Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) I'm just interested in saving myself, getting answers to the questions I have about relativity. If I can't convince you of your misinterpretations, the world will go on. To be honest, Ralf, I'm beginning to see why you have not been received well elsewhere. I had no idea that you were trying to "convince" me of anything. You never made the slightest attempt to articulate a coherent argument or respond to any questions. At best you just responded with some non sequitur without any indication as to why your assertions were supposed to be the least bit relevant. Yet you deemed your vague, irrelevant assertions to be sufficient to demonstrate my misunderstanding of the "whole of special relativity." Resort to idiosyncratic and meaningless redundant terminology like "non-inertial acceleration" does nothing to display your superior insights and understanding, as you appear to imagine. On the contrary, it merely demonstrates how confused your thinking is. Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) I'm going to regret this but here goes nothin'. Learning is easy when you learn new things that fit in with your beliefs, it's very difficult when new things counter your beliefs. It's easier to not accept those new things than to throw out your beliefs. Beliefs become part of a person's id. If you insult their beliefs, you are insulting the person. When I say you're wrong, you perceive that as a personal attack instead of an opportunity to learn something truly new. So you respond and lash out with a personal attack and you think that's perfectly fair as I started it by saying you're wrong which you take as an insult. I'm going to tell you something that 100% of people think is BS and, especially relativists, take as the biggest insult. I was banned from a forum as one of the 4 main reasons for saying this: I wish wiki would post a relativity to English dictionary because every word relativity uses is an English word that relativity has hijacked and re-defined. Usually, in a language translation dictionary, the English word usually looks quite different from the foreign word. But this is not true in the relativity to English dictionary, the two words look the same but have two completely different meanings which adds to the confusion. So long as we can't agree on the definition of the terms, we are speaking two completely different languages. I'm afraid, so long as you're discussing with me, you're going to have to accept my definitions of the terms because I think and can only hope they agree with relativity's definitions. I was banned and threads closed many times because I said if relativity had hijacked the word "magic" instead of "mass" then people wouldn't be so confused if you said the magic of a particle increases as you move it closer to the speed of light. The word "mass" doesn't separate matter from energy and massless particles have mass but no rest mass. In English, the word mass can mean it can be weighed, or a large amount, or dense or has a huge volume or has inertia. Einstein's formula initially had nothing to do with the conversion of matter into energy and vice versa because that can't happen in an analogue way. Plus there's no conversion between mass and energy because they actually mean the same thing. The words velocity, perspective, mass, gravity, distance, inertia, acceleration, event, time, etc. all have precise meanings in the language of relativity that differ significantly from the English meanings. I'd have to teach you a whole new language from scratch for which there is no official translation dictionary and where no one believes one is even necessary. P.S. I can show you the derivation of E=mc2 and you would laugh because you'd see it means nothing what people thinks it means. It's actually about what would happen if you put energy into a particle and it didn't move as a result. What would happen to that energy? The answer is not that the energy gets converted into matter, it gets converted into this new thing called mass which is actually energy. It's all about non-inertial acceleration. See the word inertia applies to both a moving mass and the mass's resistance to moving and that inertia is also equivalent to gravity. So when relativity says non-inertial it really means both non-moving relative to your own frame but feeling a force and non-constant motion as in the English word acceleration as seen by an outside observer and inertial means constant motion as seen by an outside observer. Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 There is really no call to comment further on our exchange, Ralf, but I can't resist posting a parody of our "dialogue." ===== Me: What time is it, Ralf? Ralf: The sky is blue. Me: Yeah, so? Ralf: So everything you say is completely wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 That about sums it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) I now see that you have recently added this to your last post. It's all about non-inertial acceleration. See the word inertia applies to both a moving mass and the mass's resistance to moving and that inertia is also equivalent to gravity. So when relativity says non-inertial it really means both non-moving relative to your own frame but feeling a force and non-constant motion as in the English word acceleration as seen by an outside observer and inertial means constant motion as seen by an outside observer. A few comments in response: The topic of our conversation was SR, not GR. Einstein was never satisfied with SR, but he did not come up with the equivalence principle until many years later. It has nothing to do with SR as a theory. GR is a theory of gravity, not a theory of relative motion as SR purports to be. In GR the speed of light is not constant and the theory dispenses with the postulates of SR in other respects also. Toward the end of his career, Einstein said that his attempt to build GR "on top of" the flat spacetime presumed by SR was a mistake that was totally unjustifiable. In short, it is inappropriate to try to explain SR in terms of GR concepts. Each theory must stand on it own, if at all. P.S.: For the record, Einstein did not claim that gravity was equivalent to "inertia," as you state. In essence he said it was the equivalent of acceleration, which is the opposite of an inertial state. Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) Again inertia changes its meaning depending on the language. There's so much made up hearsay about Einstein that I don't believe any of it and even if it were true should have no bearing on a discussion based on reason rather than belief. Einstein was just as much an explorer of his own theory as anyone else and he may have misunderstood it or not.The argument that "because Einstein said so" has no weight with me. I also saw no connection between SR and GR until this latest explanation I got about how age diff being possibly caused by non-inertial acceleration/gravity and not solely by differing spacetime paths. If that's true, that overturns how relativity has been taught and the general belief of it. It strongly unites the two as the same theory with SR being a related but special case. Unfortunately I was cut off from getting confirmation of this.Maybe someone could contact KJW on thescienceforum.com and get him over here to finish our discussion so we could all know the answer. P.S. According to relativity's definitions, do you understand the differences between ageing, time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference? Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) Again inertia changes its meaning depending on the language. I also saw no connection between SR and GR until this latest explanation I got about how age diff being possibly caused by non-inertial acceleration/gravity and not solely by differing spacetime paths. If that's true, that overturns how relativity has been taught and the general belief of it. It strongly unites the two as the same theory with SR being a related but special case. Unfortunately I was cut off from getting confirmation of this.Maybe someone could contact KJW on thescienceforum.com and get him over here to finish our discussion so we could all know the answer. If you want to think that clock retardation in SR is caused by acceleration, help yourself. But you do so only by ignoring the theoretical and experimental evidence which I have already provided you with (via experts). Even apart from theoretical postulates and empirical confirmation thereof, there are a number of simple, logical, commonsense reasons why acceleration (as opposed to instantaneous speed) cannot be the cause of clock retardation. For one (of many) such reasons, it is simple to construct a "twin paradox" scenario where no acceleration whatsoever is involved. Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium OceanBreeze 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) Yes I mentioned the last point but maybe he can provide an excuse for it. You used the word clock retardation. Explain how that works in the definitions of ageing, time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Here's an STD, show me examples of which numbers belong to which definitions. Can you describe in words what this STD represents. P.S. I've been looking since 2006 for a consistent explanation of relativistic facts without any contradictions. I felt I was close with KJW but then he drops this non-inertial acceleration bomb at the very end. It has contradictions. If he can address them then this could be how SR works and I'm ready to believe it until maybe someone has a better explanation. I've read so many other explanations and I can definitively say they are all dead wrong because they don't address the contradictions. Even the theory I thought we were discussing before he dropped the bomb had contradictions. Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) Yes I mentioned the last point but maybe he can provide an excuse for it. You used the word clock retardation. Explain how that works in the definitions of ageing, time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Here's an STD, show me examples of which numbers belong to which definitions. Can you describe in words what this STD represents. I use the term "clock retardation," as opposed to "time dilation," as a matter of accuracy. Time is an abstraction which does not, in itself, dilate or contract. Clocks, and other recurrent phenomena such as biological processes like aging, are shown to slow down with relative speed, but that says nothing about "time" itself. Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) Temperature can also affect metabolic rates. You could, in theory, put a person in suspended animation for years. In a subjective sense, you could, I suppose, say that time has stopped for him. But the rest of the world would go on unaffected, seasons would come and go, etc. Time itself has not stopped. Edited January 23, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 If you want to think that clock retardation in SR is caused by acceleration, help yourself. But you do so only by ignoring the theoretical and experimental evidence which I have already provided you with (via experts). Even apart from theoretical postulates and empirical confirmation thereof, there are a number of simple, logical, commonsense reasons why acceleration (as opposed to instantaneous speed) cannot be the cause of clock retardation. For one (of many) such reasons, it is simple to construct a "twin paradox" scenario where no acceleration whatsoever is involved. It is a mathematical fact there is no acceleration term in the Lorentz factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 Yeah, that too, Popeye. But, as I have frequently expressed, I don't think math has any role to play in affecting objective reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 Yeah, that too, Popeye. But, as I have frequently expressed, I don't think math has any role to play in affecting objective reality. I agree that math does not affect objective reality. It is only a tool for helping to analyze that reality, IF employed correctly. That is a big IF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 I agree that math does not affect objective reality. It is only a tool for helping to analyze that reality, IF employed correctly. That is a big IF Yeah, the most complex, yet accurate, math calculations, beautiful as they may be, are only as meaningful and informative as the premises they are based upon. And there's almost always a big IF about the soundness of the premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) I don't know GR but there must be a formula to explain time dilation due to gravity and another to equate gravity to acceleration. They must apply that formula to GPS calculations. The satellites are in microgravity but I don't see how being in continual freefall can they feel any acceleration due to their orbits or due to earth's gravitiational field. So their time is the proper time free of acceleration/gravitational effects and it's all reciprocal time dilation due to relative velocity with us. Even though they have turnaround points, their spacetime path does not have any valid co-located starts and ends with our spacetime path so no permanent age difference (that all perspectives can agree on) can be established between our clocks and theirs. No worries because we don't care what their or anyone else's perspective of our time is. We just care what our perspective of their time is. So all the effects of the gravity component of time dilation are on our earthbound clocks. It'd be nice to know the specifics of how GPS calculations are done at this level even though it won't answer my question of whether the gravity caused by a non-inertial turnaround causes age difference (which is not the same thing as time dilation as I keep trying to tell everyone.) P.S. Why is there a need to make periodic adjustments between our clocks and theirs if we know how the formulas should apply? This would suggest either their orbital speed or our gravitiational field has perturbations. Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-wal Posted January 23, 2019 Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 The satellites are in microgravity but I don't see how being in continual freefall can they feel any acceleration due to their orbits or due to earth's gravitiational field. So their time is the proper time free of gravitational effects and it's all reciprocal time dilation due to relative velocity with us.No. They are in a weaker gravitational field than we are and so their clocks run faster than ours (just taking gravity alone into consideration). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted January 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) So how much faster would a satellite's clock in interstellar space run in relation to one in freefall within our gravitiational field? If the answer is significant, then I'd believe you. But if the answer is indistinguishable, then all the gravitational contribution to age difference as opposed to reciprocal time dilation only applies to the earthbound clocks. The gravitational component is age difference as opposed to time dilation because it is the same from all perspectives and it doesn't depend on valid spacetime paths. See where I'm going with this? I don't think anyone in the history of this planet ever asked this question before so you won't find the answer in wikipedia. Edited January 23, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.