Personal Topic

[Moronium]

So you accept the relativistic effects, but how exactly can you justify the effect? What is the mechanism in Physics that can allow an object shrink in only one direction? (im not sure which relativistic effects you accept)  Maybe time warping?  Exactly how can that happen when time is nothing that physics can affect? (time is just a concept, a construct of mans rational mind) Events occur in a repeating pattern, cyclic, allowing us to compare the rate of the occurrence to events, but there is no "time" existing somewhere, as there is, say, radiation in space. So which relativistic effects exactly do you believe in exactly?  Im surprised you did not mention my inferred claim that Cavendish's measurement of g is rubbish. Most of cosmology uses g and this shows us that they are also full of BS. 

 

 

I reject "spacetime" as being anything more than a convenient mathematical construct.  As a physical "reality" it is absurd, in my view.  I agree with your conclusion about abstract "time" not affecting anything, but I do accept that clocks slow down with increased (absolute) speed.

 

Length contraction has never been experiementally verified and I know many theorists reject it.  They're probably right to do so, because it's not necessary to a coherent theory of motion.

 

It's easy to criticize, and refuse to accept, certain claims, but unless you have a better theory, it's really just kinda nihilistic.  If there were no conceivable alternate to SR, then I suppose I would have to accept it, as flawed as it seems.  But there are viable alternatives that I'm comfortable with

 

My objections to SR are not made on mathematical grounds.   I will concede that, mathematically speaking, it can be seen to be perfectly consistent.  It's just that the physical implications of the math cannot realistically apply to an objective reality.  My objections are philosophical at bottom, I suppose.  Those who "accept" SR are also accepting its ontological premises, but they often give no thought to those premises, which lead to absurd conclusions.

 

SR students are basically just told to shut up and calculate.  As if the math "explains it all."  It doesn't.  And can't, if you ask me.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Well that's not a very good way to learn anything.... to accept a really crappy, stupid theory simply because you cant think up a better one!

 

My preferred way of dealing with theories, is if they are nonsensical, they get are totally rejected. No theory at all, is way better than embracing any part of a stupid theory. Whats wrong with just saying "We don't know". Why have people accepted the concept that one must work with the current best theory we have? (irrespective of its failings)

 

SR, GR, Lorentz, Planck, Minkowski and everybody else I mentioned have theories that are worthless. They are ideas, full of issues and only useful for material to wite SciFi movies.

 

By realizing that we have no sensible theories on a particular subject, we open up the possibility that someone may come up with something good one day. But to accept the current, crappy theory till its replaced is only clouding the water.

 

So as we both realize that SR and GR are impossible, can you explain the mechanics of the slowing of clocks with increasing speed? Its not going to be anything to do with Inertial Frames of Reference I hope.

Edited February 6, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

As looney as I think you guys sound, I've been banned from forums for slagging relativity in the same way. But the difference between me and you is I believe relativity must be true and I'm trying to get answers to prove it to myself. You two are just taking a dump on something you have no understanding of and don't even want to try to understand. I think if I wasn't banned from my last forum, I would have eventually gotten the answers. But it's like pulling teeth, they just won't come out and tell you what's what and I can't see any agreement between experts. It totally feels like a conspiracy and a religious orthodoxy. I don't understand the game here. But the two of you are just making things much worse. Can't you just hang out in the alternate theories section and unconstructively slag relativity there? I'm trying to get somewhere and you guys revel in just being totally lost.

[Moronium]

 

 

My preferred way of dealing with theories, is if they are nonsensical, they get are totally rejected. No theory at all, is way better than embracing any part of a stupid theory. 

 

 

Well, suit yourself, but I see that as a fallacious "all or nothing" approach, kinda like saying that if you ever catch a person lying about anything, then you know everything he ever says has to be false.  Time and time again theories have been found to contain important insights and concepts, even though a portion of them is flawed.  You can often eliminate the flaws and improve a theory without rejecting it in toto, out of hand, just because it has some imperfection.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

can you explain the mechanics of the slowing of clocks with increasing speed? Its not going to be anything to do with Inertial Frames of Reference I hope.

 

 

There are any number of more or less plausible theories about this, usually pertaining to hypothetical sub-atomic forces and changes, but I'm not aware of any that has been widely accepted.

 

Why does temperature affect molecular activity, one might ask.  Why should water "boil" at different temperatures, depending on altitude?  Why does atomic activity "slow down" with decreasing temperature?  How can temperature affect matter?  On a certain level there is no answer to that--why should it?  On other levels, theoretical explanations seem quite acceptable.

 

Why should you feel a "wind" just because you are moving while riding your bike, when otherwise the wind temperature is zero?

 

Why should you feel "fictitious (inertial) forces" when accelerating?  How can mere motion change anything?  The origin of inertia has never been satisfactorily explained, but it seems to exist, nonetheless.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Im surprised you did not mention my inferred claim that Cavendish's measurement of g is rubbish. Most of cosmology uses g and this shows us that they are also full of BS. 

 

 

. You can discern seemingly invariable mathematical relationships without ever understanding exactly "why" they exist. Newton had no "theory" of gravity, and said so.  To him the notion of matter attracting matter at a distance was too absurd to seriously consider.  That said, he believed in his "universal law of gravity" with gravitational constants.  That's because he "observed" them in planetary motion, not because he believed he understood "why" the constants should hold true.

 

A physical "law" is not a theory, it is merely the expression of a mathematical relationship.

 

Explain "why" the pythagorean theorem in euclidean geometry is "true."   The ancient egyptians routinely used the theorem in practice to form right triangles without ever recognizing the "a squared plus b squared equals c squared" relationship. It's true, and can be used, whether you have a "theory" or "law" to explain it or not.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well, suit yourself, but I see that as a fallacious "all or nothing" approach, kinda like saying that if you ever catch a person lying about anything, then you know everything he ever says has to be false.  Time and time again theories have been found to contain important insights and concepts, even though a portion of them is flawed.  You can often eliminate the flaws and improve a theory without rejecting it in toto, out of hand, just because it has some imperfection.

 

Unfortunately, Einstein kinda did the reverse with SR. He took a promising theory with some worthwhile insights and "gave" it some serious flaws.  Then he called that an "improvement."

[Moronium]

 the difference between me and you is I believe relativity must be true and I'm trying to get answers to prove it to myself. 

 

The criticisms which you yourself have leveled at SR are so fundamental to the theory that, if you really believe them, you should adopt a complete suspension of belief in the theory. Just for example:  If you ever suggest that there could be such a thing as absolute motion, then you have effectively completely repudiated and renounced SR as a plausible theory.

 

But "consistency" doesn't seem to be one of your strong points, know what I'm sayin, Ralf?

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

As looney as I think you guys sound, I've been banned from forums for slagging relativity in the same way. But the difference between me and you is I believe relativity must be true and I'm trying to get answers to prove it to myself. You two are just taking a dump on something you have no understanding of and don't even want to try to understand. I think if I wasn't banned from my last forum, I would have eventually gotten the answers. But it's like pulling teeth, they just won't come out and tell you what's what and I can't see any agreement between experts. It totally feels like a conspiracy and a religious orthodoxy. I don't understand the game here. But the two of you are just making things much worse. Can't you just hang out in the alternate theories section and unconstructively slag relativity there? I'm trying to get somewhere and you guys revel in just being totally lost.

I can't understand what would prompt your "belief" that Relativity "must" be true.

Relax and let your mind contemplate the simple explanation that all the controversy over Relativity is due totally because Relativity is false from end to end. (regardless of who thinks who is moving). Once you can cope with the realization that there COULD BE some sort of conspiracy, as you put it, that wishes that academic institutions retain their monopoly on education, then you are free to begin the exploration of how stuff may really work, without the preset conditions imposed by theories and laws such as SR, GR and stuff like the "gravitational constant" guesswork by Cavendish and the like.

 

Just an idea.

 

If you really want to see why relativity is impossible, then the info is freely available, and understandable by even the die hard Relativists who haunt this forum.

[marcospolo]

. You can discern seemingly invariable mathematical relationships without ever understanding exactly "why" they exist. Newton had no "theory" of gravity, and said so.  To him the notion of matter attracting matter at a distance was too absurd to seriously consider.  That said, he believed in his "universal law of gravity" with gravitational constants.  That's because he "observed" them in planetary motion, not because he believed he understood "why" the constants should hold true.

 

A physical "law" is not a theory, it is merely the expression of a mathematical relationship.

 

Explain "why" the pythagorean theorem in euclidean geometry is "true."   The ancient egyptians routinely used the theorem in practice to form right triangles without ever recognizing the "a squared plus b squared equals c squared" relationship. It's true, and can be used, whether you have a "theory" or "law" to explain it or not.

Ok, I agree with this. (I agree with your last few posts about not necessarily being able to expalin how something works.) As I said, no one really understands how light works, but we do have understanding of its effects.

 

No need to explain how physical objects that we use to keep time can become out of sync because they might move. Some say, everything is already moving, apparently the distant galaxies are accelerating away from us at faster than light speed, so according to Relativity, its also correct to say that they are not going anywhere, its the Earth that moving away in the opposite direction at faster than light speed! Or spacetime is expanding at faster than light speed, as this is a weak solution to the problem that nothing is supposed to be able to move that fast. Oh, but you don't believe in spacetime, so that can't work. See the trouble with trying to hang on to some parts of a insane theory?  Hang on to the good parts of SENSIBLE theories, but not the crazy ones.

[exchemist]

As looney as I think you guys sound, I've been banned from forums for slagging relativity in the same way. But the difference between me and you is I believe relativity must be true and I'm trying to get answers to prove it to myself. You two are just taking a dump on something you have no understanding of and don't even want to try to understand. I think if I wasn't banned from my last forum, I would have eventually gotten the answers. But it's like pulling teeth, they just won't come out and tell you what's what and I can't see any agreement between experts. It totally feels like a conspiracy and a religious orthodoxy. I don't understand the game here. But the two of you are just making things much worse. Can't you just hang out in the alternate theories section and unconstructively slag relativity there? I'm trying to get somewhere and you guys revel in just being totally lost.

Yes, I'm afraid both these people are relativity cranks. (Sluggo isn't and nor is Ocean Breeze). But you were close to getting an answer in the other forum. Pity you blew it. 

 

There is no "religion" or "conspiracy" of course. It is just a difficult subject, that requires a fair degree of facility with maths to grasp it.

 

One of the reasons relativity breeds cranks is that there are so many people who can't bear the idea of something that can't easily be understood without mathematics. You often see an inferiority complex coming through, in a pose of superior logical intellect, thinly concealing aggression. It was only at university that I myself got an insight into theories that absolutely require mathematics to grasp them, in my case with quantum theory, rather than relativity. For a short while I was able to conceptualise things in mathematics, rather than just physical pictures. That gave me a much deeper understanding of QM. If you can't do tensors (and I can't, as they are not needed for chemistry), you will never really understand GR. SR is a lot easier but even for that you need to get comfortable with algebra and world-line graphs. It is idle to rail against a theory because one does not personally understand it. That is what these cranks do and people quickly get bored with them because, if they won't learn the maths, their situation will never change. So it becomes rather a waste of time.    

 

For SR, I recommend a short (~150pp) book by Banesh Hoffmann (a sound Oxford man :) ), called "Relativity and its Roots",  published by Scientific American Books. This is mostly non-mathematical and is the clearest explanation of SR I know. It also tries to deal - towards the end -  with GR but inevitably ends up with hand-waving, as it can't teach the reader tensors. 

 

You are obviously sincere and interested, but I have the feeing you need to read a book about it, to get hold of it properly. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

Yes, I'm afraid both these people are relativity cranks. (Sluggo isn't and nor is Ocean Breeze). But you were close to getting an answer in the other forum. Pity you blew it. 

 

There is no "religion" or "conspiracy" of course. It is just a difficult subject, that requires a fair degree of facility with maths to grasp it.

 

One of the reasons relativity breeds cranks is that there are so many people who can't bear the idea of something than can't easily be understood without mathematics. It was only at university that I myself got an insight into theories that absolutely require mathematics to grasp them, in my case with quantum theory, rather than relativity. For a short while I was able to think in mathematics and that gave me a much deeper understanding of QM. If you can't do tensors (and I can't, as they are not needed for chemistry), you will never understand GR. SR is a lot easier but even for that you need to get comfortable with algebra and world-line graphs. It is idle to rail against a theory because one does not personally understand it. That is what these cranks do and people quickly get bored with them because, if they won't learn the maths, their situation will never change. So it becomes rather a waste of time.       

Mathematics cannot turn an erroneous theory into gold. Its not us cranks who can't grasp the situation.  We understand perfectly well your position, but we don't accept the logic or rationale.

You seem to have skipped over the glaring errors of logic in the theory, to jump into a mess of maths that bear no resemblance to the real world. Math done for the right reasons and in concert with a sound understanding of Physics is indispensable. But Relativity math is not in that camp.  Stop calling us cranks, as if you are special and we poor fools don't have the intellect to grasp higher things. You sound like a high priest of some kooky religion.

[exchemist]

Mathematics cannot turn an erroneous theory into gold. Its not us cranks who can't grasp the situation.  We understand perfectly well your position, but we don't accept the logic or rationale.

You seem to have skipped over the glaring errors of logic in the theory, to jump into a mess of maths that bear no resemblance to the real world. Math done for the right reasons and in concert with a sound understanding of Physics is indispensable. But Relativity math is not in that camp.  Stop calling us cranks, as if you are special and we poor fools don't have the intellect to grasp higher things. You sound like a high priest of some kooky religion.

QED.   

[marcospolo]

QED.   

what is this supposed to mean in this context? How have I proven anything you have said? I do wish you would occasionally make sense.

[ralfcis]

Did I really blow it or was I blown? On this forum I can say things that wouldn't have been tolerated for a second on the other forum. And on that forum I was able to get away with stuff that would have gotten me instantaneously banned on the previous forum. And on that one I lasted years of many warnings about responding to trolls and being disrespectful to others ideas and established theory. The CR4 forum was the most nasty and ignorant of the lot and I was at my nastiest there but I could still go back for no other reason than to continue demeaning them. No point now. The one before that, I asked a question and was banned within a day.

 

There are no rules, there are only moderators. I find it rude to ignore people, I'd rather tell them to get lost and I don't wish to talk to them because they're not worth talking to. But they just won't go away. Is that and my poem really a valid reason to get banned especially since I only wanted to talk to 1 guy in peace and quiet and isolation? But he also wouldn't answer my specific questions and strung me along instead of just giving me the answer. I tried to verify that answer on the physics stack exchange and I got a range of contradictory opinions and I'm back to square 1 trying to understand what they mean by acceleration. But when I read relativity's definition of time there, that's when I realized it's hopeless. If there were answers to be found they should come from people who have read the books. Ever try to argue with a book? Ever ask a book a question? You can ask wiki a question and the answers just breed more questions that run out of answers. The only forum which has the answers is thephysicsforums and I'm banned there until the end of time for asking the wrong question about the difference between time dilation and age difference. If I was to read anything, I'd spend months or years reading that forum to find the tidbits of information I'm looking for that should already be at any expert's fingertips.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

Popeye, I composed a couple of responses to this, which you have not commented on.

 

Before I continue with the substance of this post, let me say this:   In my mind you have demonstrated that you are an intelligent, knowledgeable, and fair-minder poster.  Truth be told, if you weren't a member here I probably wouldn't ever come myself.

 

 

 

That’s very kind of you to say, but    

 

 

To continue:  Superficially this issue about "time" may seem rather trivial, but I don't think it is.  The answer one gives often depends a very fundamental and very important philosophical attitude.

 

 

 

I’m beginning to disagree already, but will have more to say about this later.

 

 

 

 

In your case, especially, I'm interested in knowing if you even understand the point I am trying to make. My suspicion is that you don't.  Not that you can't understand my words, you're far too intelligent for that.  I'm just beginning to wonder if your "world-view" prevents you from even making sense of what I'm saying.  If not, it may simply be that I haven't articulated it well enough.  Or it could be some difference pertaining to a more fundamental "understanding" about the nature of things. 

 

I'm very curious to find out, so that's why I am basically repeating the question I have already asked, to wit:

 

The duration isn't different for each clock.  The rate of ticking is different, that's all.

Can you see the distinction?

 

 

 

I can see the distinction that you are trying to make, but I don’t believe any such distinction really exists, at least not in the context of relativity. To make such a distinction you first need to say why the clocks are ticking at a different rate. For example, if one of the clocks is faulty, or one of the observers is drunk, the difference in rates is not scientifically meaningful.

 

To begin the experiment, we must assume that we are talking about perfect clocks and observers, such that if you have different clocks, subject to exactly the same environmental conditions, and different observers who are all in the same frame of reference, they will all agree the clocks to be ticking at exactly the same rate.

 

In that case it would be fair to say that a "certain amount of time" is the same for each clock.

 

 

 

 

Also these questions, from the next post: Now, to take it a step further, it would still be the same even if one clock was situated on a shelf 12" above the other, right?

 

 

No, it would not be the same because of gravitational time dilation. The clock that is higher will be less time dilated, that is the sub-atomic vibrations will speed up making the reference frequency higher and the clock ticks faster than the one at the lower elevation. And if you swap the clocks you will get the same result, validating that this effect is not caused by some difference in the clocks but something different between the two altitudes. That something is the change in the intensity of the gravitational field, and that change is measurable.

 

The changing gravitational field, in turn has an effect on the electrodynamics at the atomic level which manifests itself as a difference in the passage of time; not just for the “clocks” but for the nature of time itself, which is an elusive thing to define.

 

The ticks of a clock are events which are located in, and ordered by time. The events are separated by time and could not exist without the passage of time. It is equally valid to say that the passage of time cannot exist without events. So, events are inseparable from time in that one cannot exist without the other. When the rate of ticks change it is time itself that is changing as long as all of the fore mentioned conditions about perfect clocks are adhered to and only the height is changed while holding everything else constant.

 

Now, you might say that is just my "world-view" but this view is at least consistent with experimentally obtained evidence, while the view that time is something that has an existence separate from change or events is a purely philosophical one.

 

That doesn’t mean the philosophical viewpoint is wrong; it is just that it cannot be scientifically verified and therefore of little value. Philosophers may claim that, even in the complete absence of change, time marches in some sort of self-referential fashion. But, if there is nothing changing there is nothing to measure that God’s-eye view of time and the concept is meaningless except to the philosophers.

[Moronium]

 

I can see the distinction that you are trying to make, but I don’t believe any such distinction really exists, at least not in the context of relativity. To make such a distinction you first need to say why the clocks are ticking at a different rate. For example, if one of the clocks is faulty, or one of the observers is drunk, the difference in rates is not scientifically meaningful.

 

 

 

That's what I was afraid of, Popeye. The reason the clocks are running at different rates is totally irrelevant to the point. If you can't see how and why I say that, especially after all I've already said, then I guess we do have fundamental differences in viewpoint.