Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What The Observer Saw

Special relativity simultaneity of time

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#18 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 854 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

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 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.




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