this? You claimed SR involves a privileged observer I falsify this claim. Can you not understand the difference between when you apply Galilean as opposed to Lorentz ? Or can you not distinguish between the two ? The topic is SR so its important that you do in your arguments. Don't you think its important to know when you apply one transform as opposed to the other ?I've already answered all of this. In my last few posts, and many other times, in both this thread and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 The constant c isn't the speed of light, it is the speed of information exchange. light simply follows this restriction just as anything else does. Why is this true no one knows but no observation has ever broken it in any application properly examined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 I've already answered all of this. In my last few posts, and many other times, in both this thread and others. BS you have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) What-say we take a little closer look at the holy, omnipotent, and infallible Math involved here, eh? It's kinda like magic, know what I'm sayin? Now, with SR, you know that you are the aether. A nice side benefit to this is being told that you're *very* special, eh? Now, that's my kinda omnipotent deity, sho nuff! Now the entire universe revolves around ME! MATH akbar! Aint that right, Censorhip Crew!? It's kinda your holy obligation to defend the world from any heretic who would DARE suggest that the entire universe doesn't revolve around YOU. I can understand that. Maybe some 9/11 style attacks should be made on any university which aids, abets, and harbors some criminal infidel blasphemer who denies the TRUTH of SR, eh? Hence this post being so poorly inaccurate. Lorentz does not state your in an eather or preferred frame the censorship crap is simply garbage. Hence my response Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 BS you haveRead my recent posts 1050 and 1052. I have little doubt that you will be able to understand them, but give it a try, at least, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts