Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

special relativity;

  • Please log in to reply
293 replies to this topic

#290 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 07:08 AM

Ex-chem is the kind of cheerleader who pretends to instruct me by saying:

 

I invite you to consider the motion of the moon round the Earth, and the planets round the sun, and the sun round the Milky Way galaxy. Who is to say that any of these is at rest, while the others are in motion around it?...There are no grounds for preferring any of these to the others.

 

 

So I respond to his suggestion by posting this:

 

 

Posted 15 April 2018 - 01:53 PM

 

Some people mistake Galileo's "parable of the ship" as a argument that relative motion cannot be detected, but that's hardly the case.  He noted that in a windowless cabin below deck you would not be able to sensibly detect lack of motion from uniform motion, sure.  But he was also quick to point out that once the sailor went up on deck, felt the wind blowing, saw the sails billowed, and saw points on the shoreline in motion relative to him, he would know he was moving.

 

Galileo is celebrated for muttering "and yet it [the earth] moves," on his way out of the inquisition chamber after being forced to renounce copernican theory.  He knew motion when he saw (i.e., could credibly deduce) it.  If you're on a train and want to know if you've left the station while you were sleeping, just look out the window.  Nothing complicated about that, eh?

 

When I hit a ball with a baseball bat, I have plenty of "evidence," both sensory and logical, which tells me I don't suddenly start moving away from the ball while it remains motionless.

 

Once again, I would assert that anyone who actually believes otherwise is mentally unbalanced.

 

 

What does he have to say then?  Absolutely nothing, whether good, bad, or indifferent. 

 

Another cheerleader, who called me a "crank," had already asked me:

 

While on that train, if it's moving smoothly at some constant speed, what experiment could you do to conclude you were "really" moving and someone standing on the ground was "really" not moving?

 

 

He too offered no further response.  

 

Galileo's relativity principle would seem to imply that there is no way to determine an absolute speed for a given object.  But speed is not motion.

 

The proposition that if you can't know an absolute speed, then you can't know which of two objects is moving relative to the other is obviously completely illogical and unfounded, yet it seems to be widely believed amongst relativists.  That's what they've been taught to say, so they give it no further thought, apparently.  They just repeat it, like a parrot.  Even in SR, non-inertial motion is deemed to be absolute (which means that you can tell the accelerated object is moving).  You can easily say that even without EVER knowing any absolute speed.

 

Before SR, and to this day, scientists assert, with innumerable good reasons, that, relatively speaking, the earth revolves around the "sun" (solar barycenter) NOT vice versa and not that "we can't know."  After the Michelson-Morley experiment, nobody, and I do mean NOBODY who was rational, said:  "Well, OK, then.  This experiment proves that the earth is absolutely motionless after all.  We have hitherto been mistaken."  Granted, flat-earthers and relativists might still try to make that claim, but.....

 

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."

 

Ex-chem doesn't give a single thought to that before asserting that the simple heliocentric "fact" is "unknowable."  He's a cheerleader; he aint no playa.


Edited by Moronium, 13 June 2018 - 01:47 PM.


#291 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 posts

Posted 13 June 2018 - 08:16 AM

According to the relativist view:

 

When the engineer on a train hits the throttle, the wheels begin to turn, that's all true.  But that's NOT because he is moving.  He is, and at all times remains, completely motionless.  The wheels have to turn to keep him in place because the railroad tracks, not the train, is what begins to move when he hits the throttle. It's really not just the rails, though. The whole earth suddenly begins to "move backwards" when he hits the throttle.  And everything attached to the earth, for that matter--railroad tracks, trees, houses, stop signs, whatever.

 

Yeah, right, eh?

 

The funny part is, after having insisted that it is impossible to know which of two objects is moving, they now suddenly know for a fact that it is the earth moving, not the train.  How do they know this?  Well, it's simple.  That's what has to happen if SR is "true,"  Since they, being good cheerleaders, KNOW that SR is true, they know that's what happens.  If you have a throttle, and a little steam, you can make the whole earth reverse its rotational direction, see?


Edited by Moronium, 13 June 2018 - 08:19 AM.


#292 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 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.


#293 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 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.


#294 Moronium

Moronium

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 622 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.