Personal Topic

[A-wal]

"This certainly doesn't lead to any contradictions."  It leads to endless contractions and "paradoxes," all of which never arise when you us a preferred frame theory.

.

And yet you've been unable to identify a single one.

 

"You think that time dilation and length contraction are absolute, frame independent but that requires that there be one master frame that all motion is relative to."  As I've already said, it doesn't mean that at all.  All your statement means is that you don't even understand the concepts being discussed.

Either there is a preferred frame which absolute motion is relative to and time dilation & length contraction depend on motion relative to that frame or the is no preferred frame and time dilation & length contraction in any inertial frame depend on the motion of objects in that frame. You can't have it both ways.

 

"It's painful enough trying to get through your nonsensical bs as it is, I'm certainly not going to hunt down more of it. The gps only supports the idea of a preferred frame if the gps is at rest in that frame, and as I said that would be an insane belief."  As I said before, willful ignorance.  You deny all science and just make one absurd assertion after another, as though they are self-proving.  Do a little research, fool.

There is either one preferred frame or there is no preferred frame. All tests show that if there is a preferred frame then those experiments must have been performed while at rest in that preferred frame. This is a geocentric view, plain and simple.

 

For someone, like you, with no fundamental understanding of elementary logic, cognitive dissonance is impossible.  You could contradict yourself a million times and never have any clue that you did.

For someone like you who can;t wrap their head around multiple frames it can seem like there are contradictions where there are none. This is why you've been completely unable to identify a single one despite a great deal of effort.

 

"It makes absolutely no sense to claim that SR uses multiple preferred frames."  I agree that SR makes no sense because it does exactly that.

It can't use multiple preferred frames. A preferred frame by definition means that all motion has to be considered as absolute motion relative to this frame.

 

Positing an infinite number of "motionless" frames does indeed mean that any statement made by SR about motion, relative or otherwise, is totally non-sensical.  Under those circumstances it cannot predict or "know" anything about motion.  Despite this, it pretends to.

This is just basically saying, 'well I doesn't make sense to me so it must be wrong'.

[Moronium]

There is either one preferred frame or there is no preferred frame. All tests show that if there is a preferred frame then those experiments must have been performed while at rest in that preferred frame

 

 

Saying this, or some variant thereof, 5-6 times in the same post, does not make it true.  As I said, it only exposes your ignorance.

 

What experiments show is that, as Einstein claimed, "all physics is local."  There is no one, single, preferred frame which must be chosen for every accurate assessment of motion.  Repeated experience has shown that the proper frame to prefer in any given situation is the center of mass of the predominant gravitational force in the locality under consideration.   For experiments on or near earth, that is the ECI.  For experiments on or near Mars, it would be the MCI.  For information pertaining to objects in the solar system generally it would be the solar barycenter, etc.

 

On a universal scale, it would be the CMB, which physicists call the "cosmic rest frame."  But you would never use the CMB to construct the GPS.  It would lead to inaccurate predictions, and hence inaccurate results.

 

You think you can resolve physical questions by semantic quibbling about definitions.  As between as little as two relatively moving objects, you can treat one as the proper, appropriate, and correct preferred frame.  You don't have to account for the entire universe to do this.  It's still the preferred frame (as earth is in the twin paradox, for example).

 

Why is it preferred?  As I've already said, you have to prefer it if for no other reason that than it is the frame which gives the correct answer.  

 

If you then "move on" and attempt to treat the space twin's frame as the preferred one, you will get the WRONG answer.  Obviously both cannot be the preferred frame, notwithstanding SR's claims to the contrary.  They are not "equivalent" and there is no "reciprocal time dilation" as SR claims. The problem is that SR is just self-contradictory, which has nothing to do with definitions.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

What experiments show is that, as Einstein claimed, "all physics is local."  There is no one, single, preferred frame which must be chosen for every accurate assessment of motion.  Repeated experience has shown that the proper frame to prefer in any given situation is the center of mass of the predominant gravitational force in the locality under consideration.   For experiments on or near earth, that is the ECI.  For experiments on or near Mars, it would be the MCI.  For information pertaining to objects in the solar system generally it would be the solar barycenter, etc.

Ah finally you're making sense. That might actually be a coherent (and non geocentric) alternate model.

 

But let's be clear about one thing, SR does NOT use a preferred frame.

[Moronium]

But let's be clear about one thing, SR does NOT use a preferred frame.

 

 

Wrong. You've been played.  SR "claims" it uses no preferred frames, but it in fact does every time it makes a calculation.

 

Similarly, it claims that all frames are "equivalent" but in practice it ends up preferring one over another (e.g in the twin paradox).

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Wrong. You've been played.  SR "claims" it uses no preferred frames, but it in fact does every time it makes a calculation.

No it doesn't. The fact that in SR you're free to use any inertial frame and the the time dilation & length contraction of objects will depend on their motion relative to that frame means that by definition there is no preferred frame in SR. You're using the term 'preferred frame' completely out of context.

Edited March 19, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

On a universal scale, it would be the CMB, which physicists call the "cosmic rest frame."  But you would never use the CMB to construct the GPS.  It would lead to inaccurate predictions, and hence inaccurate results.

 

You think you can resolve physical questions by semantic quibbling about definitions.  As between as little as two relatively moving objects, you can treat one as the proper, appropriate, and correct preferred frame.  You don't have to account for the entire universe to do this.  It's still the preferred frame (as earth is in the twin paradox, for example). 

 

Why is it preferred?  As I've already said, you have to prefer it if for no other reason that than it is the frame which gives the correct answer.  

 

If you then "move on" and attempt to treat the space twin's frame as the preferred one, you will get the WRONG answer.  Obviously both cannot be the preferred frame, notwithstanding SR's claims to the contrary.  They are not "equivalent" and there is no "reciprocal time dilation" as SR claims. The problem is that SR is just self-contradictory, which has nothing to do with definitions.

 

In light of your last post, and because I edited mine after that (and you may have therefore missed it, I am reposting that portion of it.

 

You say:

 

No it doesn't. The fact that in SR you're free to use any inertial frame and the the time dilation & length contraction of objects will depend on their motion relative to that frame means that by definition there is no preferred frame in SR. You're using the term 'preferred frame' completely out of context.

 

 

To begin with, in SR you are NOT free to use any inertial frame.  And this is notwithstanding the assertion that all frames are equivalent.  You MUST treat your own frame as motionless, never the other guy's.  Why?    Because  the whole theory would self-destruct if you did. That's why the space twin is not allowed to concede that he is moving, even though, ex hypothesis, he is.

 

I'm using the term "preferred frame" in one of it's multiple senses.  Again, this is not a matter of definition.  It's a matter of substance.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In order to function properly, the GPS must adopt a preferred frame theory of relative motion.

 

Does this prove that a PFT is "true?"  Of course not.  But it does yield accurate and reliable predictions.

 

What is does prove, however, is that SR cannot be "true."  Of course the Hafele-Keating experiment had already revealed this 4-5 decades ago.  For many more years than that, astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, etc. have routinely used the CMB as a preferred frame from which to make accurate calculations.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Centuries ago, Newton, in a magnificent accomplishment, deduced, to an astonishingly accurate degree, the mass and relative velocities of all the then-known planets.

 

How did he do this?  By using a preferred frame theory presupposing absolute time and absolute simultaneity, that's how.

 

He chose the solar barycenter (not the sun itself) as the preferred motionless frame.  Relative to that point, everything in the solar system, Sun included, is moving while it remains motionless.

 

As a second point of reference, he used the frame of the fixed stars, which he called "a close approximation" of a motionless frame.

 

He further conceded that the entire solar system could itself be moving (which, as it turns out, it is).  But he reasoned that any such motion(s) were irrelevant for his purposes because they were common to every object in the solar system, and would therefore not affect his calculations.  This is essentially just another way of saying that all physics are local.

 

He didn't posit the earth, or Mars, or Jupiter, etc as the preferred frame and it's a good thing he didn't..  Nor did he claim that all frames are equivalent to the barycenter.  He didn't think he could get consistent and meaningful answers by just asking how the earth was moving relative to Mars, or vice versa. That's the kinda thing SR would do.  The only question was how are they moving relative to the barycenter.  It doesn't really take much thought to realize that he could never have come up with a definitive, let alone correct, answer if he had assumed that the premises of SR were correct.  You have to treat motion as absolute, not relative.

 

Of course everyone already knows all that, anyway.  No one (except SR adherents) would claim that a frame in which the earth is stationary, with the Sun and the planets revolving around it, is "equivalent to" a frame in which the Sun is stationary.  The heliocentric view HAS to be preferred to a geocentric one.  A geocentric view would violate virtually every known law of physics.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

 

That poor fool never learns, eh?   It generally only takes one post for him to expose himself, yet again.  He just can't help it.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

"It makes absolutely no sense to claim that SR uses multiple preferred frames." 

 

I agree that SR makes no sense because it does exactly that.  Positing an infinite number of "motionless" frames, all of which are also presumed to be moving relative to the others, does indeed mean that any statement made by SR about motion, relative or otherwise, is totally non-sensical.  Under those circumstances it cannot predict or "know" anything about motion.  Despite this, it pretends to. 

 

I am always somewhat amazed to find that otherwise logical people don't immediately see the problem here.  I'll spell it out in a little more detail, to see if that helps.

 

In SR you have two observers, A and B, both of whom completely agree that there is relative motion between them.  But they disagree on other important details, to wit:

 

1.  A claims that he is completely motionless and that B is the one moving.

2.   B claims that he is completely motionless and that A is the one moving.

 

It is logically impossible for both of them to be "correct." They can't both be motionless and still observe relative motion between them.  At least one of them MUST be wrong in their respective claims, i.e., at least one of them must be actually moving.

 

Yet SR says, in effect, that both are right, which, again, is logically impossible.

 

Such a claim renders the whole notion of "motion" incomprehensible.  No theory of motion, relative or otherwise, is even possible if you claim that these two mutually exclusive claims are BOTH "true."

 

That alone is enough to declare that SR is a logically impossible theory from the get-go, and be done with it.

 

In theories of relative motion, a frame of reference which is motionless is always the preferred frame.  SR does posit the existence of multiple (in fact an infinite number of) motionless "preferred frames," all of which are ALSO deemed to be moving with respect to the others. Then it ridiculously claims that each preferred frame is "correct."  Is this self-contradictory?  Yes, but that is a defect in SR, not in the definition of a preferred frame.

 

It is not senseless to "claim" that SR uses multiple preferred frames, because it does.  What is senseless is to claim that SR is not self-contradictory when it does so.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

This is going to be my last post to you on this topic or we're just going to keep going round in circles.


No it's a mixing of definitions. In SR no inertial frame is preferred over any other because in any inertial frame the time dilation and length contraction of objects depends on their motion relative to object at rest in that inertial frame. This is by definition a model with no preferred frame.

You only ever get a true contradiction if you try inserting a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one. It's not that one is in motion in one frame and the other is in motion in the other frame, that's an absolutist definition. In SR they are simply in motion relative to each other.

It's not a contradiction for time dilation and length contraction to depend on the frame of the observer in the same way that it's not a contradiction for an object on your left to be on the right of an observer who is facing you. Left and right aren't absolute, their frame of reference (not inertial frame) dependent. It only seems like it's a contradiction for time dilation and length contraction to vary between inertial frames if you're of the mindset that time dilation and length contraction have to be absolute, in SR they're simply not, they're frame dependant.


The GPS in no way refutes SR, it exactly matches its predictions. The locally geocentric preferred frame model matches the predictions of SR only if the GPS as a whole at rest relative to Earth. If time, money, technology, and practicality weren't an issue this could be tested by a ship in fast motion relative to the Earth. SR predicts that for observers on the ship the time dilation and length contraction of objects at rest relative to Earth will be the same as the time dilation and length contraction of the ship for observers that are at rest relative to Earth.


Orbital paths are not inertial. The planets are accelerating (falling) towards the sun while their inertial motion is moving them away, creating a stable orbit. It's irrelevant to the physics of purely inertial frames.


In the so called twin paradox each twin is time dilated and length contracted in the frame of the other twin while they are in motion relative to each other. One ends up younger than the other because their journies aren't equivalent, one stays in the same inertial frame while the other doesn't. While the twin that doesn't remain inertial is accelerating the other's watch is running fast from the accelerating twin's perspective and this is what creates the differences in their age when they're back in the same frame. If both accelerate away in opposite direction from their starting point and mirror each others acceleration then they will both be the same age once their back in their starting frame. However they do it, they will always agree on the amount of time that's passed for themselves and the other twin once they're back in the same frame so there's no paradox.


You realise there's no absolute motion, only relative motion in the model you're adhering to as well right? Absolute motion only works in that model in a local context.

If an object on Earth is at rest relative to Earth then it's in motion relative to observers on Mars. All inertial motion in that model is relative because different centres of mass are in motion relative to each other, it's just that time dilation and length contraction in that model aren't reciprocal.

[Moronium]

This is going to be my last post to you on this topic or we're just going to keep going round in circles.

 

 

No it's a mixing of definitions. In SR no inertial frame is preferred over any other because in any inertial frame the time dilation and length contraction of objects depends on their motion relative to object at rest in that inertial frame. This is by definition a model with no preferred frame.

 

Yes, we're going around in circles because you just keep making ill-informed, unsupported assertions which are quite mistaken.

 

I've already shown the folly of trying to answer questions about physical reality by quibbling over definitions, so I won't do it again.  But, in brief, you can't just define your way out of a problem.  You never address the substance, you just keep creating your own brand new, idiosyncratic definitions.  They're irrelevant either way.  How about the substance?

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You only ever get a true contradiction if you try inserting a preferred frame into a model that doesn't use one. It's not that one is in motion in one frame and the other is in motion in the other frame, that's an absolutist definition. In SR they are simply in motion relative to each other.

 

 

What you're saying here is meaningless.  Yes, SR "claims" that "all motion is relative," but it's own operations prove otherwise.  As always, you think that if you preface a statement with "in SR," that proves it's true.  The point is that SR is wrong, and absolute motion is seen every day.  You can say things that absolutely contradict each other, and both will be true "in SR."  So what?

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It's not a contradiction for time dilation and length contraction to depend on the frame of the observer in the same way that it's not a contradiction for an object on your left to be on the right of an observer who is facing you. Left and right aren't absolute, their frame of reference (not inertial frame) dependent. It only seems like it's a contradiction for time dilation and length contraction to vary between inertial frames if you're of the mindset that time dilation an  and length contraction have to be absolute, in SR they're simply not, they're frame dependant

 

 

Once again, other than a hollow denial, you've said nothing here. To you, it wouldn't be a contradiction to say "left is right."  You wouldn't know a contradiction if it smashed you in the face with a sledge hammer, because you can't understand simple logic.  I spelled out the contradiction very clearly but, as always, you refuse to respond to it.  If reciprocal time dilation was "true," then each twin in the twin paradox would come back younger than the other.

[Moronium]

The GPS in no way refutes SR, it exactly matches its predictions. 

 

 

All you're doing here is displaying your total failure to understand 1. SR, 2. a PFT, and 3.the difference between them.  The "predictions" of SR were shown to be completely wrong in the Hafele-Keating experiment, and the same is true in the GPS.  The GPS uses a PFT to make all it's predictions and it would utterly fail if it used the premises of SR (reciprocal time dilation, every object is both at rest and in motion, simultaneity is relative, etc.).

 

A PFT and SR will in fact make the same predictions in some cases, but those cases are very limited.  1. There can only be two objects involved, not more, and 2. the "test" cannot involve a test of reciprocal time dilation.  The GPS is not one of these special cases.  

 

Even cases where SR is supposedly confirmed by, for example, the extended life of muons that is seen when they travel at high speeds, the presumption is always that the muon IS ABSOLUTELY MOVING.  No one tries to claim that muons in the upper atmosphere remain at rest while the earth approaches them at near light speeds.  Such a claim would be utterly absurd.

 

What's being confirmed here is a PFT, while SR is disconfirmed, because it tries to deny that absolute motion exists.  The only thing that both theories agree on is the magnitude of the change caused by motion.  But that is just confirming the validity of the LT, not SR.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

One ends up younger than the other because their journies aren't equivalent, one stays in the same inertial frame while the other doesn't. 

 

   

Yes, one is moving absolutely, not relatively, and one isn't.  If the motion were "relative" each one would be younger than the other.  You're just back to making the same absurd (non) distinctions which I have already shown to be irrelevant.

[Moronium]

 they will always agree on the amount of time that's passed for themselves and the other twin once they're back in the same frame so there's no paradox.

 

 

This just flat wrong on at least two basic levels.

 

1.  Sure they agree, once the clocks are held side by side, and the space twin is forced to admit that he had been wrong all along.

 

2.  The paradox is NOT about whether they agree. In fact that IS the paradox.  What they are agreeing to is absolute motion, which SR says doesn't exist.  One is older, one is younger.  PERIOD.  They do not return and find each is younger than the other.  Why?  Because one of them was moving, one wasn't. (Well, also because it's logically impossible, of course).  SR tells you that the moving clock runs slow, and it is right about that because it stole the LT from a PFT and the LT dictate that.  The space twin was moving,, absolutely, not relatively, therefore his clock was slower.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Moronium