Personal Topic

[Moronium]

But that is what relativity is all about; how observers in different frames experience things like time, length and mass. Nobody has a lock on reality.

 

No, not really.  That may be what Einstein's SPECIAL relativity is about, but other equally (actually more) valid theories of relative motion have NOTHING to say about observer's perceptions, at least not insofar as they are in any way presumed to influence objective reality.  Other theories analyze matter in motion in the external world (actual physics), not thoughts in people's heads (psychology).

 

Of course, as I have said, this is my fundamental complaint about SR.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You read the entire paper already?

I am still going through it. I am a bit slow.

 

Well, I did not try to faithfully analyze every mathematical formula he discusses in an effort to check it for accuracy.  I'll take his word for that, because, like I said, my concerns about SR precede the mathematical formulas and are directed to conceptual implications generated by the basic premises of SR.

 

Math can be used to quantify those premises, but I'm more interested in quality than quantity.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 In other words, he is saying that he demonstrated that reciprocal time dilation is asymmetrical. I am not 100% sure of that; it looks just a little too easy!

 

I know I have bugged you with this question before, Popeye, with very little response from you, but I'll bring it up again, anyway.

 

It just seems obvious to me (and, for some damn reason, I think it should be obvious to others) that reciprocal time dilation can be ruled out a priori, as a matter of simple logic.  It is "easy" to dismiss it, I think.

 

It's just not logically possible for each of two clocks to run slower than the other, is it?  I mean, how would that work?

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's an excerpt from another paper written by Mario Rabinowitz, the author you cited earlier:

 

[in this paper] the mass-energy equation  is derived in general from Newton’s equation of motion without use of electrodynamics, or Einstein’s Postulates which were presented in his superb 1905 paper on Special Relativity (SR).....It is generally thought that such a relationship between mass and energy is strictly a consequence of relativistic physics. As will be shown in this paper, this belief is not well founded.

 

https://file.scirp.org/Html/8-7502243_58717.htm

 

Rabinowitz was a long-time physics professor at Stanford U while also doing research at SLAC.  He has published almost 200 articles in respected scientific journals, and he holds over 50 scientific patents, so he's not some random "crackpot" hanging around on the internet.

 

Why do I bring this up?

 

An inveterate gambler was once asked why he kept going to a gaming house where he knew he was being cheated.  His answer:  "It's the only game in town."

 

Many seem to think that SR is "the only game in town" when it comes to a theory of relativistic motion, and some of the insights attributed to SR.  If that were true, I guess we'd all have to just make-do with SR, even if we knew it was cheating us.

 

But it aint.  There are other theories which eschew relative simultaneity, and which produce better results than SR, such as the theory used in the GPS.  If more people were aware of this, they might be more open to a critical analysis of SR and less prone to blindly insist that the premises of SR have been conclusively proven and can never legitimately be disputed.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

1.  I believe that the issue of "reciprocal observations" has, in effect, already been tested....It's just not logically possible for each of two clocks to run slower than the other, is it?  I mean, how would that work?

 

 

Synchronize two clocks, and then put a guy on a plane with one of them

 

Fly the guy around for awhile, and have him, as a devout disciple of SR, SWEAR on 10 Bibles, his mother's grave, or whatever is sacrosanct to him, that the clock he left behind is running slower than his.  Have him tell you that this is what he "sees" and "observes."

 

Bring them back together.  Ignore the guy's oaths, and look at the two clocks.

 

This has been done, actually.  Hafele and Keating re-enacted their experiment, with more accurate clocks, a few years back.  While in flight they were constantly saying what the time difference in their airborne clock and the earth clock was.  When they landed, they had precisely calculated the difference.  When the two clocks were then compared, their predictions were completely accurate.

 

Did they make their predictions by assuming that the earth clock was running slower than theirs?  Hell, no.  Good thing, too, because it wasn't.  It was the faster clock of the two.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

But it aint.  There are other theories which eschew relative simultaneity, and which produce better results than SR, such as the theory used in the GPS.  If more people were aware of this, they might be more open to a critical analysis of SR and less prone to blindly insist that the premises of SR have been conclusively proven and can never legitimately be disputed.

This is another one of your lies. GPS matches the predictions of SR. Whether or not it also matches some other contrived BS theory that only appeals to people too dumb to see that SR is actually a much simpler model I don't know, and couldn't care less.

 

Synchronize two clocks, and then put a guy on a plane with one of them

 

Fly the guy around for awhile, and have him, as a devout disciple of SR, SWEAR on 10 Bibles, his mother's grave, or whatever is sacrosanct to him, that the clock he left behind is running slower than his.  Have him tell you that this is what he "sees" and "observes."

 

Bring them back together.  Ignore the guy's oaths, and look at the two clocks.

 

This has been done, actually.  Hafele and Keating re-enacted their experiment, with more accurate clocks, a few years back.  While in flight they were constantly saying what the time difference in their airborne clock and the earth clock was.  When they landed, they had precisely calculated the difference.  When the two clocks were then compared, their predictions were completely accurate.

 

Did they make their predictions by assuming that the earth clock was running slower than theirs?  Hell, no.  Good thing, too, because it wasn't.  It was the faster clock of the two.

So the one that accelerated is the one that experienced less proper time, exactly as SR predicts dumb dumb.

 

I think I know what experiment you're talking about and it was actually testing and confirmed the predictions of SR.

 

You really are a fukcing joke.

Edited January 28, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

Heh, A-Wal, you obviously don't understand even the most fundamental tenets of SR.  Educate yourself sometime, eh?

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Actually, I took a little poetic license and oversimplified my recount of H-K.  In some instances, the earth clock would show less accumulated time than the plane clock and in others it would show more.

 

That would depend on whether it was flying east or west.

 

SR says time dilation is strictly dependent on relative motion, i.e., the speed differential between two relatively moving objects.

 

It isn't.  It depends on the absolute speed(s) of objects relative to a preferred frame--the ECI in this case.

 

Of course SR also says that time dilation is reciprocal.  It aint.  It's unilateral and asymmetric  One of the two clocks will always show more time elapsed and the other less (not that it could possibly be otherwise, the claims of SR notwithstanding).  There has never been a case, nor could there ever be, where each of two clocks showed less accumulated time than the other.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Heh, A-Wal, you obviously don't understand even the most fundamental tenets of SR.  Educate yourself sometime, eh?

lol You think because time dilation is reciprocal it means that SR predicts that each clock would be slower than the other when they're back in the same frame, and this strawman created from having **** for brains is your what your arguments are based on.

 

SR says time dilation is strictly dependent on relative motion, i.e., the speed differential between two relatively moving objects.

 

It doesn't.  It depends on the absolute speed(s) of objects relative to a preferred frame--the ECI in this case.

Yet more utter bullshit from a liar and a dumb dumb.

 

Of course one of the clocks will show more elapsed time, the one that didn't change frames, exactly as SR predicts.

 

That would depend on whether it was flying east or west.

Now this actually makes sense, in the sense that if motion really were absolute then direction of motion of a moving clock would have to dictate which clock was slower once they're back in the same frame. I know of no experiment that's ever shown time dilation and/or length contraction to depend on direction of motion in any way, because there isn't one. Tis complete bollocks.

Edited January 28, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 

Now this actually makes sense, in the sense that if motion really were absolute then direction of motion of a moving clock would have to dictate which clock was slower once they're back in the same frame. I know of no experiment that's ever shown time dilation and/or length contraction to depend on direction of motion in any way, because there isn't one. Tis complete bollocks.

 

 

What you don't know could fill many volume of books, A-wal.  Like I said, educate yourself.

[Moronium]

Yes, SR is forced to concede that the spacetwin is younger in the twin paradox.  But It reaches this conclusion only by contradicting its own premises (i.e., by adopting a preferred frame--the earthtwin's frame--and positing absolute motion).

 

That's fine, and it is exactly what alternative theories would do.  It just happens to contradict the basic premises of SR, which prohibit preferred frames; insist that all motion is relative; insist that time dilation is reciprocal in inertial frames; etc., that's all.

 

The LT clearly state that the moving clock will run slow.   In the twin paradox, the spacetwin is "really" (absolutely) moving, not the earthtwin.  In an attempt to save face, SR advocates try hard to obscure and deny this absolute motion, but their arguments are specious and fallacious.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It simply isn't possible to get an absolute answer (as in the twin paradox) using a theory that is truly relative.

 

SR is not a truly relative theory.  In each and every calculation it makes, SR posits an "ether" that is absolutely motionless.  That "ether" is always the frame in which the calculation is being made.

 

In the twin paradox, SR ends up concluding that the only valid frame to prefer is the earth's frame.  The earth's frame gives the correct predictions, the spacetwin's frame generates erroneous predictions (because SR forces him to assert that he is motionless when he is not).

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Yes, SR is forced to concede that the spacetwin is younger in the twin paradox.  But It reaches this conclusion only by contradicting its own premises (i.e., by adopting a preferred frame--the earthtwin's frame--and positing absolute motion).

More utter bullshit based on a complete lack of understanding of the model you can't grasp but think you know is wrong.

 

There is no preferred frame in the twin paradox! The younger twin is the one who changes frames and it has nothing to do with any kind of preferential frame because it works the exact same way if you use any other frame.

 

For example in two planes start off in moving at the same velocity side by side then they are at rest relative to each other so if one lands and takes off again then so they're back in the same frame as the one that stayed in the air then it will be the one that landed that aged less. By your dumb dumb logic the one that landed should age more.

 

I understand that believing the model is wrong is easier for you than facing up to the fact that you simply aren't capable of grasping it but the universe doesn't give a sh1t about you're feelings or your reluctance to accept your own stupidity.

 

It simply isn't possible to get an absolute answer (as in the twin paradox) using a theory that is truly relative.

Utter bullshit!

 

SR is not a truly relative theory.  In each and every calculation it makes, SR posits an "ether" that is absolutely motionless.  That "ether" is always the frame in which the calculation is being made.

Utter bullshit! If you want to apply an ether to SR then yes, it would have to be at rest in every frame and that wouldn't make any sense. But SR uses no ether.

 

In the twin paradox, SR ends up concluding that the only valid frame to prefer is the earth's frame.  The earth's frame gives the correct predictions, the spacetwin's frame generates erroneous predictions (because SR forces him to assert that he is motionless when he is not).

Utter bullshit! SR's predictions never employ a preferred frame. The only reason the Earth twin ends up older is because they don't change frames and the other twin does.

 

You can't come up with any kind of coherent argument so you just keep on repeating the same nonsensical bollocks over and over in complete denial that you're simply too thick to comprehend.

[Moronium]

 

SR is not a truly relative theory.  In each and every calculation it makes, SR posits an "ether" that is absolutely motionless.  That "ether" is always the frame in which the calculation is being made.

 

 

 

It doesn't take much reflection to see that, using SR, you could come up with an infinite number of answers to the same basic question, just depending on the frame of reference you arbitrarily choose to calculate an answer. SR tries to insist that every contradictory answer is "right."  Fraid not.  It has been repeatedly demonstrated that two relatively moving clocks will register different times.  But each clock will have one, and only one, reading on it.  No clock can simultaneously give an infinite number of readings.

 

Attempting to use SR to predict the clock readings in an experiment like H-K will only generate a multitude of conflicting predictions, all of which are wrong.

[A-wal]

It doesn't take much reflection to see that, using SR, you could come up with an infinite number of answers to the same basic question, just depending on the frame of reference you arbitrarily choose to calculate an answer. SR tries to insist that every contradictory answer is "right."  Fraid not.  It has been repeatedly demonstrated that two relatively moving clocks will register different times.  But each clock will have one, and only one, reading on it.  No clock can simultaneously give an infinite number of readings.

 

Attempting to use SR to predict the clock readings in an experiment like H-K will only generate a multitude of conflicting predictions, all of which are wrong.

SR never makes contradictory predictions you ridiculous batshit fcuktard.

Edited January 28, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 it works the exact same way if you use any other frame.

 

 

 

Wrong, completely wrong, and virtually self-evidently wrong.

 

If you had any grasp of fundamental logic you would never make such a ridiculous claim.

[A-wal]

Wrong, completely wrong, and virtually self-evidently wrong.

 

If you had any grasp of fundamental logic you would never make such a ridiculous claim.

You're so fcuking dumb I feel like I'm getting dumber just talking to you.

Edited January 28, 2019 by A-wal