Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

and if you have time, a few minutes, one Youtube video with just one persons objections to LT is found at:

 

I am interested in your opinion on it.  This is not the only possible criticism of LT.

[GAHD]

The whole PURPOSE of using sound as the constant, PROVES that the Original Equation using light, is flawed.  I know it gives crazy results, that's why it can prove that the equation is stupid.  The equation SHOULD still give the same results regardless of the constant used. The purpose of the constant of light was simply to give both observers the same benchmark from which to do their comparative measurements.

I might be misreading you...still I'm just going to point out here that changing a constant to a different constant is not anywhere near what you have described. What you've talked about here is a misapplication of math, and is just plain silly.

 

C is for information propagation, not light; it's used that way in laymans terms because it's easier to associate it as light speed for a layman trying to understand why a lightswitch "instantly" brightens a room.

 

EG, If you substitute a different value in another constant equation, say your savings account's interest rate, do you think you'll get the same results as with the actual APR? The same is true for other things like shear modulus; If you substitute the vale of steel with the value of Styrofoam, do you think the results will be the same?

[Moronium]

What do you think? Have you retracted your views on the use of subjective interpretation in Physics? Just so that you can justify the LT Equation Derivation?

 

 

I watched the video (I hate those things with the mechanical voices--I find my attention span fading when I listen to them).  The primary claim is that the LT have "no physical meaning."

 

I've heard any number of experts say that there is no such thing as length contraction and that such an assumption is unnecessary to reach the same basic conclusions.   They may well be right.  As I understand it, length contraction has never been experimentally confirmed.  If that's correct, that would eliminate the "shortening in only one direction" issue.

 

What has been confirmed is so-called "time dilation."  I think this is a misnomer and usually call it "clock retardation."  By a number of different methods (including the GPS method used for re-calibrating clocks intended to go into orbit which I talked about), clock retardation has been empirically confirmed.  I find no need to accept clock retardation "on faith" or to speculate about whether it has "physical meaning."  If the elapsed time recorded on moving clocks actually decreased (H-K) that, to me, has a "physical meaning."

 

Also, I don't see clock retardation as a being a product of  "subjective" perception.  I have already, in earlier posts, said that I don't think the claims that it can be "perceived sensually" (e.g. via "light clocks") have any merit.  Such examples derive the  conclusion from mental deductions from (unsound) assumptions, not sense perceptions.

 

I understand the LT from a conceptual standpoint, which I think is what you're most interested in (I don't bother with the mathematical derivations).  Let me give an every day example to illustrate.

 

Let's say that I have just bought a new 100' long "tape measure" and I want to play with it.  So, just for the hell of it, I go out and measure a football field, but only measure it to be 90 yards.

 

Puzzled, I try it on another football field, but still only get 90 yards.  Yet a third measures only 90 yards.   What the hell is up?

 

There are a variety of possible explanations, but one definite possibility is that my new tape measure is only 90 feet long, notwithstanding the fact that it was represented to me to be 100'.

 

The principle with the LT is the same.  I'm not getting the measurement I expect--why not?  In M-M types of cases, one possible explanation is that it occurs because clocks slow down with speed.  Having the incorrect time would result in me calculating an incorrect speed.

 

Is that THE answer to the M-M puzzle?  There are other possible ways to explain the results too, ya know?  Same with my tape measure puzzle.

 

If I took my new tape measure and found that, compared to all the others I could find, it was indeed only 90 feet long, then I would accept that as the explanation for the reason that I routinely and regularly misgauged the length of football fields by a predictable amount when relying on it.

 

If I was willing to make some adjustments (aka "transformations") to my measurements, I could still use it to accurately measure a football field (or anything else).  I would just multiply the reading I got by 1.1111...

 

Edit:  I misapplied the concept here (and hence the math), but that doesn't change the ideas involved.  If my tape was only 90' long, then, using it,  I would measure a standard football field to be about 333 feet long rather than the 300' I was expecting.  I would not measure it to be only 270,' as I originally suggested. I would measure 90 yards only if my tape was longer than standard ones, not shorter.

 

Unless I'm mistaken again, the correct "transformation" in my example would be to multiply by .9, not 1.111.  This would be after measuring the field to be approx. 333.33 feet long, not 270.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If I took my new tape measure and found that, compared to all the others I could find, it was indeed only 90 feet long, then I would accept that as the explanation for the reason that I routinely and regularly misgauged the length of football fields by a predictable amount when relying on it.

 

 

Just in case the analogy is not clear, let me summarize it this way:   Since the validity of the LT predictions have been repeatedly verified, and since the hypothesis of clock retardation offers (on it's face, anyway) a plausible explanation for the fact that our actual measurements are not in accord with our expected measurements (in M-M types of experiments), I accept clock retardation as a plausible explanation for the fact that we don't detect the earth's motion, even though it "really is" moving.

 

A properly constructed football field "really is" 100 yards long, even if I don't measure it to be that.

 

Likewise, in the LR framework, light really does travel at different speeds, depending on direction, even if we don't measure it that way.

 

Put another way, the speed of light is not "really" constant as Einstein claims.  It only appears to be (is measured to be) constant, that's all.

 

On an empirical level, every "test" we ever made which has been interpreted as "confirming" SR, also confirms Lorentz's view of what's "really happening."

 

That said, the reverse does not apply.  Some of our tests can be interpreted as "confirming" the premises of LR, while disconfirming (falsifying) those of SR.

 

As I said before, we can never "prove" a fundamental scientific hypothesis.  That's why I use the word "confirm" as opposed to "prove."  But, as I'm sure you realize, we can falsify a hypothesis.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

I watched the video (I hate those things with the mechanical voices--I find my attention span fading when I listen to them).  The primary claim is that the LT have "no physical meaning."

 

 

 

Yes, apparently the maker of this video thinks that using a robotic voice, similar to the one used by the late Stephen Hawking, lends some credibility to the nonsensical claims being made.

 

I do have to admit the video does get one thing correct; there is definitely a difference between capitol K and lower-case k. Just having to listen to that over and over was a “capitol” offense.

 

However, I don’t see what is so strange about the fact that two different ends of a fixed rod will be encountered at different times by an observer moving relative to that rod. Has the video maker never been in a moving car or a train and moved past any object with length?

 

And the conclusion, of course, is that we must reject all of cosmology, particle physics, relativity etc etc because of this “shocking” revelation. No wonder marco likes this video!

[OceanBreeze]

 

This is of course correct, but Relativists depend on subjective interpretation of events by Syphilis ridden quacks pretending to be scientists so that SR can appear to work.

 

 

 

Yes of course, "relativists" are nothing but a bunch of mangy syphilis-ridden quacks, I tell ya!

 

Nice logical argument ya got there.

[Moronium]

I do have to admit the video does get one thing correct; there is definitely a difference between capitol K and lower-case k. Just having to listen to that over and over was a “capitol” offense.

 

And the conclusion, of course, is that we must reject all of cosmology, particle physics, relativity etc etc because of this “shocking” revelation. No wonder marco likes this video!

 

 

Heh, good observations, Popeye (although I think you mean capital, not capitol).  Sorry, that parenthetical part is just for my own amusement by acting like a spelling cop.

 

Yeah, it makes things much simpler if you over-generalize, which I think Marco has a tendency to do.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yes of course, "relativists" are nothing but a bunch of mangy syphilis-ridden quacks, I tell ya!

 

Nice logical argument ya got there.

 

 

I think Marcos has some worthwhile insights, but of course that aint one of them.  As I told him before, he resembles some of the staunch adovcates of relativism in that respect.

 

It's unfortunate. It really tends to discredit his views.

[OceanBreeze]

I think Marcos has some worthwhile insights, but of course that aint one of them.  As I told him before, he resembles some of the staunch adovcates of relativism in that respect.

 

It's unfortunate. It really tends to discredit his views.

 

Yes it always unfortunate when the debate degenerates into that sort of ad hom. Funny thing is, I have been attacked from both sides. I know the GPS system works and I can be described as a "heavy user" of equipment that relies very much on it working and therefore I have no doubt at all about most of the principles of relativity, including the validity of the Lorentz factor.

But, as you know, I do have some doubts about the reciprocity of time dilation, especially as it is described in the twins paradox. Since reciprocal time dilation has yet to be empirically tested, and remains unverified, I feel that some doubts about it are justified.

Length contraction is also not empirically tested, at least not explicitly, it is strongly implied by the verification of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light, so I accept it.

[OceanBreeze]

Heh, good observations, Popeye (although I think you mean capital, not capitol).  Sorry, that parenthetical part is just for my own amusement by acting like a spelling cop.

 

 

 

That's why I put it in quote marks. Never mind, I see I missed one.

Edited February 11, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[Moronium]

But, as you know, I do have some doubts about the reciprocity of time dilation, especially as it is described in the twins paradox. Since reciprocal time dilation has yet to be empirically tested, and remains unverified, I feel that some doubts about it are justified.

 

 

Yeah, I know.  But what I think you fail to fully realize is that if you don't accept reciprocal dilation, then you are forced to reject SR in toto.  I just quoted a Harvard Physics Prof. on this point.

 

Notice that I said you would have to reject SR, not "relativity."

[OceanBreeze]

Yeah, I know.  But what I think you fail to fully realize is that if you don't accept reciprocal dilation, then you are forced to reject SR in toto.  I just quoted a Harvard Physics Prof. on this point.

 

Notice that I said you would have to reject SR, not "relativity."

 

No, I only have some doubts that can be removed by experiments. That is not a rejection.

 

I'm not smart enough to reject SR!

Edited February 11, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[Moronium]

No, I only have some doubts that can be removed by experiments. That is not a rejection.

 

I'm not smart enough to reject SR!

 

 

Yes, you are. In fact, I would say that you're too smart NOT to reject it.

 

And, as I've said before (even though I know you won't agree), there is no need for an empirical test.  The supposition can be rejected out of hand, a priori, as being self-contradictory.  .  As you know, I think also it has been "tested" and disproven (by the GPS, H-K, etc.)  As some abstraction presupposing conditions that could never be realized in practice, I don't see how any experiment could ever be designed to test it in any event.

 

As I've said before, I think you have been seduced into accepting semi-solipsism as a viable philosophy, and that's why you can't see the contradiction.  It's not a question of two individuals disagreeing (contradicting, if you wish) with each other.  When I say it's "self-contradictory,"  I mean that it is impossible as a matter of external reality.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It is possible for each of two observers to conclude that the other's clock is running slower than his own?

 

Sure.

 

It is possible for each clock to actually be running slower than the other?

 

No,  Not a chance in hell.

[OceanBreeze]

Oh, I do see the contradiction; it is impossible not to see it.

 

If A is aging slower with respect to B and B is aging slower with respect to A, simultaneously, that does present us with an undeniable absurdity.

 

As long as no comparison is, or can, be made however, who cares? As you have deduced there is (probably) no empirical way to even put that absurdity to the test. We can draw lines on a spacetime diagram to make it look possible, but is it really? I would like to see some empirical evidence and if it turns out that it is really impossible to test it with any experiment, it isn’t worth worrying about.

 

But, in the twin “paradox” the symmetry is broken because B returns to A’s frame of reference and then we can see that B is the one who aged less. The symmetry is broken just by switching frames, whether that involves acceleration or not is irrelevant. As I pointed out before, there is no acceleration term in the Lorentz factor, only velocity terms.

 

The reciprocity, as I see it, is that if A switches to B’s frame of reference, then it is A who aged less.

I actually do not have a problem with reciprocity when stated the way I have just stated it; it seems perfectly logical.

 

The problem I have with the twin paradox, as it is generally recounted, is that it involves one twin leaving earth in a space ship and returning. I see that as never having any symmetry to begin with!

 

With the GPS we should have probably moved past that original formulation of the twin paradox problem because, if nothing else, the GPS demonstrates there is a definite asymmetry between the planet earth and a spacecraft. This involves more than “just” gravitational forces, as the dynamics are very different.

 

 

[Moronium]

The reciprocity, as I see it, is that if A switches to B’s frame of reference, then it is A who aged less.

I actually do not have a problem with reciprocity when stated the way I have just stated it; it seems perfectly logical.

 

 

It is perfectly logical that way, I agree.  Then A would be the one moving. But that's not the kind of "reciprocity" we're talking about here.

Edited February 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

As long as no comparison is, or can, be made however, who cares? 

 

 

The theory cares.  Deeply.  And that's way were talking about here, i.e., not practical usefulness.