Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

The "moving rod" illustration is no better than the "moving light clocks prove that time dilation is reciprocal" argument, which I have already debunked.

 

But that's not the basis of the L.T.

You are still not following the drift here.

 

I'm NOT saying that LT equation is based on rods.

 

I'm simply USING LT in a real scenario, where we have a moving or stationary rod, as described by Einstein, his setup is sufficient for the demonstrate the problem.

There is nothing about this setup to "debunk" its JUST a setup of a moving rod. How to debunk that. My car is a rigid moving rod, cant debunk it.

 

But you can apply the LT Equation to it, as it fits the necessary requirements. i.e.  it exists, its rigid, its moving along one vector at a steady rate, so we can calculate the time difference between each end of my car, as the ends are located at distinct points along the vector of motion.

 

The LT equations says that one end of my car exists a different time that the other end!

This is impossible no?

 

There is no justification to use such a transformation in Physics. The hypothesis is not rational, the calculations in my car example show that it gives an impossible result, so I don't see why it can be considered a viable principal of Physics.

 

So in your understanding of LT, if I read you right, Time is absolute, its just physical clocks that slow down when moving, for no particular reason, and without any theory as to HOW they could do that.

[Moronium]

So in your understanding of LT, if I read you right, Time is absolute, its just physical clocks that slow down when moving, for no particular reason, and without any theory as to HOW they could do that.

 

If the clocks are in fact shown to slow down, then they do.  Whether you can explain "how" or not is irrelevant to the empirical facts.  Drop a ball off a 10 story building and it will accelerate toward the earth.  How??????   Why????  If you can't answer those questions to my personal satisfaction, then obviously the ball can't, and doesn't, fall, right?

 

I have made this point repeatedly.  You just deny that any empirical test can be relied on.  Good for you.   You know it ALL.  You don't need any experiments to prove or disprove what you already know to be indubitably true.

 

There are a number of theories about how and why clocks slow down.  You're not familiar with any of them, and you refuse to look at them.  So, for you, there is "no theory."  This is the ultimate position of a solipsist. If I don't know (see, believe, etc) it, it can't exist and therefore it can't be true.  What I choose to believe is what creates reality, they say.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

SR creates problems that can't be satisfactorily resolved.  Why?

 

Only one possible reason:  the LT are invalid.

 

Wrong answer.  That's not what causes the problems in SR.  It is the way in which SR applies the LT, in such a manner as to encapsulate its dubious premises, that causes the problems, not the LT.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You can't do any calculations or make any predictions whatsoever with the LT unless you have some information.  So let's go get that.

 

Say there are two objects, A and B.  Using doppler techniques, let's say, they both agree that they are moving at the rate of .6, relative to each other.

 

GREAT!!  Now we have a number.  Let's haul out the LT.

 

Where, exactly, within the LT transform for time, do you put the number .6c?

 

Is the .6c the only number I need to figure out what's happening here, or do I actually need more information?

 

SR's answer:  Naw, that's all you need.  We'll take it from here.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I wonder if any of the mathematical geniuses around here can solve this algebraic problem for me?

 

x = 23 + Y

 

What is X?

 

It should be easy enough to figure that out, if you're smart enough, I figure.  After all, there's a number there, i.e., 23.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Never mind.  I done figured it out all by my own damn self.

 

x = 30

 

Q: How do you know that? 

 

A:  I know y = 7, that's how.

 

Q:  OK, but how do you know that y = 7?

 

A:  You're pretty damn stupid with math if you have to ask that.  Go learn up, homeboy.

 

 

But, because I have pity for your sorry azz, I'll explain it to you.  You still probably won't understand it, but you can't say I didn't try.

 

I know y = 7 because I know x =30.  23 + 7 = 30, fool.

 

Pretty much summarizes how a discussion with an SR disciple goes, eh?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

If the clocks are in fact shown to slow down, then they do.  Whether you can explain "how" or not is irrelevant to the empirical facts.  Drop a ball off a 10 story building and it will accelerate toward the earth.  How??????   Why????  If you can't answer those questions to my personal satisfaction, then obviously the ball can't, and doesn't, fall, right?

 

I have made this point repeatedly.  You just deny that any empirical test can be relied on.  Good for you.   You know it ALL.  You don't need any experiments to prove or disprove what you already know to be indubitably true.

 

There are a number of theories about how and why clocks slow down.  You're not familiar with any of them, and you refuse to look at them.  So, for you, there is "no theory."  This is the ultimate position of a solipsist. If I don't know (see, believe, etc) it, it can't exist and therefore it can't be true.  What I choose to believe is what creates reality, they say.

I'm not totally convinced that clocks really do slow down.  Because as with SR and Quantum, the results seem to be always so very tiny, on the fringe of not being discernible at all, and those measuring the differences are always those who already believe that they must find it.

 

I said, about experiments, they can never prove the theory, only possibly support it, Ive always only been critical or reject the interpretations of the experiments.

There is no way I am a solipsist as you defined it. I only refuse to accept the INTERPRETATIONS of experiments if they support an hypothesis that has already been shown to be in error.  I never reject experiment that prove a theory incorrect.

 

What you seem to be saying is that "Although I only have an interpretation of a observation that is not very clear in the first place,  I have nevertheless developed an equation which is based on nothing but guesswork, but because it fits reasonably well the minuscule observations I have made, this interpretation MUST be the correct one." That's pretty much your position.

 

Well, I've not noticed any clock problems and it only is claimed to be noticeable in GPS satellites, and even then, its two tenths of bugger all.

How are you going to be sure that the gps clock is running slow,? you could not compare it with a better clock locally situated. You only can compare it with a remote clock located on Earth, so then there can be many reasons why you cant accurately measure the perfect time on a remote clock in comparison with one on Earth.

 

The GPS papers Ive read papers that list half a dozen sources for errors from remote clocks trying to sync to Earth master clocks. None of the reasons cited mention LT or SR.

 

The noticed errors seem to be more about how to get a clean, timely signal from the GPS satellites, and adjust the timing of the signal to allow for the KNOWN transmission errors that slow the transmission.  So I ask again, how do you know the satellite clocks are running slow? No one has been up there to look with a master clock for comparison, have they.? The GPS clocks are reset daily, sometime twice daily. Even master clock network on earth has to be adjusted occasionally and those clocks are moving anywhere.

 

You can only rely on the signal from the satellites, which as I just pointed out, have time related errors because of the transmission distance and radiation and atmospheric conditions..

 

Clocks on planes? Well once again the observers were die hard Relativists, who expected, ney they HAD to return a positive result, or be kicked out of the University.

 

The H&F experiment was an example of cherry picking the data, and has been shown to be inconclusive. So they ran the experiment again years later, because they HAD to get the result that would support the SR cornerstone of their beliefs.  This is not empirical evidence, its questionable evidence, and the interpretation of that questionable observation is key here.

 

So you see that clocks loosing time is NOT as clear cut as you say, its also a hangover from SR expectations, and as its such a small amount at those low speeds, its practically impossible to guarantee that the error is real. (Errors in timing from recognized sources are well documented)

 

Anyway, suppose that the error is real, and measurable reliably, then you have accidentally developed an equation to fix the problem, then that equation would ONLY be useful to correct time errors of satellites. ( Because the only known clocks error is on the GPS satellites.) As the equation also says that the effect of clock slowing is going to increase exponentially as speed increases, then that is just conjecture. The notion that clocks would continue to slow till they were not moving at all as they reach light speed, cant be justified as you have no hypothesis justifying the development of the LT equation, its just a happy accident that it fits the gps satellites.

 

So as Physics should not care about some Numerology based  method to explain an observation, we should continue to find whats really going on. Not just be content that our guess work is giving apparently decent results.

[marcospolo]

SR creates problems that can't be satisfactorily resolved.  Why?

 

Only one possible reason:  the LT are invalid.

 

Wrong answer.  That's not what causes the problems in SR.  It is the way in which SR applies the LT, in such a manner as to encapsulate its dubious premises, that causes the problems, not the LT.

True, but that does not mean that LT itself is correct. The problems with SR may or may not include LT, that's all you can say. You cant say that LT is correct.

[marcospolo]

You can't do any calculations or make any predictions whatsoever with the LT unless you have some information.  So let's go get that.

 

Say there are two objects, A and B.  Using doppler techniques, let's say, they both agree that they are moving at the rate of .6, relative to each other.

 

GREAT!!  Now we have a number.  Let's haul out the LT.

 

Where, exactly, within the LT transform for time, do you put the number .6c?

 

After you figure that out, then ask yourself:  Is the number .6c the only number I need to figure out what's happening here, or do I actually need more information?

Doppler (if its a real effect for light, we know its good for sound) requires that it be located somewhere, and taking readings from some other object, so we need a base, and the objects under consideration, Is that what you are on about here?

[marcospolo]

Never mind.  I done figured it out all by my own damn self.

 

x = 30

 

Q: How do you know that? 

 

A:  I know y = 7, that's how.

 

Q:  OK, but how do you know that y = 7?

 

A:  You're pretty damn stupid with math if you have to ask that.  Go learn up, homeboy.

 

 

But, just to enlighten your sorry azz, I'll explain it to you.  You still probably won't understand it, but you can't say I didn't try.

 

I know y = 7 because I know x =30.  23 + 7 = 30, fool.

 

Pretty much summarizes how a discussion with an SR disciple goes, eh?

Its close enough to illustrate the approach of the Relativists.

[ralfcis]

To illustrate your point there's this link:

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/geometrical-view-time-dilation-twin-paradox/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ReviveOldPost

 

The guy starts out saying we get a ton of inquiries about how the twin paradox works and writes out this explanation that doesn't answer any of those enquiries except to relativist bobble-heads who can rercognize this as the answer they have been taught to recite without question. They are incapable of seeing the problems with this answer unless they are taught to recite another answer. Nothing blinds people to the truth like ignorant unquestioning beliefs,.

Edited February 13, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The LT equations says that one end of my car exists a different time that the other end!

This is impossible no?

 

 

No, the LT doesn't say that.  It says nothing at all about ends of objects.  It just says that, given a certain speed of an object, it's lengths and clocks will be affected to a certain degree.   In this case, the object would be your car.  If your car is going 100 mph (distance/time) then that's what it's going.  The LT doesn't tell you that.

[Moronium]

I've made posts on this in this thread.

 

Take a stairway, 12 steps high, with each step being a foot higher than the other.  Then put an atomic clock on each step.  Now look at them all.  Each will be ticking at a different rate.

 

Replace them with 12 other clocks.  Same deal, same amount of changes.

 

But who are ya gunna believe?  Your own lyin eyes, or some guy on the internet who has a degree in chemistry and who says it is impossible for clocks to change ticking rates?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

What if we try 12 more new clocks?  Same thing.

 

How about we take the clock on stair two and put it on stair 8, and move 8 to 2.  Now the ticking rate of each changes, but they now match their new position.

 

So I asked the chemist about it.  His answer convinced me he he was right.

 

He said:  "Obvious clock errors, or maybe you just don't see so good, boy.  It is impossible.  It would contradict the absolute truth."

 

As Hegel once said:  "If the facts contradict my theory, well, then, so much the worse for the facts."

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I wonder if any of the mathematical geniuses around here can solve this algebraic problem for me?

 

x = 23 + Y

 

What is X?

 

It should be easy enough to figure that out, if you're smart enough, I figure.  After all, there's a number there, i.e., 23.

 

I done solved that one, but puzzle me this:

 

If Jack is three inches taller than John, how tall is John?

 

Anyone with the even the most elementary understanding of logic should see the answer immediately.

 

John is 4 feet, 7 1/2 inches tall, obviously.

 

Anyone familiar with SR's version of the LT can vouch for that, if you have any doubts.

 

Except they would tell you that John is 0" tall, and that Jack is 3" tall--an equally valid answer, of course.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ya get it?  Probably not.

 

Some fool will probably come around and say something like....Well, given that, I suppose it would be equally valid to say that John is 1" and Jack is 4" tall, right?

 

BZZZ !  WRONG. You aint paying no attention, it seems.

[Moronium]

you have no hypothesis justifying the development of the LT equation,

 

 

There is a hypothesis which justifies the development of the LT.  I've already pointed it out to you.

 

Could that hypothesis be wrong?

 

Sure, it could be.  But it's not like Lorentz just concocted some formula for no damn reason, by flipping coins, to decide what the next symbol in the formula would be, or something.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium