ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 And presto chango, smoke bombs, the great Moronium vanishes before your very eyes only to appear on some other thread with the very same same act.
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) I'm not an absolutist that believes in referencing all velocity relative to the CMB. But I'm practical and will choose a common reference frame to the most immovable object. That will form my background cartesian coordinates that are inescapable in relativity. Only completely brainwashed relativists can't see the compromises that must be made and will argue to the death irrelevant niggling purist dogma. The very act of designating a "common reference frame" renders all motion, time, and simultaneity "absolute." It doesn't have to be the CMB, or any other particular frame. Designating the Sun (or solar barycenter) as the object/point around which all other matter in the solar system revolves, for example, means you are treating all such motion as absolute. By definition, using a preferred (common) frame (i.e., a frame which is used to judge the motion of all other relevant objects) renders such motion absolute, not relative. Of course doing so completely repudiates SR, which prohibits the use of a preferred frame, so it is not a "compromise." It is a clear cut choice between absolute and relative motion. Any one who chooses to use a common frame is an "absolutist." They (you) have elected to treat motion as absolute, not relative. It's too bad that most people don't have a clear idea of the theoretical difference between relative and absolute motion. As a practical matter virtually everyone adopts the view that motion is absolute, even SR disciples who swear that all inertial motion is merely "relative." To conclude, for example, (as virtually every physicist does) that the earth orbits the solar barycenter; that the solar system revolves around the center of mass in the Milky Way; that the Milky Way is moving toward the "great attractor," etc., is to tacitly assume a preferred frame and that motion is absolute, not relative. Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) To conclude, for example, (as virtually every physicist does) that the earth orbits the solar barycenter; that the solar system revolves around the center of mass in the Milky Way; that the Milky Way is moving toward the "great attractor," etc., is to tacitly assume that motion is absolute, not relative. Experiments have shown that such motion is absolute and that there is/are a preferred frame(s) which are used to detect it. We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe. This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic. Since the observed variation is roughly one part in a thousand, it means the observer is moving with v/c = 10^{-3} or about a thousandth of the speed of light. That corresponds to a velocity of 300 kilometers per second or 1,080,000 kilometers per hour. The "Great Attractor" was postulated to explain our motion and its predicted location was near to our Galactic plane so that it would have been obscured by stars and dust. A search was started and as an eventual result it was found that such large clumps of matter as the hypothesized "Great Attractor" are regularly found through the Universe. It is now believed that summing over the mass in our "neighborhood" (within a 100 million light years) one finds the net unbalanced attraction that explains our motion as detected in this experiment. The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmolgy work. ...The COBE DMR observations clearly show the change in velocity at the 30 kilometers per second - a 10% effect - due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun....This is good evidence that Galileo is right - the Earth does go around the Sun. (George Smoot, Nobel Prize Winner in Physics) https://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/ The million km/hour speed given for the earth is not "relative to" any particular object. It is relative to the preferred frame (the CMB) which permeates the whole universe. It is basically the absolute speed of our galaxy "through space." "The CMB is then the standard frame of reference for cosmology work." The CMB is not the preferred frame for all motion, however. It is not used as the preferred frame pertaining to the assessment of more localized motion, such as is involved in the GPS, for example. That does not involve motion on a "cosmological" scale. Again, this is not a matter of "compromising." It is simply a matter of employing the appropriate and correct preferred frame for the situation. Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Well that's how you interpret things. I say a reference frame is not an absolute frame. To me absolute means 1 but to you, absolute means any 1 you decide upon. This is how relativists define reference frame. It's the same thing with your interpretation of perspective. You define it as mind power over distance like telekinesis. If I say reality is information, you define that as telegrams control reality. The sun's heat and light and gravity aren't telegrams, they're reality, that comes to us at the limit of the speed of information. Perception is the reception of that delayed information. Perception does not control the source of that information. Edited March 28, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) . This is how relativists define reference frame. You define it as mind power over distance like telekinesis. n. No, and no. You've always had your own subjective, idiosyncratic definitions, Ralf, and you've never been able to understand anybody else's, no matter how standard and universally accepted they may be. As I said: It's too bad that most people don't have a clear idea of the theoretical difference between relative and absolute motion. As a practical matter virtually everyone adopts the view that motion is absolute, even SR disciples who swear that all inertial motion is merely "relative." Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Instead of correcting me on where we differ you just throw the entire discussion in the garbage with unequivocal no's, an attack on how I generally reason things out and absolutely no rebuttal on your part. I make up my own precise terms because relativity, the slime-bag science that it is, uses wildly contextual definitions that look like English but usually mean the opposite of what they look like. Again, try to understand the difference between relative and absolute. In a universe of only 2 astronauts and no stars, what kind of absolute reference could there be? Absolutely none. There could be nothing between the two they could agree upon as an absolute reference. The only thing left in this extreme example is relative motion. They're both moving but each assigns themselves as stationary and the other as moving. This is a problem for you but not a problem for relativity. Things you need to work out can be easily worked out. You decree it's a paradox, it's impossible. It is indeed a paradox but knowing that, you can work around it. Absolute motion has no paradox but since it doesn't exist (in the example I gave), who cares. I have seen no indication that you will understand this. You are a highly literal thinker. Your whole objection will be the argument is theoretical, there can't be a universe with only 2 people and if there was, they'd be more concerned as to where their next meal is coming from rather than if they're in relative or absolute motion. QED, walk away, you're a friggin genius. I've met people who avoid thinking and are very literal and some have very high double digit IQ's. Edited March 28, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) You've always had your own subjective, idiosyncratic definitions, Ralf, and you've never been able to understand anybody else's, no matter how standard and universally accepted they may be. This is, no doubt, a primary reason for your inability to think consistently and logically, and to effectively communicate. Interestingly, it is a common practice for people suffering from a psychosis such as schizophrenia. They will develop their own unique "vocabulary" and assign a *special* meaning to symbols such as words. This is a big factor in explaining why they end up completely losing "touch with reality." Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Well at least you're consistent. Just keep avoiding the subject and stick with your own highly unsophisticated and unsubstantiated beliefs. Hopefully, there are people getting straightened out by our discussions but I fear they only tune in for the entertainment value and also suffer from an inability to think for themselves.The world wasn't this friggin dumb when I was a kid. What happened? Is this really all the internet's fault where everyone can now be their own Encyclopedia Moronica? Edited March 28, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) There could be nothing between the two they could agree upon as an absolute reference. I agree with this, but not this: The only thing left in this extreme example is relative motion. Or this: They're both moving but each assigns themselves as stationary and the other as moving. 1. A common mistake is being made here. Too many people treat epistemology as ontology. "Relative motion" is not the "only thing left." As an ontological matter, there is no reason to conclude that one or both is not "really" moving, "through space" just because they have no way of detecting it. On the contrary, if they are moving relative to each other, then at least one of them must be "really" moving. Or that we are both moving at the same speed. Or that any one of an infinite number of possible different speeds is the case. 2. Since they have no way to detect absolute motion, they likewise have no basis for "assuming" that they are stationary. Under those circumstances nothing prohibits me from "assuming" anything I care to, however unwarranted it may be. I could just as easily "assume" that he is stationary, and that I am moving. Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) There is no such thing as "really" moving in relative motion whether it's detectable or not. Both are moving relative to each other even if they both started together and one jetted off from the other sideways. Starting together, and both assuming they're stationary, means they are both relatively stationary although you probably assume absolutely stationary. You say the guy who jetted off is accelerating and therefore in absolute motion and the other isn't, so he's "really" moving. But the stationary guy is still in relative motion even though you can prove he's not really moving. "Real" motion is absolutely irrelevant. Why can't you articulate your own arguments? Edited March 28, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) There is no such thing as "really" moving in relative motion whether it's detectable or not. But the stationary guy is still in relative motion even though you can prove he's not really moving. "Real" motion is absolutely irrelevant. Why can't you articulate your own arguments? As I said, you are incapable of distinguishing ontology from epistemology. Nor are you generally capable of understanding any rational argument that is presented to you. Furthermore, you once again display your misunderstanding of the theoretical distinction between relative and absolute motion. I have explained this at some length, but you can't comprehend it. As a theoretical matter, this claim is inherently self-contradictory, but you'll never understand how or why it is. But the stationary guy is still in relative motion even though you can prove he's not really moving. Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Ok, keep peddling your broken tricycle. You'll find lots of takers. I'm not here to save the world but to help those who want to be helped. My only reward is to belittle those that don't want to be. Edited March 28, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) My only reward is to belittle those that don't want to be. Yeah, that's all you're here for, sho nuff. Your only agenda is to proclaim yourself to be the most brilliant person in the universe and to insult anyone who dares to disbelieve you. Edited March 28, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 Well at least you finally understand something out of all this.
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 Well at least you finally understand something out of all this. I understood that from the day you came in here, Ralf. You come in on the pretense that you are seeking input from experts, but that was a complete lie. In your mind, you are the one and only TRUE expert, and you came to lecture, not to listen or learn.
Moronium Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 I do my own share of "lecturing," no doubt.. But there's an essential difference between you and me on that score. Whether I'm right or wrong, I at least know what I'm talking about. You don't.
Recommended Posts