Personal Topic

[Moronium]

You just keep making the same unsupported (and unsupportable) claims in every thread, A-wal.

 

For the sake of economy I will just repaste a post from another thread, where this came up:

 

Posted 23 January 2019 - 04:29 PM

A-wal, on 23 Jan 2019 - 4:11 PM, said:

Their 'unimagined' readings in no way disagree with the predictions of SR, do they Mr Strawman? If they do then tell us exactly how the results were different from SR's predictions, not what you think SR predicts based on your flimsy (to put it mildly) grasp of SR.

==

 

 

Heh, your animated ramblings are, in their own way, quite precious.

 

OK, let's take this slow.  Assume SR applies, now what?

 

1.  The "stationary" Naval base clock would predict that the clocks on both planes are running slower than his, by an equal amount (since they are travelling away from him at the same speed--assume it's 500 mph).  Is this what happened?  Hell no.

 

2.  The eastbound plane would predict that both other clocks have slowed relative to his, with the westbound clock slowing twice at much (since it is receding from from him at twice the rate--1000 mph instead of only  500 mph).  Is this what actually happened?  Hell no.

 

3.  The westbound plane would say the opposite of the eastbound plane.  It this what actually happened?  Hell, no.

 

What did happen was that eastbound plane's clock recorded the least elapsed time, the naval station's clock showed more elapsed time, and the westbound clock showed the most elapsed time of all three.

 

How can that be explained?

 

Easy, just see how they are moving with respect to the preferred frame (the eci), rather than how they are moving with respect to each other.

 

That's post 58 from this thread, which you can review for the full context if you want:  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34636-physics-based-on-einsteins-errors/page-4

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Two twins accelerate away from Earth. Each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin.

 

Twin A accelerates into twin B's frame, so now twin A is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin B's watch.

 

But if twin B instead accelerates into twin A's frame then twin B is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin A's watch.

It's that fcuking simple. No contradiction and no preferred frame. You see Mr dumbfcuk dumbington?

[Moronium]

 

 

Moronium, on 28 Jan 2019 - 2:42 PM, said:

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.

 

I'll give you partial credit for comprehending at least one thing, A-wal, to wit:  You're right, it doesn't make any sense.

 

Even so, it's what SR does.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's the way SR "operates:"

 

The moving clock runs slow, but how do you determine which clock is actually moving?

 

The answer in SR is universal:  "it aint yours, it's the other guy's!"

 

In SR anything and everything in the entire universe that's moving with respect to YOU is moving.  You aint.  You are absolutely motionless.  You are, so to speak, the ether.

 

Given this, you can now calculate whose clock is slower.  It aint yours.  NEVER.

 

But what does the other guy say?  He, of course, says you are moving, not him.

 

SR says "both are right," another logical impossibility.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

So, as you can see (probably not, but...), in the twin paradox it is the spacetwin, not the earthtwin, who is actually moving.   How do you "know" this?  Because his clock is the one that really slowed down (even though he adamantly denied that it did).

 

As it turns out, contrary to the premises of SR, both are not right.

 

One (the earthtwin) is right about who is moving (and hence who experiences less elapsed time), and one (the spacetwin) is simply WRONG.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

I'll give you partial credit for comprehending at least one thing, A-wal, to wit:  You're right, it doesn't make any sense.

 

Even so, it's what SR does.

No it isn't what SR does. SR doesn't use an ether. You're inserting an ether into a model that doesn't use one and trying to claim that it invalidates the model. It's fcking pathetic.

 

Here's the way SR "operates:"

 

The moving clock runs slow, but how do you determine which clock is actually moving?

 

The answer in SR is universal:  "it aint yours, it's the other guy's!"

 

In SR anything and everything in the entire universe that's moving with respect to YOU is moving.  You aint.  You are absolutely motionless.  You are, so to speak, the ether.

 

Given this, you can now calculate whose clock is slower.  It aint yours.  NEVER.

 

But what does the other guy say?  He, of course, says you are moving, not him.

 

SR says "both are right," another logical impossibility.

SR does not say that you are motionless and other objects are moving. It simply says that all inertial motion is relative. It doesn't make any sense to say that an object is motionless or in motion. Motionless or in motion relative to what? Again, that's trying to insert a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one and saying that it invalidates the model. It's an absurd strawman argument.

 

So, as you can see (probably not, but...), in the twin paradox it is the spacetwin, not the earthtwin, who is actually moving.   How do you "know" this?  Because his clock is the one that really slowed down (even though he adamantly denied that it did).

 

As it turns out, contrary to the premises of SR, both are not right.

 

One (the earthtwin) is right about who is moving (and hence who experiences less elapsed time), and one (the spacetwin) is simply WRONG.

The only reason the eath twin's watch ends up ahead is because the other twin accelerated and the Earth twin didn't. Pay attention dumb dumb.

 

Two twins accelerate away from Earth. Each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin.

 

Twin A accelerates into twin B's frame, so now twin A is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin B's watch.

 

But if twin B instead accelerates into twin A's frame then twin B is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin A's watch.

Edited January 28, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

 

SR does not say that you are motionless and other objects are moving. It simply says that all inertial motion is relative. It doesn't make any sense to say that an object is motionless or in motion. Motionless or in motion relative to what? Again, that's trying to insert a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one and saying that it invalidates the model. It's an absurd strawman argument.

 

 

You wouldn't recognize a self-contradiction if it came up and slapped your *** silly, A-wal.

[A-wal]

The only way you can manufacture a contradiction is if you shoehorn in an ether. SR doesn't use an ether/preferred frame so it's an invalid objection.

[Moronium]

SR does not say that you are motionless and other objects are moving. It simply says that all inertial motion is relative. It doesn't make any sense to say that an object is motionless or in motion. 

 

 

 

If SR holds that the moving clock runs slow, and simultaneously claims that no object is ever in motion (or that you can't know it is), then how could it possibly make any predictions or claims whatsoever?

 

It couldn't.  It would be a completely worthless theory incapable of even saying, let alone predicting, anything about motion whatsoever, because, according to you, it "doesn't make any sense to say that an object is either in motion or motionless."

 

The theory knows nothing, in that case.

 

Yet somehow it manages to discern that the spacetwin ages less than the earthtwin (i.e. it discerns that the spacetwin is moving).

 

Go figure, eh?

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

Two twins accelerate away from Earth. Each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin.

 

Twin A accelerates into twin B's frame, so now twin A is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin B's watch.

 

But if twin B instead accelerates into twin A's frame then twin B is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin A's watch.

 

It doesn't surprise me that you think this complete non sequitur has anything relevant to say about what we are discussing.  If you ever paid for any instruction in logic in school, you should demand your money back.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

If SR holds that the moving clock runs slow, and simultaneously claims that no object is ever in motion (or that you can't know it is), then how could it possibly make any predictions or claims whatsoever?

SR does not claim that the "moving clock" runs slowly. The only inertial motion in SR is relative motion. The clocks are simply in motion relative to each other. You're again inserting an ether and claiming SR contradicts itself when it actually only contradicts the notion of a preferred frame. Give it a rest dumb dumb.

[A-wal]

Two twins accelerate away from Earth. Each is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin.

 

Twin A accelerates into twin B's frame, so now twin A is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin B's watch.

 

But if twin B instead accelerates into twin A's frame then twin B is in a frame in which they were time dilated and length contracted before accelerating into this frame, so their watch is behind twin A's watch.

It doesn't surprise me that you think this complete non sequitur has anything relevant to say about what we are discussing.  If you ever paid for any instruction in logic in school, you should demand your money back.

It shows that there is no preferred frame in SR dumb dumb. If twin A accelerates into twin B's frame then twin A's watch is behind but if twin B into twin A's frame then twin B's watch is behind.

[Moronium]

It doesn't make any sense to say that an object is motionless or in motion.

 

Ya know what doesn't make sense, A-Wal?

 

You and your assertions, that's what.

[A-wal]

Okay dumb dumb. :)

[Moronium]

I offer this as a historical but relevant sidenote:

 

I mentioned Percy Bridgeman a post or two back.  For those who are unfamiliar with him he wrote a book on the subject of the philosophy of science in 1927 called  "The Logic of Modern Physics"  which advocated operationalism and coined the term operational definition.

 

By the time this book was published, Einstein had already denounced the "positivistic" philosophy of science which Bridgeman's book promoted.  In an interview he said it fallaciously embodied Berkeley's solipsistic dictum that "to be is to be perceived."

 

As usual, Einstein was way ahead of his peers.  Percy's book, and similar thought, held sway as the dominant and commonly accepted philosophy of science until well after 1950.  It has since been thoroughly refuted and universally abandoned, but many of its remants still subsist in modern "scientific" thought.

 

 

To elaborate (and substantiate)  on this post, here's an excerpt from Franco Selleri's book "Weak Relativity." 

 

The impact of Mach’s positivism was transmitted by the young Einstein. But around 1920 Einstein turned away from positivism because he realized with a shock some of its consequences; consequences which the next generations of brilliant physicists (Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg) not only discovered but enthusiastically embraced: they became subjectivists. But Einstein’s withdrawal came too late. “Physics had become a stronghold of subjectivist philosophy, and it has remained so ever since.” [Popper]. Popper witnessed Einstein’s radical change of opinion about Mach’s philosophy: “Einstein himself was for years a dogmatic positivist ... He later rejected this interpretation: he told me in 1950 that he regretted no mistake he ever made as much as this mistake.” 

 

 

http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Selleri_Weak_Relativity.pdf

 

I realize that, aside from me, it is unlikely that anybody in this thread cares about this kinda stuff, but that's OK.  I'll post it anyway.  It's too bad that more people don't appreciate the role that philosophy plays in the formulation of scientific theory.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 It's too bad that more people don't appreciate the role that philosophy plays in the formulation of scientific theory.

 

Franco Selleri, who was a highly reputable Italian physicist who taught at Cornell, wrote a number of books, and published over 200 scientific articles on a variety of subjects, makes this point rather eloquently, I think:

 

The successes of the relativistic theories are very well known. The reciprocal convertibility of energy and mass, the effects of velocity and gravitation on the pace of clocks, the weight of light and the precession of planetary motions, provide only a partial summary of the great conquests of Einsteinian physics. Nevertheless, it would not be correct to conclude that every comparison of the theoretical predictions with experiments invariably led to a perfect agreement....

 

One should never forget that behind the equations of a theory there is a huge qualitative structure made of empirical results, generalizations, hypotheses, philosophical choices, historical conditionings, personal tastes, conveniences. When one becomes aware of this reality and compares it with the little portrait of physics handed down by logical empiricism, which is worth less than a caricature, one easily understands that relativity, not only can present weak points side by side with its undeniable successes, but can also survive some failures. The correctness of the mathematical formalism is not enough to validate a scientific structure as coherent and not contradictory. I add that not even hundreds of unconditionally favorable to a theory can warrant absence of unsolved problems, much too often their thoughts are oriented since the university studies towards an acritical acceptance of the dominating theory.

 

 

This is from the same book I linked in the last post.  Anyone with any actual academic interest in relativity theory would find the book quite interesting, I think.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I've been trying to find answers on the physics stack exchange but I can't find any agreement between the experts. The mathematical concept of what causes age difference in the twin paradox seems solid but there is no agreement on the definition of terms such as acceleration and time dilation. The definitive answer on time dilation shows diagrams of the twin paradox. So most say time dilation is the cause of age difference and the experts say without "acceleration" (which I was told words can't define) there is no age difference. So how can time dilation be the cause of age difference  if at other times it doesn't result in age difference? It can if you don't keep the definition of your terms straight.

 

The age difference caused by acceleration isn't the same as that caused by gravity but that gets contradicted sometimes. There is also controversy whether acceleration, being absolute motion, defines a preferred frame and who is actually the one moving through space. Also there is disagreement on whether a relative stop is a valid age difference and even whether light signals between the two parties can constitute a valid age difference (they can't). So far the conclusions are anything you want just like every other forum except you are not allowed to point out logical inconsistencies in any expert's answers because you are insulting his expertise with your argumentativeness. Apply for your soup, get your soup and move on.

 

Since there don't seem to be any definitive answers on relativity, except on how the difference between how the Rindler metric calculates time dilation and how the Minkowski metric calculates it creates age difference, and judging how anything goes on this forum, I'm wondering if I can propose my alternate theory on this physics forum.  It should be helpful for those who want to understand what relativity is saying by giving examples from a different perspective. It can't muddy the waters any more than they already are.

Edited January 29, 2019 by ralfcis