Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What The Observer Saw

Special relativity simultaneity of time

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#18 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:39 PM

Try to understand this, A-wal:  Although SR glibly asserts, as a philosophical matter, that all inertial frames are equally valid, the theory DENYS this in practice.

 

In SR, an observer is not free to treat the "other guy" as the one moving  That is strictly prohibited,  You cannot just arbitrarily chose an inertial frame to use for calculation purposes in SR.  You MUST (absolutely mandatory, no exceptions) treat the (inertial) frame you are is as a PREFERRED frame which is "at rest."

Utterly false. Any inertial frame can be thought of as at rest. Whenever there's inertial motion there's no distinction between which objects are in motion and which are at rest. There is no preferred inertial frame.

 

I understand the claims of SR perfectly.  Don't take my rejections of the absurd implications of the theory as a "lack of comprehension."

 

By "understand," I actually mean understand, which is different from merely being able to parrot, from memory, the dictates I have been told to accept without any satisfactory rational explanation.

Yea you say that but then you talk utter nonsense and claim that there are logical contradictions so you clearly don't understand it because if you did you'd see that there are none in sr. You haven't given a single example of how sr is logically inconsistent, all you've done is say that it doesn't make sense to you. You clearly aren't equipped to judge the validity of a model that you're not even capable of grasping yet you think your lack of understand is somehow evidence of a problem with the model.

 

As much as you smugly and arrogantly pretend to superior understanding, I'm afraid you display none of it.  You are, however, a good tool, who will zealously and faithfully recite the "talking points" of SR advocates reflexively and automatically.  But that's not "understanding," I'm araid.

Yes, I'm a prime example of a parrot of memorised mainstream science dogma I am.

 

Smug? Hmm, yea okay fair enough.


Edited by A-wal, 15 April 2018 - 06:30 PM.


#19 Moronium

Moronium

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 394 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:50 AM

A-wal said:

 

Utterly false. Any inertial frame can be thought of as at rest.

 

No, you are the one who is utterly wrong, and, in fact, you are now contradicting your prior claims that every observer must consider his inertial frame to be at rest.

 

SR does NOT allow an observer who is using SR to make calculations to make any assumptions OTHER THAN that HE is at rest and that anything else in the universe which is moving with respect to him, is "moving."

 

This is why, for example, you insist that astronauts flying toward the moon "will see" themselves as "stationary."  No, they won't "see" any such thing.  They will presume it, if at all, only by capitulating to the mandatory dictates of SR.

 

Real life astronauts who are familiar with SR wouldn't make any such assumptions, because (if for no other good reason) they would have learned the lesson taught to the travelling twin in the twin paradox.  That poor chump assumed he was motionless (as required) and, as a consequence, he insisted that his twin on earth was the one who was aging slower.

 

It was only when he got back that he learned how utterly mistaken he was.  He was younger, and his twin was older.  Pursuant to the premises of SR, that proves that HE had the moving clock and that he was not motionless as he had been taught by SR to erroneously believe.


Edited by Moronium, 16 April 2018 - 08:09 AM.


#20 Moronium

Moronium

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 394 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 03:04 AM

The accepted resolution to the twin paradox simply adopts the earth's frame of reference as the preferred (as between the two twins) inertial frame of reference.

 

The earth twin assumes that he is motionless, and calculates the time dilation experienced by his travelling twin accordingly.  As it turns out, his calculations are 100% correct, and his twin's calculations (which are premised on the incorrect supposition that HE is "at rest") are 100% wrong.

 

Many people who discuss this issue don't even know what the perceived "paradox" is.  Many claim the "paradox" consists of the fact that clocks on moving objects tick at a slower rate than stationary ones.  That is not a paradox at all, although the reasons for it might be mystifying.  

 

The true paradox, which has never been resolved (by SR, anyway), lies in the inconsistencies generated by SR itself.  If, as SR claims, all inertial frames are "equally valid," then why is the earth's frame preferred in this case?  That inconsistency is what creates the paradox.

 

Put another way, how is it possible to get an absolute answer from a theory which posits that all motion is strictly relative?  An absolute answer should be impossible to arrive at if the premises are correct.  

 

The term "paradox" has been defined and explained as follows:

 

a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

 

 

 

another definition:

 

a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

 

 

The way to resolve a paradox is NOT to accept mutually exclusive claims as both being true. That is what creates the paradox, not what resolves it. The solution is to determine what aspect of a claim is, despite being "apparently sound," actually unsound, and then reject, rather than accept, that aspect.

 

The twin paradox is easily resolved by rejecting the self-contradictory claim that "all inertial frames of reference are equally valid."  Once that's done, all of the numerous "paradoxes" generated by SR disappear.

 

An apologist for SR is prone to say that the stay at home twin and the travelling twin are "both correct" in their calculations.  But this is logically impossible, and so, not surprisingly, the accepted resolution denies that they are "both correct."  The resolution says that only one (the earth twin) is correct in his calculations and that the other (the travelling twin) is incorrect in his calculations. 

 

So then, SR "resolves" the paradox it creates in the only way it can--it denies the soundness of its own premises. In order to resolve the paradox, it must abandon the claim that all inertial frames are equally valid and that therefore absolute motion cannot be detected.

 

SR apologists are also prone to point out that the situations of the two twins are "not symmetrical."  This is absolutely true, of course, but does nothing to answer the question posed.  Of course they are not symmetrical--one is moving (relative to the other) and one is not.  What the SR apologist does not, and cannot, explain or reconcile, is the concomitant claim that absolute motion cannot be detected.

 

Feynman said that the answer to the twin paradox is simple:  The one which has accelerated is the one who experiences time dilation, he says.  He's undeniably correct, because it is the one who has accelerated that is moving (relative to the one who has not).  And in SR (and every other theory which adopts the LT, for that matter) it is the moving clock which slows down.  Acceleration is universally admitted (even by SR) to be absolute motion, not relative motion.


Edited by Moronium, 26 April 2018 - 09:00 AM.


#21 Moronium

Moronium

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 394 posts

Posted 26 April 2018 - 04:49 AM

To elaborate somewhat, the proposition that "all inertial frames are equally valid" is, in certain respects, true, (the laws of physics are the same, for example).  But one of the conclusions drawn from this "equality" by SR is unwarranted and fallacious.

 

The unwarranted conclusion is this:  Therefore you can never say which of two objects is moving relative to the other.  That by no means follows.  There are a great number of ways to determine which (of two) clocks is moving relative to the other.  SR itself (the LT, actually) provides the means to determine that, because it holds that the "moving" clock will run slow.   

 

Empirical experiments, such the one performed by Hafele and Keating, show that clocks do tick at different rates due to varying speeds.  So, when the experiment is complete, you only need see which clock(s) have slowed down.  Those are the ones that were "moving."

 

Needless to say, notwithstanding the incoherent claims of SR to the contrary, the H-K experiments empirically prove that each of two clocks do NOT record elapsed time which is less than is recorded by the other.  Time dilation is simply not "reciprocal," as SR claims.


Edited by Moronium, 26 April 2018 - 05:07 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Special relativity, simultaneity of time