Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

Here it is again:

 

Each clock does not objectively run slower than the other -- that's the whole bloody point! There is no objective, frame-independent point of view about which clock is "really" correct.

 

 

You, I, and Dingle all agree on the first part.  It is both physically and logically impossible for each clock to run slower than the other.  If Dingle were here, he'd probably thank you for your support.

 

Too bad than none of the physicists who pretended to "refute" him would even answer that question.  It would have been simple.  But of course they couldn't.  That would just serve to fully admit the inconsistencies and flaws inherent in SR.  If you had any capacity to recognize your own self-contradictions, you wouldn't have admitted it either, I'm sure.

 

However, your "explanation" of why this is true utterly fails.  That is just a resort to solipsism, and is incorrect as a matter of physical reality.

 

In the twin paradox there IS indeed a frame which discloses which one is "really" correct.  It is the frame of the earth twin, which SR asserts is correct. Just as decisively, SR clearly demonstrates that the traveling twin's view is, as an objective matter, wholly incorrect.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Oh no back on the treadmill. How many posts will it take this time to drown out this thread. And now pollymouth has rejoined you under a different name. Truly insanity reigns.

[Moronium]

 Truly insanity reigns.

 

 

For once you're right, Ralf.  There's a boatload of crazy-azz crap being spewed in this thread, sho nuff.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

So why can't you just take your boat and sail away then. Have you targeted this thread for closure because you find the existence of math personally insulting and can't stand the thought others (albeit not many) have a skill you don't?

[Moronium]

When blustering buffoons like Amp come in here making ridiculous claims, I will generally respond, Ralf.  He probably won't come back, so don't worry.  I pay no attention to Silva, Polly and their ilk.  I pay no attention to your irrelevant math, either.  Although I know it's futile, I still occasionally try to help you overcome some of your conceptual errors.  I must quit that, too.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In the twin paradox there IS indeed a frame which discloses which one is "really" correct.  It is the frame of the earth twin, which SR asserts is correct. Just as decisively, SR clearly demonstrates that the traveling twin's view is, as an objective matter, wholly incorrect.

 

 

Of course SR disciples could have taken your approach to the twin paradox too, Amp.  They could have said: "SR teaches us that nobody knows anything about objective reality.  We have no prediction to make in this case.  There's no way we could begin to respond.  We don't deal in objective reality at all.  We have nothing scientific to say about anything."

 

Problem is, that too would utterly discredit SR as anything to ever take seriously from a scientific point of view.  SR doesn't want to admit that either, so it just hauls off and contradicts it's own stated postullates when making a prediction, hoping no one will notice.  Many fools don't notice, so it works for them most of the time.

 

But the simple truth is that SR repudiates it's own premises and adopts the earth frame as the preferred frame in these circumstances.  It "forgets" that its postulates absolutely prohibit the use of a preferred frame.  It abandons the pretense of reciprocal time dilation and relative motion.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

You, I, and Dingle all agree on the first part.  It is both physically and logically impossible for each clock to run slower than the other.  If Dingle were here, he'd probably thank you for your support.

 

Too bad than none of the physicists who pretended to "refute" him would even answer that question.  It would have been simple.  But of course they couldn't.  That would just serve to fully admit the inconsistencies and flaws inherent in SR.  If you had any capacity to recognize your own self-contradictions, you wouldn't have admitted it either, I'm sure.

 

However, your "explanation" of why this is true utterly fails.  That is just a resort to solipsism, and is incorrect as a matter of physical reality.

 

In the twin paradox there IS indeed a frame which discloses which one is "really" correct.  It is the frame of the earth twin, which SR asserts is correct. Just as decisively, SR clearly demonstrates that the traveling twin's view is, as an objective matter, wholly incorrect.

 

 

You are either impossibly stupid, or a troll. To say that there is no objective, frame-independent way of saying which clock is “really” correct is NOT the same thing as saying there is no objective reality! Many aspects of reality are matters of perspective — your apparent objection to relativity is as stupid as asking, “Is Wichita west or east?” East or west of what? It’s east of San Francisco, but west of New York. Do you understand that? Or do you think that unless Wichita is  objectively east or west, then there is no objective reality? 

 

Dingle’s stupid question WAS answered — by the pages to which I linked you, which you either did not read or did not understand, and by me, in this very thread, this very evening.

 

You continue to be confused about what “really” correct means with respect to the twins paradox. No one doubts that the traveling twin will be younger — that’s a bloody prediction of SR. The point is that when the two twins are in inertial frames with respect to each other, there is no experiment that you can perform that will tell you which twin is at rest, and which twin is in motion. And, guess what, genius? That’s not from Einstein — it’s from Galileo! Bet you didn’t even know that, did you?

 

Einstein merely updated Galileo to add that c is invariant in all inertial frames, from which everything else — relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction — automatically follow.

I explained to you the reason why the traveling twin is really younger than the earth twin. It’s because he ends up in two different inertial frames, as opposed to a single inertial frame for his twin on earth. Here, I found a short, simple video of this for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iMAjfz1k8

[Moronium]

Dingle’s stupid question WAS answered — by the pages to which I linked you, which you either did not read or did not understand, and by me, in this very thread, this very evening.

 

It was NOT answered by that mathematician, and it was NOT answered by the numerous physicists who responded to Dingle.  It was answered by you.  You agree with Dingle.  It is both physically and logically impossible for each of two clocks to run slower than the other, objectively speaking.

 

However, your reason for your response was completely incorrect.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You continue to be confused about what “really” correct means with respect to the twins paradox. No one doubts that the traveling twin will be younger — that’s a bloody prediction of SR.

 

 

Yes indeed it is a prediction of SR, as I just explicitly told you.  Unfortunately in order to make the correct prediction, SR has to repudiate its own premises.  That's what fools like you can't see.

[ralfcis]

This video is garbage. I watched 1/4 then gave up.

 

1. Her twin doesn't travel any faster into the future than she does. She just arrives at the same present not having aged as much.

2. Moving clocks do not run slow. They all run at the same rate within each of their frames. They apparently run slow from each perspective and from a half speed velocity perspective they appear to run at the same  rate. Reciprocal time dilation is not reality, it's an illusion of perspective and a change in velocity bursts that bubble. Relativity defines subjective reality as the only reality, kinda went off the rails there. This is an opinion based on the inability to establish an objective reality (or present) that is not subject to perspective.

 

Length contraction doesn't automatically follow. I don't use it and get the same answers just with time dilation. Relative simultaneity is also time dilation (from the depicted moving frame perspective).

 

The present is reality. SR says each perspective is a valid present hence it is a valid subjective reality. There is no causality between events in different frames. Different perspectives can see a different order of events, that's relativity of simultaneity. But causality is guaranteed by the max speed limit c. Basing reality (the present) on perspective is an abomination to causality.

 

It's absolutely irrelevant who is actually moving. If Alice takes off from earth, her acceleration has established she is moving  but that has no bearing on relative velocity. The earth doesn't experience relative acceleration and her starting acceleration has resulted in almost no age difference between the two. It's change of velocity at a distance that causes that. Do you know why?

 

The idea that Alice can be viewed as stationary with the universe rushing past her is irrelevant to relative velocity. The universe is too massive to be moving past her, the MM experiment proved you can't establish a relative velocity to a vacuum or to the light that travels through it, to establish she is stationary would mean you'd have to tether her outside the universe like a needle on a record. Relative velocity doesn't care if one or the other is actually moving or not. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The point is that when the two twins are in inertial frames with respect to each other, there is no experiment that you can perform that will tell you which twin is at rest, and which twin is in motion. And, guess what, genius? That’s not from Einstein — it’s from Galileo! Bet you didn’t even know that, did you?

 

 

Of course I know what Galileo said in his "parable of the ship."  If you had even read this thread you would know that.  Unlike you, I also understood what he was saying, and why.

 

Galileo, as you apparently do not know, said that the earth is, as a matter of fact, moving relative to the sun which remains "at rest" with respect to the earth.  Galielo ONLY talked about experiments done in closed cabins, and those don't even involve judging which of two (or more) objects is moving. He went on to say that as soon as one escaped from this sensory prison, and went up on deck, saw the sails billowed and felt the wind in his face he would KNOW that the ship was moving relative to the shore, and not vice versa.  That is, he would then know that HE is moving, even though he couldn't discern that in a closed cabin.  Actually, all he would have had to do was look out the window.

 

Not something you are likely to understand though.

 

Galileo was using the illustration to illuminate his novel (at that time) conception of inertia.  Both Galileo and Newton explicitly said that an absolute rate of speed could not be detected.  Neither of them said that "you can't tell who's moving."  The ability to detect which of two objects is moving is crucial to Newton's laws of motion.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I explained to you the reason why the traveling twin is really younger than the earth twin. It’s because he ends up in two different inertial frames, as opposed to a single inertial frame for his twin on earth. Here, I found a short, simple video of this for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iMAjfz1k8

 

 

 

And I responded to that non-explanation. OF COURSE one ends up in two (more actually) frames.  But why?  Because one is moving, as an objective matter, and one isn't.  And that's why his, and only his, clock runs slow.  It is the MOVING clock which runs slow, per SR.

 

Which means, of course, that SR agrees with Galileo (well, except for when it seems convenient not to, anyway).  Contrary to your assertions, you CAN tell which of two objects is moving in many  cases, even if you can't physically sense your own motion.

 

Again, your incapacity to recognize your own self-contradictions is truly flabbergasting.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

2. Moving clocks do not run slow. 

 

 

You never fail to continue to make claims that are contrary to all empirical experiments, Ralf, no matter how many times you are corrected.  You're utterly hopeless.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Where do you get the idea I've been corrected by you. Because you keep repeating it's not time that moves slow, it's moving clocks that run slow. Why would I want to have a wrong understanding of the facts. You don't understand perspective. If you understood that word, you might have a chance at understanding subjective and objective. Maybe other words might follow and you'd have a vocabulary outside the word soliloquasm or is that slopicircumcism?

Edited March 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Where do you get the idea I've been corrected by you. 

 

I'm not the one correcting you, Ralf.  It is the empirical experiments which do that.  I merely point them out to you.  You are ignorant of basic facts, but think you know everything.  Another mark of a solipsist.  For them there are no "facts," just their own infallible thoughts. The world is merely what you wish it to be, end of story.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

And I responded to that non-explanation. OF COURSE one ends up in two (more actually) frames.  But why?  Because one is moving, as an objective matter, and one isn't.  And that's why his, and only his, clock runs slow.  It is the MOVING clock which runs slow, per SR.

 

SR itself informs you of a way to determine which of two objects is moving (despite generally trying to also speciously assert that you can't tell).

 

If you didn't know (which you do) which of the twins is/was moving, you would know as soon as they re-united.  How? Just see whose clock registered less elapsed time.  That would be the spacetwin, of course, according to SR.  How would you know that?  Because SR also holds that the MOVING clock will run slow, that's how.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

When Magellan circumnavigated the globe, his crew kept meticulous notes in a daily log.

 

When they got back to Spain, they found they were missing a day.  You might say that "time slowed down" for them, ya know?

 

Why?  Because they went around the world, that's why.  As a consequence, they saw one less sunrise than the Spaniards who stayed home.

 

You could deduce from that that it was the ship was the one moving, not Spain.

 

But only a goddamm fool would need to "deduce" anything.  Every chump and his brother could immediately tell you that the ship was not standing dead still in the harbor while Spain moved away from it and while the entire earth moved around it.  Same with any passenger on one of Einstein's trains.  Well, except for Einsteins fools, who he forces to be more foolish than any other chump in the world.

 

Einstein's fools go the whole hog with their absurdity.  They don't even claim that they can't tell who is moving.  They KNOW.  They know that they are at rest.  Just like the fool twin who is traveling to another star and back, ya know?

 

.. there is no experiment that you can perform that will tell you which twin is at rest, and which twin is in motion. And, guess what, genius? That’s not from Einstein — it’s from Galileo!

 

To even claim that you can't know who's moving in such circumstances is utterly preposterous.  Only a clown would make that claim. So show some respect, Amp.  You may be a clown, but don't try to hang that crap on Galiieo, the genius.  Galileo don't play dat.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium