# The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

special relativity;

258 replies to this topic

### #256 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:36 AM

That last post, though accurate in spirit, is not quite the literal SR view, as I have noted elsewhere.  Even in SR, the train is deemed to be the thing moving when it "takes off."  At that point, it is accelerating and accelerated motion is absolute, even in SR. But here's what SR does claim:  That train could accelerate at a slow rate for hours, and it would, during that whole time, be "moving."  But the instant it quit accelerating, and moved at a uniform speed, it would then stop on a dime and become absolutely motionless. The earth would then suddenly start moving at the speed that the train was (say 80 mph).  All instantaneously.

If this train happens to be east-bound and there is a west-bound train on tracks 10 feet away, well, then, the earth starts moving in the opposite rotational direction for THAT train.  In either case, the passengers on each train never move an inch.  Yet, for some strange reason, they quickly move out of sight of each other.  Go figure, eh?

The rational view, as held by LR, is that all motion, both inertial and non-inertial, is absolute, not relative.  What was absolute motion a split second ago does not suddenly become relative just because you have stopped accelerating.

Edited by Moronium, 13 June 2018 - 02:23 PM.

### #257 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:51 AM

The rational view, as held by LR, is that all motion, both inertial and non-inertial, is absolute, not relative.

But, WAIT!!  If LR is correct, then that would mean that Minkowski's "spacetime" is a bogus concept!  It would mean that clock retardation is not reciprocal!  It would mean that relative simultaneity is a specious misconception!

Well, yeah, sorry, but them's the breaks, eh?  It's kinda crushing, I know.  Like when I found out that Hansel and Gretel was just a fairy tale.  I HATE when that happens!

Actually even SR has to end up admitting to this.  In the twin paradox "both" are not correct when they each claim that they are (relatively) motionless and that it is the other guy's clock that has "really" slowed down.  Only the earth twin is correct when he makes these claims.  The travelling twin is just plain wrong, because his motion is at all times absolute, not relative.

Edited by Moronium, 13 June 2018 - 05:41 PM.

### #258 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 14 June 2018 - 02:04 AM

Relativists then actually try to amplify this fallacious reasoning.  They may start by saying that "we can't know" if the earth orbits the moon or vice versa.  But in order for their theory to "correspond to reality" they need to go beyond that.  So "we can't know" which one is correct, then gets turned into the ridiculous proposition that "both views are correct."

Even Ernst Mach, the proto-positivist who had attracted the 1905 Einstein as a devout philosophical disciple, knew better than this.  He too asserted that the geocentric and heliocentric views were "equally valid."  They are not equally valid, but that's not the point here.

The point is this:  Even Mach had enough sense, objectivity, and integrity to immediately add that "However, the universe is only given once."  In other words, he denied that BOTH views were "correct."  At best it's either one or the other.  Einstein stretched his hero's (at that time) premises a little too far, concocting a theory which required him to assert that both views are correct.  It was not until later that Einstein fully realized that by doing so he had, in effect, totally embraced abject solipsism.  In 1950 he told Karl Popper that his biggest regret was ever having adopted positivism as a working philosophy to begin with.

Edited by Moronium, 14 June 2018 - 02:20 AM.

### #259 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 05 November 2018 - 03:06 PM

Clear and concise work Moronium, You have very soundly and rationally explained, from 15 different angles why Einstein is wrong.

I note that the Relativists have no rational rebuttal, and no sane argument to support their position.  Only weak and contestable so called evidence. But their hypothesis is impossible rubbish, so how can there be good evidence to support a rubbish hypothesis?

After accusing you of being of insufficient intellect to be able to understand Relativity, but clearly failing in that method of rebuttal, the Relativists now use the last resort available, that of the big ignore.