Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Personal Topic

Relativity

  • Please log in to reply
910 replies to this topic

#562 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:28 AM

If I took my new tape measure and found that, compared to all the others I could find, it was indeed only 90 feet long, then I would accept that as the explanation for the reason that I routinely and regularly misgauged the length of football fields by a predictable amount when relying on it.

 

 

Just in case the analogy is not clear, let me summarize it this way:   Since the validity of the LT predictions have been repeatedly verified, and since the hypothesis of clock retardation offers (on it's face, anyway) a plausible explanation for the fact that our actual measurements are not in accord with our expected measurements (in M-M types of experiments), I accept clock retardation as a plausible explanation for the fact that we don't detect the earth's motion, even though it "really is" moving.

 

A properly constructed football field "really is" 100 yards long, even if I don't measure it to be that.

 

Likewise, in the LR framework, light really does travel at different speeds, depending on direction, even if we don't measure it that way.

 

Put another way, the speed of light is not "really" constant as Einstein claims.  It only appears to be (is measured to be) constant, that's all.

 

On an empirical level, every "test" we ever made which has been interpreted as "confirming" SR, also confirms Lorentz's view of what's "really happening."

 

That said, the reverse does not apply.  Some of our tests can be interpreted as "confirming" the premises of LR, while disconfirming (falsifying) those of SR.

 

As I said before, we can never "prove" a fundamental scientific hypothesis.  That's why I use the word "confirm" as opposed to "prove."  But, as I'm sure you realize, we can falsify a hypothesis.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 08:57 AM.


#563 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:49 AM

I watched the video (I hate those things with the mechanical voices--I find my attention span fading when I listen to them).  The primary claim is that the LT have "no physical meaning."

 

 

 

Yes, apparently the maker of this video thinks that using a robotic voice, similar to the one used by the late Stephen Hawking, lends some credibility to the nonsensical claims being made.

 

I do have to admit the video does get one thing correct; there is definitely a difference between capitol K and lower-case k. Just having to listen to that over and over was a “capitol” offense.

 

However, I don’t see what is so strange about the fact that two different ends of a fixed rod will be encountered at different times by an observer moving relative to that rod. Has the video maker never been in a moving car or a train and moved past any object with length?

 

And the conclusion, of course, is that we must reject all of cosmology, particle physics, relativity etc etc because of this “shocking” revelation. No wonder marco likes this video!



#564 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:54 AM

 

This is of course correct, but Relativists depend on subjective interpretation of events by Syphilis ridden quacks pretending to be scientists so that SR can appear to work.

 

 

 

Yes of course, "relativists" are nothing but a bunch of mangy syphilis-ridden quacks, I tell ya!

 

Nice logical argument ya got there.



#565 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 09:57 AM

I do have to admit the video does get one thing correct; there is definitely a difference between capitol K and lower-case k. Just having to listen to that over and over was a “capitol” offense.

 

And the conclusion, of course, is that we must reject all of cosmology, particle physics, relativity etc etc because of this “shocking” revelation. No wonder marco likes this video!

 

 

Heh, good observations, Popeye (although I think you mean capital, not capitol).  Sorry, that parenthetical part is just for my own amusement by acting like a spelling cop.

 

Yeah, it makes things much simpler if you over-generalize, which I think Marco has a tendency to do.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 10:02 AM.


#566 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:00 AM

Yes of course, "relativists" are nothing but a bunch of mangy syphilis-ridden quacks, I tell ya!

 

Nice logical argument ya got there.

 

 

I think Marcos has some worthwhile insights, but of course that aint one of them.  As I told him before, he resembles some of the staunch adovcates of relativism in that respect.

 

It's unfortunate. It really tends to discredit his views.



#567 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:15 AM

I think Marcos has some worthwhile insights, but of course that aint one of them.  As I told him before, he resembles some of the staunch adovcates of relativism in that respect.

 

It's unfortunate. It really tends to discredit his views.

 

Yes it always unfortunate when the debate degenerates into that sort of ad hom. Funny thing is, I have been attacked from both sides. I know the GPS system works and I can be described as a "heavy user" of equipment that relies very much on it working and therefore I have no doubt at all about most of the principles of relativity, including the validity of the Lorentz factor.

But, as you know, I do have some doubts about the reciprocity of time dilation, especially as it is described in the twins paradox. Since reciprocal time dilation has yet to be empirically tested, and remains unverified, I feel that some doubts about it are justified.

Length contraction is also not empirically tested, at least not explicitly, it is strongly implied by the verification of time dilation and the constancy of the speed of light, so I accept it.



#568 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:17 AM

Heh, good observations, Popeye (although I think you mean capital, not capitol).  Sorry, that parenthetical part is just for my own amusement by acting like a spelling cop.

 

 

 

That's why I put it in quote marks. Never mind, I see I missed one.


Edited by OceanBreeze, 11 February 2019 - 10:20 AM.


#569 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:21 AM

But, as you know, I do have some doubts about the reciprocity of time dilation, especially as it is described in the twins paradox. Since reciprocal time dilation has yet to be empirically tested, and remains unverified, I feel that some doubts about it are justified.

 

 

Yeah, I know.  But what I think you fail to fully realize is that if you don't accept reciprocal dilation, then you are forced to reject SR in toto.  I just quoted a Harvard Physics Prof. on this point.

 

Notice that I said you would have to reject SR, not "relativity."



#570 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:25 AM

Yeah, I know.  But what I think you fail to fully realize is that if you don't accept reciprocal dilation, then you are forced to reject SR in toto.  I just quoted a Harvard Physics Prof. on this point.

 

Notice that I said you would have to reject SR, not "relativity."

 

No, I only have some doubts that can be removed by experiments. That is not a rejection.

 

I'm not smart enough to reject SR!


Edited by OceanBreeze, 11 February 2019 - 10:27 AM.


#571 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:34 AM

No, I only have some doubts that can be removed by experiments. That is not a rejection.

 

I'm not smart enough to reject SR!

 

 

Yes, you are. In fact, I would say that you're too smart NOT to reject it.

 

And, as I've said before (even though I know you won't agree), there is no need for an empirical test.  The supposition can be rejected out of hand, a priori, as being self-contradictory.  .  As you know, I think also it has been "tested" and disproven (by the GPS, H-K, etc.)  As some abstraction presupposing conditions that could never be realized in practice, I don't see how any experiment could ever be designed to test it in any event.

 

As I've said before, I think you have been seduced into accepting semi-solipsism as a viable philosophy, and that's why you can't see the contradiction.  It's not a question of two individuals disagreeing (contradicting, if you wish) with each other.  When I say it's "self-contradictory,"  I mean that it is impossible as a matter of external reality.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 10:49 AM.


#572 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 10:40 AM

It is possible for each of two observers to conclude that the other's clock is running slower than his own?

 

Sure.

 

It is possible for each clock to actually be running slower than the other?

 

No,  Not a chance in hell.



#573 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 841 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:31 AM

Oh, I do see the contradiction; it is impossible not to see it.

 

If A is aging slower with respect to B and B is aging slower with respect to A, simultaneously, that does present us with an undeniable absurdity.

 

As long as no comparison is, or can, be made however, who cares? As you have deduced there is (probably) no empirical way to even put that absurdity to the test. We can draw lines on a spacetime diagram to make it look possible, but is it really? I would like to see some empirical evidence and if it turns out that it is really impossible to test it with any experiment, it isn’t worth worrying about.

 

But, in the twin “paradox” the symmetry is broken because B returns to A’s frame of reference and then we can see that B is the one who aged less. The symmetry is broken just by switching frames, whether that involves acceleration or not is irrelevant. As I pointed out before, there is no acceleration term in the Lorentz factor, only velocity terms.

 

The reciprocity, as I see it, is that if A switches to B’s frame of reference, then it is A who aged less.

I actually do not have a problem with reciprocity when stated the way I have just stated it; it seems perfectly logical.

 

The problem I have with the twin paradox, as it is generally recounted, is that it involves one twin leaving earth in a space ship and returning. I see that as never having any symmetry to begin with!

 

With the GPS we should have probably moved past that original formulation of the twin paradox problem because, if nothing else, the GPS demonstrates there is a definite asymmetry between the planet earth and a spacecraft. This involves more than “just” gravitational forces, as the dynamics are very different.

 

 



#574 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:48 AM

The reciprocity, as I see it, is that if A switches to B’s frame of reference, then it is A who aged less.

I actually do not have a problem with reciprocity when stated the way I have just stated it; it seems perfectly logical.

 

 

It is perfectly logical that way, I agree.  Then A would be the one moving. But that's not the kind of "reciprocity" we're talking about here.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 12:15 PM.


#575 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:51 AM

As long as no comparison is, or can, be made however, who cares? 

 

 

The theory cares.  Deeply.  And that's way were talking about here, i.e., not practical usefulness.



#576 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 11:54 AM

But, in the twin “paradox” the symmetry is broken because B returns to A’s frame of reference and then we can see that B is the one who aged less. The symmetry is broken just by switching frames, whether that involves acceleration or not is irrelevant. 

 

 

Of course the symmetry is broken.  It is only the moving clock which runs slow.  Moving "breaks the symmetry."

 

If the symmetry were never broken, there would be no age difference at all.  They would age identically.  But I can't see why this is relevant to the issue of reciprocal time dilation.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 11:58 AM.


#577 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 12:05 PM

The problem I have with the twin paradox, as it is generally recounted, is that it involves one twin leaving earth in a space ship and returning. I see that as never having any symmetry to begin with!

 

Well, yeah, they did have symmetry to "begin with."  They had symmetry for all those years they lived on earth together and aged at identical rates while they did.

 

Some people think the "return" is somehow relevant.  It isn't.  The whole experiment can be framed in terms where the twin never returns (a third party does).  And the theory predicts the exact same aging difference, even if he never returns. The clock slowing aspect of the LT does not say "but only if one returns and the two clocks can be directly compared."  The slowing of a moving clock is predicted by the LT even if the two observers in question never met, and never do.

 

That whole "issue" is an irrelevant red herring trotted out by relativists hoping to confuse you, that's all.


Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 02:35 PM.


#578 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 146 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 12:19 PM

theory

n

1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a particular subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice

economic theories

 

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

 

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

 

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical

That’s the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

 

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

 

[Late 16th century. Via late Latin from Greek theōria “contemplation, theory,” from theōros “spectator.”]

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.