Three Air Tight Reasons Why No Object Can Ever Reach An Event Horizon

[Moronium]

Earth doesn't care what the GPS satellites'  perspective of our dilated clocks is. 

 

 

That's true, Ralf.  The GPS uses a PFT and in such a theory, "observers" are totally superflous.  Nothing depends on what they "think."  It is all just a question of matter in motion (aka "physics"), not the half-baked perceptions of observers.

 

That said, if there were an observer with a clock on a satellite, then he would see the ECI clock as running FASTER than his, not slower, as SR would require.  They would agree on that and there would be no need for each to eternally insist that the other was wrong, as happens in, and is required by, SR.  The "paradoxes" never arise.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I and the world of relativity, which I represent, disagree. The only time one clock is dilating slower and another is moving faster is if the faster one is in an accelerating frame relative to a constant velocity frame. Accelerating actually means a Rindler metric and the constant is a Minkowski metric. In my theory it's different. The one who initiated the change in velocity will be moving at a velocity through time equal to the Doppler shift ratio (faster than c) for as long as the imbalance in the relative velocities persists. 

[ralfcis]

Hey where'd the big A-Wal go, this is his thread after all. Maybe that's why he got that name, he's always A-Wal when the going gets tough.

[Moronium]

I and the world of relativity, which I represent, disagree. The only time one clock is dilating slower and another is moving faster is if the faster one is in an accelerating frame relative to a constant velocity frame. Accelerating actually means a Rindler metric and the constant is a Minkowski metric. In my theory it's different. The one who initiated the change in velocity will be moving at a velocity through time equal to the Doppler shift ratio (faster than c) for as long as the imbalance in the relative velocities persists. 

 

Well, you're right and (at least partially) wrong.  You're right that, even in SR, an accelerating clock will see the inertial clock as running faster, not slower.  That's because the motion is conceded to be absolute, not merely relative.

 

I say that you are only "partially" wrong because you qualified your claims by acknowledging that what you said was true in "the world of relativity."

 

But my statement was not made in the "world of relativity" (SR).  It was made in the context of a PFT, where ALL motion is deemed to be absolute, not just motion in accelerating frames.  Now, you can disagree  that all motion is absolute if you want....but you would be wrong.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

My math says otherwise, what does yours say. Oh I forgot, math is unreliable and always inappropriate to real scientific discussion. You're like agent Smith, you turn every thread into another replicated agent Smith thread. Soon the entire forum will be Moronium.

Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

My math says otherwise, what does yours say.

 

 

Your math doesn't say a damn thing that you don't tell it to say, Ralf.  Don't try to act like it's giving independent answers to questions about physical reality.

 

That said, if you want "my" math, then look at the LT (as applied by a PFT).  Even in SR, the LT simply say that, as an absolute matter, in inertial frames the faster moving clock will run slow.

 

What is doesn't, and can't, tell you is which objects are moving, and how fast.

 

To illustrate:  The LT say that "IF the guy on the train is moving faster than the guy on ground, then his clocks will be slow.  On the other hand, IF the guy on the ground is moving faster than the train, then HIS clock will run slow.  Don't even try to ask me which one is moving faster.  That's not my business.  You figure it out."

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Your last sentence says it all. Relativity doesn't need to know who's "really" moving and that's what makes it superior. My math btw has led me along, I didn't know where it was headed eventually but I like the destination, much better than all the previous places it led me.

Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Your last sentence says it all. Relativity doesn't need to know who's "really" moving and that's what makes it superior. 

 

 

Completely wrong.  In every single calculation SR makes using the LT, it tells the LT who is moving, and just how fast.  It HAS to input that information before any calculation can proceed.

 

 

Question for you:  How does it make those determinations?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Completely wrong.  In every single calculation SR makes using the LT, it tells the LT who is moving, and just how fast.  It HAS to input that information before any calculation can proceed.

 

 

Question for you:  How does it make those determinations?

 

 

Here, I'll help you get started.  We have two objects, A and B.  Using radars guns, they both agree that their relative speed is .6c.  Now you  have the "relative" speed which you claimed was sufficient.  But it aint.  How do the LT proceed from there?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here, I'll help you get started.  We have two objects, A and B.  Using radars guns, they both agree that their relative speed is .6c.  Now you  have the "relative" speed which you claimed was sufficient.  But it aint.  How do the LT proceed from there?

 

You, the greatest mathematician of all time, still can't figure this out, Ralf?

[ralfcis]

You wouldn't be asking that question if you read or understood anything I've written. As soon as relativity starts with an STD (which is a graphical representation of Lorentz Transform equations) it needs to put down Cartesian coordinates. This is what you're saying is a preferred frame as an absolute frame and this is what relativists deny is a preferred frame but is merely an agreed to reference frame. It's no more than a piece of paper on which you can use a pencil to draw on. The drawing is not reality, it is a stick man representation that is accurate enough to make the math work.

 

Your point, which you just don't come out and say, is you can try to draw the same relative velocity an infinite number of ways on that graph, and you'll get an infinite different coordinate points at which Bob and Alice will end up. .6c can be drawn as Bob on earth and Alice taking off from him or Alice on earth and Bob taking off from her, or Alice and Bob both taking off in opposite directions from earth at 1/3 c and they will not end up at the same cartesian coordinates on the graph. As I said, in a depiction of true relative velocity, there is no graph, there is no background, there are just 2 participants on a pitch black starless background with no other reference than each other. That leads to no math. So relativity makes one of them the basis for the cartesian coordinates. Once that's established, they are both free to move relative to that frame even though there's no physical existence to it. This is what you call your inescapable preferred, absolute frame and what relativists call the reference frame. Potato, patatoe. 

[Moronium]

...relativity starts with an STD (which is a graphical representation of Lorentz Transform equations)... It's no more than a piece of paper on which you can use a pencil to draw on. The drawing is not reality, it is a stick man representation that is accurate enough to make the math work.

 

 

1.  SR does not "start with" a piece of graph paper.

 

2.  Of course you're right that it doesn't reflect "reality," but these SR disciples insist that SR represents "objective reality."  What's up with that?

[Moronium]

. Relativity doesn't need to know who's "really" moving and that's what makes it superior.

 

 

You like to accuse others of being brain-washed SR bots, Ralf, but you're every bit as much of a victim of brain-washing as they are.

 

You believe that's SR's claim that you can never know who's moving makes it SUPERIOR, because that's what SR tries to tell you.  But the opposite is true.  That's exactly what renders it completely incoherent and worthless.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

But that wasn't the original question.  I said that SR MUST inform the LT of just who is moving, and how fast.

 

You denied that.  But you're wrong.

 

So the question remains:  How does SR determine who is moving and just how fast, so that it can feed that information to the LT for calculation?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Your point, which you just don't come out and say, is you can try to draw the same relative velocity an infinite number of ways on that graph, and you'll get an infinite different coordinate points at which Bob and Alice will end up. 

 

This is true, but the point goes beyond that.  SR would never admit that.

 

But, if it did, SR's next step would be to say that each and every one of these infinite possible combos is equally "true."  Is that possible?

[Moronium]

One of the major impediments to your understanding, Ralf, is that you don't understand the nature of math.

 

As someone recently noted, with math it's "garbage in, garbage out."

 

But you think it's "garbage in, gold out."  And, of course, that means the more garbage, the more gold.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

GIGO was initially phrased for the computer industry. So by your logic, that industry collapsed decades ago. Go ahead and believe your placards, you have no ability to articulate or comprehend.