Personal Topic

[Moronium]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

 

Operationalism is based on the intuition that we do not know the meaning of a concept unless we have a method of measurement for it. It is commonly considered a theory of meaning which states that “we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations” (Bridgman 1927, 5). That drastic statement was made in The Logic of Modern Physics, published in 1927 by the American physicist P. W. Bridgman.

 

As Bridgman's ideas gained currency they were shaped into a general philosophical doctrine of “operationalism” or “operationism”, and in that form became very influential in many areas, especially in methodological debates in psychology. Both in philosophy and in psychology operationalism is nowadays commonly regarded as an extreme and outmoded position,

 

As already noted, Bridgman's ideas first gained recognition in the midst of the logical-positivist preoccupation with language and meaning; therefore, operationalism was taken primarily as a doctrine about meaning and, as such, shown to be inadequate. In that context, it was reasonable for most philosophers to abandon it

 

 

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

 

Wiki explains operationalism as follows:  

 

Operationalization is the scientific practice of operational definition, where even the most basic concepts are defined through the operations by which we measure them. The practice originated with the philosophy of science book The Logic of Modern Physics (1927), by Percy Williams Bridgman, whose methodological position is called operationalism.

 

 

Operationalism's adherents often claim that they have, and want, nothing to do with philosophy.  They are, they say, hard-boiled, pragmatic scientists who only concern themselves with "empirical fact."  They deceive themselves.  Operationalism is a philosophy.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

There is still a god's eye view of time. In every frame, whether you're accelerating, moving at constant velocity or in a gravitational field, your and everyone's clocks are all ticking at the same rate which is also the normal rate of time and the velocity of c through time. Everyone in the universe sees himself age at the normal rate. But relative to you, the velocity of c through time fuels the velocity c through space which means if you see something moving, it's velocity through time is less than c and approaches 0 as the velocity c through space approaches c. So their clock rate slows relative to you but not to them because they are stationary in their own frame. You can see this in the doppler shift televised picture show of what's going on inside their frame. They see themselves move at the normal rate through time but you see each other move at a non-normal rate through time. My theory looks from the perspective of this universal normal rate of time that is common to all frames and how this works to explain the relativistic effects between frames. This is my definition of the god's eye view which is different from both Newton's and Einstein's definitions. Einstein didn't disprove a god's eye view of time, he just didn't know about this particular definition and chose an option that was contrary to any that involved both a common universal time (Newton) and a universal rate of time (which is proper time). There are no contradictions in my theory and it can predict results that relativity can't.

 

PS. I have a conservation of time law where time doesn't disappear, it gets converted and stored as space that can't be counted by clocks. If constant relative velocity causes time dilation and stores some of that time as distance separation, then a break in that constant relative velocity forces that time stored as distance to be converted into age difference thereby conserving time on both sides of the equation much like energy can be conserved when converted into matter and vice versa.

Moronium is right. You can't begin to understand Time with a Philosophy or world view that prohibits any view that runs against the approved narrative.

I note you did not respond to my post #315 where I offer a way out of the issues you must always have when trying to sort out the details of SR and GR.

 

Anyway, here's a reason why your standard view and understanding about Time, is not useful and therefore most likely incorrect:-

 

The consequences of believing that Time is a thing, or exists as some force or energy or whatever that is affected by curved spacetime etc, is that you end up subscribing to a set of theories that are irrational, self contradictory and invariably lead to real, unsolvable paradoxes.

 

This is surely a good enough reason to step back and revise your cherished beliefs.

 

The Twin Paradox has never been "solved". Just a bunch of excuses have been made. No one agrees with the other.

 

The math for SR is faulty from the first assumption, and can't do anything else but lead to an error.

 

On the other hand, if you have a more logical world view on Time, one that says that Time is just a convenient tool of man to allow the comparison of the occurrence of events, then something magic happens!  All those weird ideas such as Time shrinking, Distance shrinking, and Mass increasing with speed all disappear. Those ideas suddenly are seen for what they are, just interpretations and conclusions based on an original assumption which was incorrect.

[ralfcis]

I went back to read it. There is no way I`m going to believe generations of smart people are all in on a conspiracy to keep everyone else wilfully ignorant by being wilfully dishonest. However they are wilfully not sharing what they know and dumbing it down to the point it`s just dumb. Just give me the words and let me try to figure out what they mean. But they hide the real words behind the term "acceleration" which doesn't mean acceleration at all. That was the last word I heard when for years I had been told acceleration had nothing to do with permanent age difference.

 

Why are they doing this, so they don't get bugged by further questions? People have been bugging them for over a hundred years and they still refuse to share the knowledge. Instead they train flocks of parrots to recite meaningless drivel because who's actually going to argue with a parrot? I've met only 2 people in 12 yrs of searching who might know the secrets I'm after and one of them would not answer any direct questions. The rest have been aggressive parrots who know nothing and get me banned a lot. They are just as much cranks as talking to, well, you two guys. The theory they teach these parrots is not the theory of relativity. The heart of that theory is where the math joins SR with GR. Surely somebody out there can put it into words. Think of the bestseller that would make (but don't let Brian Greene write it).

 

PS. Despite what exchemist said about sluggo and oceanbreeze, I don't believe either have the knowledge I'm searching for. It'd be nice if they could openly admit that. If they can't then the only conclusion I could draw is that they find my questions have no merit and they believe I'm prejudiced in what answers will suit me. Well the answer of "acceleration" didn't suit me at all and yet I'm trying to pursue it as vigorously as I can. I was immediately able to recognize KJW as a person of the knowledge level I required and anything less would be a waste of time like accepting relativity's definition of time. That's just a deal breaker for me.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

I went back to read it. There is no way I`m going to believe generations of smart people are all in on a conspiracy to keep everyone else wilfully ignorant by being wilfully dishonest. However they are wilfully not sharing what they know and dumbing it down to the point it`s just dumb. Just give me the words and let me try to figure out what they mean. But they hide the real words behind the term "acceleration" which doesn't mean acceleration at all. That was the last word I heard when for years I had been told acceleration had nothing to do with permanent age difference.

 

Why are they doing this, so they don't get bugged by further questions? People have been bugging them for over a hundred years and they still refuse to share the knowledge. Instead they train flocks of parrots to recite meaningless drivel because who's actually going to argue with a parrot? I've met only 2 people in 12 yrs of searching who might know the secrets I'm after and one of them would not answer any direct questions. The rest have been aggressive parrots who know nothing and get me banned a lot. They are just as much cranks as talking to, well, you two guys. The theory they teach these parrots is not the theory of relativity. The heart of that theory is where the math joins SR with GR. Surely somebody out there can put it into words. Think of the bestseller that would make (but don't let Brian Greene write it).

 

PS. Despite what exchemist said about sluggo and oceanbreeze, I don't believe either have the knowledge I'm searching for. It'd be nice if they could openly admit that. If they can't then the only conclusion I could draw is that they find my questions have no merit and they believe I'm prejudiced in what answers will suit me. Well the answer of "acceleration" didn't suit me at all and yet I'm trying to pursue it as vigorously as I can. I was immediately able to recognize KJW as a person of the knowledge level I required and anything less would be a waste of time like accepting relativity's definition of time. That's just a deal breaker for me.

There is no "conspiracy" as such, that scientists are "in" on.  Its just that the Education system is an indoctrination system that has a goal of protecting itself from what is perceived as attacks. There are also no real "attacks" made by anyone.   But when anyone comes up with an idea that would make the education system as a whole look like absolute fools, having believed and taught a bunch of utter rubbish for the last hundred years, then this would be taken as an attack, that can never be allowed to see the light of day.

 

You can never go through a course at Uni on Physics unless you accept every doctrine of Einstein and his mates. (Minkowski etc)

Once you memorize all that stuff, and get your degree, have your career mapped out, there is no way you are going to loose all that by making waves bout Relativity.

In the real world nobody ever uses any of Einsteins theories anyway, so its not hard to just say you believe it, and then you can forget all about it, as its irrelevant anyway to practical Physics.

 

This is why you can't get a straight answer to any of your questions.  First, it would expose more flaws on the approved theories, and second, they don't have any real answers.

 

But if someone says that everything you learned at Uni related to Relativity is a bunch of crap, then you will defend it to the death, or admit that you were sucked in, and were not clever enough to recognize the errors they were teaching you. (which is the truth) Smart enough is not really correct, you were just too busy and trusting that everything they said was the best info available. It was not. They never mention all the criticisms and problems with the theories, only the very weak and easily solved problems are glossed over.

 

you will never figure out what Acceleration means, as its related to Time which does not exist according to GR, as Time is just an inherent aspect of "Spacetime".

Also many key terms in Physics are not well defined or defined at all. Mass for one. Ive mentioned the farce of the Gravitational constant "g" of Cavendish, and there are many more.

 

But good luck trying.

Edited February 6, 2019 by marcospolo

[exchemist]

I went back to read it. There is no way I`m going to believe generations of smart people are all in on a conspiracy to keep everyone else wilfully ignorant by being wilfully dishonest. However they are wilfully not sharing what they know and dumbing it down to the point it`s just dumb. Just give me the words and let me try to figure out what they mean. But they hide the real words behind the term "acceleration" which doesn't mean acceleration at all. That was the last word I heard when for years I had been told acceleration had nothing to do with permanent age difference.

 

Why are they doing this, so they don't get bugged by further questions? People have been bugging them for over a hundred years and they still refuse to share the knowledge. Instead they train flocks of parrots to recite meaningless drivel because who's actually going to argue with a parrot? I've met only 2 people in 12 yrs of searching who might know the secrets I'm after and one of them would not answer any direct questions. The rest have been aggressive parrots who know nothing and get me banned a lot. They are just as much cranks as talking to, well, you two guys. The theory they teach these parrots is not the theory of relativity. The heart of that theory is where the math joins SR with GR. Surely somebody out there can put it into words. Think of the bestseller that would make (but don't let Brian Greene write it).

 

PS. Despite what exchemist said about sluggo and oceanbreeze, I don't believe either have the knowledge I'm searching for. It'd be nice if they could openly admit that. If they can't then the only conclusion I could draw is that they find my questions have no merit and they believe I'm prejudiced in what answers will suit me. Well the answer of "acceleration" didn't suit me at all and yet I'm trying to pursue it as vigorously as I can. I was immediately able to recognize KJW as a person of the knowledge level I required and anything less would be a waste of time like accepting relativity's definition of time. That's just a deal breaker for me.

Read Hoffmann's book, then. I am sure this will either resolve your issues or at least put you in a much better position to engage someone who understands SR well.

 

And please put away this notion that there is refusal to share knowledge. That is the opposite of of whole raison d'etre of the academic world and is patently absurd. Books on relativity are countless, as are physics courses on it, both at school and at university. But it is a tricky theory to master and one needs to put in the time and effort to get hold of it properly. 

 

By the way, have you tried contacting Markus Hanke? If you can (a) stay polite and ( b ) resist the temptation to put forward theories of your own, until you have heard out the explanation of what relativity says, I feel sure he will be able to answer your questions. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by exchemist

[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.

 

You might want to take a look at this paper, published in "Foundations of Physics:"

 

The Lorentz transformation (LT) is explained by changes occurring in the wave characteristics of matter as it changes inertial frame. This explanation is akin to that favoured by Lorentz, but informed by later insights, due primarily to de Broglie, regarding the underlying unity of matter and radiation.

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265794811_A_Case_for_Lorentzian_Relativity

 

A few more excerpts:

 

The language of special relativity (SR) may leave the impression that the Lorentz transformation (the LT) describes actual physical changes of space and time....the Minkowski metric should itself be seen as a kind of illusion, and as a consequence rather than the cause of this change in matter.

 

In what follows, the distinction drawn will be between Einstein’s SR (ESR) and what we will call Lorentzian SR (LSR)....ESR and LSR cannot be distinguished by supposing that in ESR, though not in LSR, the LT describes a transformation of spacetime. As we have seen, the LT must be explained in either case by changes occurring in matter as it is accelerated from one inertial frame to another

 

....it becomes apparent that there is something elusive in Einstein’s theory, and that it is the Lorentzian approach that better explains the origin of the contraction, dilation and loss of simultaneity described by the LT...Einstein’s bold assertion that the laws of physics must be the same for all observers revealed the elegance of SR and something indeed of the elegance of the universe itself. It is suggested nonetheless that it is a Lorentzian approach that will provide the deeper understanding of the physical meaning of SR.

 

Note that although he refers to a change of reference frames in passing, that is not the explanation.  The explanation is "changes occurring in matter."

 

It seems to me that this author makes an error in nomenclature, though.  He refers to "Lorentzian SR."  But Lorentizian relativity is not "special," i.e. it does not apply only to inertial frames.  Unlike SR, the premises of LR allow for accurate predictions whether the motion in question is inertial or accelerating.  His abbreviation should have simply been "LR," not "LSR."

 

Einstein's original mission in embarking on the invention of GR was to create a theory designed to show at all motion, not just inertial motion, was "relative."  Despite his resolute determination and his best efforts, he failed in this ambition.  LR encounters no such problems, because it posits all motion as being absolute, and not merely relative.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 The absolute should give the same answers as the relative (because it's still all relative to a common intermediary frame) so why have the relative at all?

 

You're contradicting yourself again.  In your "two planes flying over the poles" example, the speed of the planes (relative to each other) going side by side would be vastly different than it would be if they were flying in opposite directions.  Hence you would get vastly different answers when trying to determine the amount of time dilation for each if you looked only at their relative speed, as opposed to their absolute speed.  You simply don't get "the same answers" either way.  I think you also agreed that the time dilation would be the same for each, either way, and hence that it was a function of absolute motion, not relative motion.

 

Of course this has been empirically demonstrated also.  Time dilation is NOT a function of relative motion.  It is a function of absolute motion, so you've answered your own question (i.e., "why have the relative at all?").  You're right to ask the question.  There is no need for an analysis in terms of relative motion--it would simply give you the wrong answer in many (most) cases.

 

Of course that presents a fundamental problem for SR--it insists that time dilation is a function of relative motion only.

 

PS: In this particular example of yours, the answer would be the same.  Why?   Because you have, however arbitrarily, established a preferred frame (which you call a "common frame").  The speed of light is isotropic in a preferred frame (but only in that frame) and any motion with respect to it is absolute.

 

Your example does not, however, "measure" the one-way speed of light, as you claim.  It simply posits it.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I won't read your posts anymore but if you had anything interesting to say I'm sure someone else will call my attention to it.

[Moronium]

I won't read your posts anymore but if you had anything interesting to say I'm sure someone else will call my attention to it.

 

 

Heh, OK.  Typical.

 

A long while back you said you never read any of my posts.  What's changed?

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Sometimes I backslide. I'm trying not to. See I just read your last one.

[sluggo]

Moronium;

You seem to simply conclusively assume that the basic postulates of SR are "true."

 

 

I assume nothing. I accept the SR theory on the basis of years of experimental verification.

 

Only "required" for what?  What do you think I have misunderstood?

 

 

Read the introductory paragraph in the 1905 paper, where he uses the example of induction to demonstrate the 'relativity principle', which I paraphrased.

If you don't understand it then you are wasting your time here.

Moving relative to what?  If you are saying that A is "moving at .3c" and that B is "moving at .6c," as I take you to be, then you seem to be talking about some kind of absolute motion.  Where could you ever get those speeds from the mechanics of SR?

 

The standard spacetime drawings use the vertical time, or ct axis for the reference frame, U in this case, and the horizontal axis for distance. The graphic represents U's description of events. If you aren't familiar with the graphics, then they won't benefit you.

 

They "conclude" that on the basis of what assumption(s)?

 

On the basis of measurement with light signals.

 

In this statement he is NOT saying that the ether does not exist.

 

Neither did Michelson after the MM experiment. He said if it does exist, its effect is much smaller than predicted.

 

But, as it turns out, SR's absolute prohibition against positing a "preferred frame" is, in fact, a theoretical denial of the possibility that a preferred claim could ever conceivably exist. His theory disintegrates if he doesn't insist that "all (inertial) frames are equivalent and equally valid."

 

There is no special frame in SR, because the environment requires constant linear motion, whereby any inertial frame may serve as a reference frame. In technical/mathematical terms, every moving inertial frame, is equivalent to a scaled fixed frame. I could put up some math expressions, but since you aren't familiar with them, no benefit there.
 

I don't need to know their absolute elevation above sea level in order to legitimately say that one of two objects is 3 feet higher than the other.  That is their relative elevation, and does not require any information pertaining to their "absolute" elevation in order for it to be valid.

 

You just defined the principle of measurement. We can only measure differences: voltage, altitude, pressure, age, etc. So why not difference in speed?

 

But that does not mean that they can't have such an elevation.  One could be 2000 feet above mean sea level, and one 2003.  It would still be just as true that one was 3 feet higher than the other.  Using this analogy, SR would claim, however, that one could never suggest that either object had any determinate  height above mean sea level.

 

We know from observation that sea level has an absolute value relative to earth center. Now you are in the world of GR.

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by sluggo

[Moronium]

You surprised me, Sluggo.  I didn't think you would respond to any of that.

 

 

They "conclude" that on the basis of what assumption(s)?

 

 

On the basis of measurement with light signals.

 

 

 

"Measurement with light signals" is just based on Einstein synchronization in SR, which PRESUPPOSES (not proves) it's postulates.

 

But that's not what I was getting at.  In SR, each "concludes" that the other guy's clock is running slow on the basis of deduction from the following premises (which are mandatory in SR):

 

1.  Moving clocks slow down.

 

2.  I aint moving, he is.

 

3.   Therefore his clock must be running slower than mine.

 

Even apart from from the fact that their respective claims are mutually exclusive, and hence that it is logically impossible for both to be right (which SR says they are), there is no empirical basis for either of them to make the claims that they do.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I assume nothing. I accept the SR theory on the basis of years of experimental verification.

 

 

 

SR, as a total theory, has never been experimentally verified. It's true that the validity of Lorentz transformations has been repeatedly verified, sure.

 

But all such "confirmations" also apply equally to competing theories of relative motion which employ the LT, but which have postulates that are antithetically opposed of those of SR.

 

I have cited many authorities on this point, many times, but research it yourself if you want to deny that.

 

Are you familiar with the theory which the GPS uses to achieve accurate results? Hint:  It aint SR.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

That's funny.  I could have sworn that cosmic ray muon lifetimes had been measured and found to be increased, as SR predicts.

 

And that the mass defect of the chemical elements, as measured in the energy balance of nuclear reactions,  fits E=mc². Which is a result from SR.  

[Moronium]

That's funny.  I could have sworn that cosmic ray muon lifetimes had been measured and found to be increased, as SR predicts.

 

  

As I just said, they are confirmed by the LT, not SR per se.  And of course that experiment did nothing to "test" how the muon "sees it," i.e, it did nothing to test the hypothesis of "reciprocal time dilation."

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

And that the mass defect of the chemical elements, as measured in the energy balance of nuclear reactions,  fits E=mc². Which is a result from SR.  

 

 

SR requires that conclusion, but again, so do other theories.  In fact I just cited an academic paper which showed that the same conclusion can be derived from Newtonian physics, with no reference at all to relativity.

 

The E=MC2 formulation had been advanced years before Einstein (albeit on the basis of inadequate reasoning).

Edited February 7, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

SR requires that conclusion, but again, so do other theories.  In fact I just cited an academic paper which showed that the same conclusion can be derived from Newtonian physics, with no reference at all to relativity.

 

The E=MC2 formulation had been advanced years before Einstein (albeit on the basis of inadequate reasoning).

Now you've got my attention. Do you have a link to that paper?