Personal Topic

[sluggo]

Moronium;

681

Newton and other classical physicists were convinced that space and time are quite distinct from one another, exactly as one observes in everyday life. Einstein and his followers claimed to have overthrown this basic principle on the basis of the LT

 

[More misinformation.

'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:

page 31.

"The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space coordinates with the time coordinate."

page 32.

"Finally, with Minkowski, we introduce in place of the real time co-ordinate l=ct, the imaginary time co-ordinate..."]

 

Space-time mixing is a myth.

 

 

[it's the mathematical generalization of SR by Minkowski (as noted above) with 'time' defined as a 'dimension'. That is not a new idea since before Relativity, time was defined as a measure of distance by an astronomical object, and labeled as 'time'. Minkowski simplified things with ct replacing t. This removed the disparity of time vs space, and also scaled time and space coordinates for meaningful graphics. Einstein later accepted the 4D version for its mathematical advantage.]

 

683

Quite a few theoretical physicists have noted the same problems with SR and they all end up "modifying" the LT

Einstein "modified" Lorentz's formulation

The GPS does the same.  So did H-K.  They didn't want to, but they had to. They had to, to make sense of the clock readings their experiment generated.    They had expected to get readings that were in accordance with SR, but they weren't even close.

 

[More misinformation, and you made up some crap along with it. The only difference in coordinate transformations, Lorentz hypothesized an ether, Einstein didn't. The Lorentz transformation today is the same as the original.
The GPS involves gravity, so the clocks are constantly changing velocity, and therefore can't stay synchronized. The solution is periodic update.
H and K expected time variations via SR and GR, and for a first time experiment were succcessful.]

 

I don't know what motivates you to post all this anti-relativity stuff. Why so negative?
You obviously don't understand the theories SR or GR, and keep repeating twisted interpretations of things you get from the internet. Everything in print isn't truth!
 

Edited February 14, 2019 by sluggo

[Moronium]

Lorentz transformation today is the same as the original.

H and K expected time variations via SR and GR, and for a first time experiment were succcessful.]

 

 

Form is not substance.  The v (for velocity) in SR is relative; in LR it is absolute.  The form is the same, the substance is not. As applied, they are entirely different.

 

Yeah, sure H-K expected, and found, time variations.  But not "via" SR.  They found it by direct experiment and analyzed those finding "via" the LT (which LR uses).  The problem they had was that the time variations found could NOT be explained by SR.  They could only explain them by establishing a preferred frame and using LR, not SR.  Their findings did not "confirm SR."  They basically falsified SR (no "reciprocal time dilation" and motion could not be treated as relative, for example).  Instead their findings conformed to the expectations of the LT, as employed by LR.

 

The GPS also uses a preferred frame.  It has to in order to work in practice.  Using SR would render it entirely dysfunctional.  Did you even look at the academic paper I quoted (and gave a link to)?  Obviously not, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Learn up, Sluggo.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Sluggo, have you given up on me? You're not commenting on my relativity/algebra thread. I see you're saying the same thing as I said about ct.

Edited February 14, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Here's how to solve those major Physics issues>

 

 

Well, Marco, as usual, you basically "solve" problems by claiming that they don't exist or that they're insoluble and can therefore just be ignored.

 

You revert back to your basic credo, which seems to be:  We don't know ANYTHING with absolute certainty, therefore, we don't know anything.

 

You'll never be able to prove, and can therefore never know for certain, that "you" are not just a disembodied brain floating around in the vat of some "evil demon" who controls all your sense impressions and thoughts,  a la Descartes.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You revert back to your basic credo, which seems to be:  We don't know ANYTHING with absolute certainty, therefore, we don't know anything.

 

In my opinion, it's a very cheap and easy philosophical position to adopt.  "I only know one thing for certain, to wit: nobody in the world knows anything."

 

Once assumed, this allows a person to safely snipe, carp, ridicule as unfounded, and summarily dismiss everything anyone says.  There is no need to ever make any positive claims or assertions. That would be kinda burdensome, after all.  You can be the bearer of ultimate truth simply by denying everything.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

My dad's like that, unless you agree with him he states we can't know anything.

[Moronium]

My dad's like that, unless you agree with him he states we can't know anything.

 

 

Yeah, Ralf.  Kinda funny how those types selectively seem to "know" (some) things, eh?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

In my opinion, it's a very cheap and easy philosophical position to adopt.  "I only know one thing for certain, to wit: nobody in the world knows anything."

 

Once assumed, this allows a person to safely snipe, carp, ridicule as unfounded, and summarily dismiss everything anyone says.  There is no need to ever make any positive claims or assertions. That would be kinda burdensome, after all.  You can be the bearer of ultimate truth simply by denying everything.

Oh, be fair!  I dont think that, and dont apply this thinking to EVERYTHING around me!

You said that there were "major problems" that people were searching an answer for...

So I searched for a possible solution, and found one that fits very well!

 

All I said is that there are only problems IF and ONLY IF you first accept that the ASSUMPTIONS made by the proponents of each hypothesis which is the sourse of the claimed problem.

 

Now as each of these problems source concepts CAN be questioned as to the validity of the claims, then it IS POSSIBLE that these early thinkers got too wrapped up in theory, and failed to see that everything was like a house of cards, resting on assumptions alone.

 

Bring the base assumptions into question, and that suddenly negates the claim that we have problems. And whats more, open up the discussion to the possibility of better theories and alternative ways of examining the world around us.  (if that's what a crank does, then i'm happily a crank)

 

This approach is a very ordinary method to examine a problem, to be critical of the underlying assumed factors, make sure you have not incorrectly identifierd the cause, and therefore overlooked a real factors.

 

So it not fair that you jump on the black or white bandwagon and accuse me of applying some extreme view point to everything. You are exhibiting a similar fault that you accuse me of.

[Moronium]

Oh, be fair!  I dont think that, and dont apply this thinking to EVERYTHING around me!

 

So it not fair that you jump on the black or white bandwagon and accuse me of applying some extreme view point to everything. You are exhibiting a similar fault that you accuse me of.

 

I admit to caricaturizing  your views, sure.  But that's still the essence of your M. O., as I see it.  This post (which I only partially pasted here) displays it yet again.

 

It gets tedious.  One can spend all his efforts trying to raise doubts about anything.  But if that's your best response to every question, it's totally unproductive.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

By the way, your attempt to answer all the questions I mentioned as being on the minds of Einstein, et al, totally misses the point of the post.

 

I wasn't asking, or suggesting, that you try to solve them.  I would have thought that was clear.

[Moronium]

You said that there were "major problems" that people were searching an answer for...

So I searched for a possible solution, and found one that fits very well!

 

You flatter yourself immensely.  But that doesn't mean I want to debate your "solution."  As I just said, that wasn't the point to begin with.

[Moronium]

All I said is that there are only problems IF and ONLY IF you first accept that the ASSUMPTIONS made by the proponents of each hypothesis which is the sourse of the claimed problem.

 

Exactly.  So the solution is to simply reject all their assumptions.  Pretty simple, actually.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Now as each of these problems source concepts CAN be questioned as to the validity of the claims, then it IS POSSIBLE that these early thinkers got too wrapped up in theory, and failed to see that everything was like a house of cards, resting on assumptions alone.

 

Sho nuff.  Anything CAN be questioned.  I question whether you're actually just a brain in a vat. It's POSSIBLE, ya know? Sure nice that you just solved all the problems of physics, though, even if that's all you are.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Yeah, Ralf.  Kinda funny how those types selectively seem to "know" (some) things, eh?

like you instinctively just "know" that time is a concept, and is absolute?

But others KNOW that its relative and is a real process, able to affect physics?

 

You guys make me laugh, you belittle others, whilst displaying and employing the exact same traits that you criticize.

[marcospolo]

Sluggo, have you given up on me? You're not commenting on my relativity/algebra thread. I see you're saying the same thing as I said about ct.

Can your equations still work if you don't employ "ct" as the time axis, instead just use the standard t, and give it a scale that means something in our experience, like 1 to 10 minutes, and the distance scale is just x, scale from say 1 to 100 klm?  That way we can show on the plot, a real velocity of something that we can build and test, like, say a car.

Of course, a plot of light speed is going to be almost a horizontal line. but no mind, that gives a good representation as to haw fast light is.

 Now here's where you math falls over, the equations suddenly don't work when using real values instead of those made up variables particularly "ct" and the way its applied here.

You simply cant derive the time transformation equation when you draw a real graph of time and distance. In your ct graph, any speed line possible is practically going to be a vertical line, so the scale of time and distance axies is all wrong to be a useful graph.

And as i said, without "ct" and the associated assumptions, you cant derive the equation you wish us to accept.

[Moronium]

like you instinctively just "know" that time is a concept, and is absolute?

But others KNOW that its relative and is a real process, able to affect physics?

 

Just for the record, I know that time is a concept, just like I know the difference between a verb and a noun.  It's pretty much a matter of a priori definition.  Like any concept, it is an idealized abstraction which is essentially "absolute" by definition.  It has no tangible existence; it's strictly a mental construct.  Any attempt to hypostatize and reify it is a prima facie category error. My knowledge of this is not a matter of "instinct,"

 

But, as usual, you miss the whole point of the post you're addressing. I'm not claiming that no one can know anything.

 

I do also argue that the only way to properly characterize "time" in a theory of motion is as absolute.  Any claim that it is relative ends up being misleading, an inevitable cause of inconsistencies, and, ultimately self-refuting.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Sho nuff.  Anything CAN be questioned.  I question whether you're actually just a brain in a vat. It's POSSIBLE, ya know? Sure nice that you just solved all the problems of physics, though, even if that's all you are.

Why delve off into some extreme case of philosophic speculation,  when I'm trying to confine my thoughts to practical application of what methods of deduction we know are useful?

Where does "brain in a vat" come into a discussion on the problems of time and space as explained by Einstein and Minkowski, and Lorentz?

Anything can be questioned, and if having been questioned, it remains possible that the original claims may have been asking all the wrong questions, then my position remains as valid an argument as yours, but my solution actually solves the dilemma of those pesky "major problems" of science.

 

It explains why no one can agree, because everyone is asking nonsense questions the whole time. Its trying to solve a pretend issue using fantasy as a tool.

A line from "The Matrix" is required here.  "There IS NO spoon".