# Personal Topic

Relativity

910 replies to this topic

### #596 sluggo

sluggo

Questioning

• Members
• 146 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:11 PM

As usual, you don't even recognize your own self-contradictions.  You just told me that there are no "special" frames, that I was an uneducated fool  for even thinking that it could be otherwise, and that long-established dogma was on your side.

But here you are, a minute later, talking about an "absolute earth frame."

You used the word "reciprocal," but what you meant, in SR jargon, is "equivalent."

And indeed, the two frames (earth and sun) are NOT equivalent, and the are not "equally valid" for purposes of determining which one is (effectively) orbiting which.  Only one of those possibility makes sense, not both.

And you certainly don't even realize that you have just repudiated SR.

'uneducated fool', [your words, not mine]

You just told me that there are no "special" frames, [in SR]

"absolute earth frame." [in GR

"but what you meant" [there you go, mind reading]

maybe you have a vision/memory problem

### #597 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:46 PM

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.

Just for contrast, Popeye, lets look at how LR would assess this situation.  In this case, as between the two, the earth's frame would be the "preferred" frame, because it doesn't move (relative to the travelling twin, at least). Relatively speaking, it's not the one moving (faster).  The guy who blasted off into space is.

The astronaut's frame would be the "moving" frame, and he would never try to contend otherwise.  So, in LR, he would never be forced to think that his twin is the one aging slower.  He would know he was the one aging less rapidly.

So no "paradoxes" arise. It's simple.

Actually, this is exactly how SR ends up treating it.  It ends up conceding that the earth is the preferred frame, and that there is no reciprocity of clock retardation.  The clock slowing (aging) is not "reciprocal" (symmetrical).  It's asymmetical. In SR the earth twin claims he is not moving, and he is the one who is correct in his assessment.  The astronaut twin is just wrong.  He also claims he's not moving, but he is, whether he admits it or not.

If you're not sure about this, just ask SR.  SR says that the moving clock will slow down.  It also says that his clock has slowed down (because he ages less). Therefore, he is the one who was "really" moving (faster).

Since the two theories end up with the same conclusion, what's the difference?  What's the problem?

The problem with SR, as a theory, is that it initially tries to claim that the two frames are equivalent, and that neither frame can be "preferred."  But it effectively ends up preferring one over the other.  In order to make the correct prediction, it has to deny it's own premises.

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 03:15 PM.

### #598 ralfcis

ralfcis

Questioning

• Members
• 208 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 02:59 PM

Keep going Moronium. This thread will soon be the 2nd biggest of all time on this forum.

### #599 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:17 PM

Keep going Moronium. This thread will soon be the 2nd biggest of all time on this forum.

Well, Ralf, ya know....If you were capable of paying any attention to it, you would have the sensible answer to the question you came here with.

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 03:55 PM.

### #600 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:28 PM

If you're not sure about this, just ask SR.  SR says that the moving clock will slow down.  It also says that his clock has slowed down (because he ages less). Therefore, he is the one who was "really" moving (faster).

An SR disciple will try to take you through an elaborate path, involving multiple minkowski graphs, changes of reference frames, and all kinds of other irrelevant crap, to try to prove that their theory is "right."

But notice that after all their mathematical gyrations, they still say that the travelling twin is younger.

They never show that the clock retardation has been "reciprocal" and that each ends up younger than the other. so that, therefore, you can't prefer one frame over the other.  And it's no wonder.  They cant show that. It's logically impossible.

According to them, all said and done, the astronaut twin was moving.  How do you know?  Because he's younger, and because the LT which SR relies on says he will be younger if he's moving faster.

But you certainly won't know it from listening to the excess and gratuitous philosophical baggage.which SR disciples pile onto the formal theory.  Such as "you can't ever tell if you're moving."

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 04:40 PM.

### #601 ralfcis

ralfcis

Questioning

• Members
• 208 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 03:41 PM

Well, Ralf, ya know....If you were capable of paying any attention to it, you would have the correct answer to the question you came here with.

Bwahahahahahahahaa

### #602 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:29 PM

I might be misreading you...still I'm just going to point out here that changing a constant to a different constant is not anywhere near what you have described. What you've talked about here is a misapplication of math, and is just plain silly.

C is for information propagation, not light; it's used that way in laymans terms because it's easier to associate it as light speed for a layman trying to understand why a lightswitch "instantly" brightens a room.

EG, If you substitute a different value in another constant equation, say your savings account's interest rate, do you think you'll get the same results as with the actual APR? The same is true for other things like shear modulus; If you substitute the vale of steel with the value of Styrofoam, do you think the results will be the same?

Well, The problem is that the concept behind the equation, the justification as to why they chose to use the measurements and constant they did, that concept SHOULD still work as a theory if you use another constant.  The reason is simply because the PURPOSE of the constant of light speed, has nothing to do with the numerical value of 300,000,000 . Its simply to create the exact same level playing field for both observers, having already assumed that both observers must be on different pages with their measurements in the first place.  In this scenerio, unlike an equation about my bank balance, we should be able to use some other units system for the velocity of light, maybe imperial, 186,000, or just call light speed ONE unit.  As long as its the same value for both observers. It only provides the single common "yardstick" for both observers, nothing more.

Have a look through the entire derivation of LT or SR that illustrates the process using the comparison between stationary and moving observers, watching the motion of a photon as the light clock moves sideways.  One sees a pure vertical path, the other sees a zig zag path.

Nowhere in this setup is it critical that the thing doing the zig-zag be a photon.  It was chosen because it was claimed to be the best and only thing that goes the same speed as measured in any frame. (a claim that is unprovable, and illogical)

So even if I agree that light is the only thing that goes the same speed for all,  Its still totally possible that we can use the constant speed of sound, as long as the moving guy KNOWS that he is moving, he can make an adjustment to his reading for the speed of sound, compensating  for his own motion.

But if you do this, you can't get the gamma result.  Why? well because the idea that the photon or sound wave front could possibly be doing two totally different things just because two observers are watching from different vantage points, is INSANE.  One action of a physics object CAN NEVER equate to TWO contradicting measurements UNLESS one of both observers are ignorant of some critical fact. In SR and LT the moving observer is PROHIBITED from knowing his true condition, that he is moving and MUST take that fact into consideration in his math. GIGO.. garbage in, garbage out. That's the summary of LT and SR.

The root cause for the insanity of relativity is this idea that an imaginary reference frame can actually make some difference to real physical objects, and even the concept of time,  this is insanity. I cant put it any other way.  Its just crazy to entertain that idea and still want to do Physics.

And it does not matter one jolt if you find it important to get all anal about the idea that the speed of light is not the "speed of light", rather, its the "speed of causality".

c is roughly 299,792,458 meters per sec.  This is an AGREED vale not a measured value. Anyway, the jury is still out as to whether light "travels" at all!

As I said many times, in Physics we don't understand very much about light at all. Currently we have 3 claims as to how light works, its a WAVE, its a Particle, its spaghetti. (the last one is my idea) All three can be forced to work using the gooey stuff called Mathematics.

### #603 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:45 PM

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."

I've heard any number of experts say that there is no such thing as length contraction and that such an assumption is unnecessary to reach the same basic conclusions.   They may well be right.  As I understand it, length contraction has never been experimentally confirmed.  If that's correct, that would eliminate the "shortening in only one direction" issue.

What has been confirmed is so-called "time dilation."  I think this is a misnomer and usually call it "clock retardation."  By a number of different methods (including the GPS method used for re-calibrating clocks intended to go into orbit which I talked about), clock retardation has been empirically confirmed.  I find no need to accept clock retardation "on faith" or to speculate about whether it has "physical meaning."  If the elapsed time recorded on moving clocks actually decreased (H-K) that, to me, has a "physical meaning."

Also, I don't see clock retardation as a being a product of  "subjective" perception.  I have already, in earlier posts, said that I don't think the claims that it can be "perceived sensually" (e.g. via "light clocks") have any merit.  Such examples derive the  conclusion from mental deductions from (unsound) assumptions, not sense perceptions.

I understand the LT from a conceptual standpoint, which I think is what you're most interested in (I don't bother with the mathematical derivations).  Let me give an every day example to illustrate.

Let's say that I have just bought a new 100' long "tape measure" and I want to play with it.  So, just for the hell of it, I go out and measure a football field, but only measure it to be 90 yards.

Puzzled, I try it on another football field, but still only get 90 yards.  Yet a third measures only 90 yards.   What the hell is up?

There are a variety of possible explanations, but one definite possibility is that my new tape measure is only 90 feet long, notwithstanding the fact that it was represented to me to be 100'.

The principle with the LT is the same.  I'm not getting the measurement I expect--why not?  In M-M types of cases, one possible explanation is that it occurs because clocks slow down with speed.  Having the incorrect time would result in me calculating an incorrect speed.

Is that THE answer to the M-M puzzle?  There are other possible ways to explain the results too, ya know?  Same with my tape measure puzzle.

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.

If I was willing to make some adjustments (aka "transformations") to my measurements, I could still use it to accurately measure a football field (or anything else).  I would just multiply the reading I got by 1.1111...

Edit:  I misapplied the concept here (and hence the math), but that doesn't change the ideas involved.  If my tape was only 90' long, then, using it,  I would measure a standard football field to be about 333 feet long rather than the 300' I was expecting.  I would not measure it to be only 270,' as I originally suggested. I would measure 90 yards only if my tape was longer than standard ones, not shorter.

Unless I'm mistaken again, the correct "transformation" in my example would be to multiply by .9, not 1.111.  This would be after measuring the field to be approx. 333.33 feet long, not 270.

Except that IF you agree that length contraction is invalid, but you still want to hang on to Time dilation, then you are being inconsistent.

The LT theory has clear ramifications that are all logical necessities IF there really is a need for the transformation in the first place.

The results of accepting the theory behind the LT equation meant that you MUST accept all three outcomes. 1. lengths contract with speed, 2. Mass increases with speed, and 3. time dilates. (or clocks get out of whack and don't run right, maybe because the round cogs are now ellipses due to length contraction, and the clock would just stop!)

So without length contraction, what physical process is changing that allows atomic decay to slow? (in an atomic clock) Man's big clock is the solar system. If I was able to grab the solar system, and accelerate it to near light speed, would the earth not go around the sun the way it does now?

How about a little atom, with particles orbiting a nucleus? if that's moving fast, will the atom self destruct? (if the atom is holding together partly because of the relationship of the speed of the electrons, then if the electrons slow down, they wont be able to maintain their relationship with the protons. (if these really is such a thing as an electron anyway. Its just another concept of modern Physics.

My point is if you accept LT, I don't see how you can reject length contraction or mass increase. The three are all logical outcomes of the one theory.

### #604 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:53 PM

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!

Had you ever considered that the maker of the video does not speak English? or English is his third language, so he chose to use the auto voice to read his text?

And whats not logical about discarding much of Science if its shown to be incorrect?  I thought that was part of the Scientific method?

Its very possible that man has gotten a lot wrong. So don't be too religious about your faith in current science.

Have an open mind.  Be critical. Think outside the box.

Its surprising that you cant understand what the author of the video is on about, as its following along with Einsteins type of rationale, and points out the issues with it. If you claim to understand SR, then you should be able to wrap you head around this video. Your mind must be set in Relativty dogma, and you cant see the forest for the trees.

### #605 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:57 PM

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

Nice logical argument ya got there.

I have to entertain, amuse, annoy, provocate and still present my objection to LT and SR. Sometimes it fun to be loose with the adjectives.

You are supposed to ignore this stuff and think about the content.  (there is content)

### #606 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 05:59 PM

My point is if you accept LT, I don't see how you can reject length contraction or mass increase. The three are all logical outcomes of the one theory.

There are a fair number of papers on this topic.  Read them if you want the reasoning behind their conclusions.  I don't pay much attention to it, but they don't reach the conclusion that "all relativity, and virtually all science after it, is therefore invalid."

Speed = distance divided by time.  You could leave the distance alone, and still get the same answer to speed by just adjusting the time more, I figure.  From what I gather, one reason they have never confirmed it's existence is because the LT effect on length is too minute to detect.

I'm agnostic about length contraction.  You can take it or leave it, I don't care.  I didn't respond to your post to start a debate about that issue.

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 06:10 PM.

### #607 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:01 PM

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.

My views, most of which are not mine, Ive just read the good work of others, should never be bundled up with my personal style or lack of.

If Hitler had a great idea, it would still be a great idea despite the fact that he is Hitler.

Be scientific, not judgemental on the messenger. Criticize the message content, not the bearer of the message.

### #608 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:08 PM

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.

If you are going to set up a "thought experiment" then why not set up a decent one? An experiment that REMOVES the need for jumping frames, or acceleration of the ship?  THEN with this modified experiment, how can you get around the twin paradox? (the twin does not have to return for us to see that he is not as old as the other twin. - or experience acceleration or jump frames, and the Earth twin is not on Earth, but just in a space ship that is not moving. )

You now have the paradox with the loopholes removed. so it remains a perfect paradox, thus demonstrating that SR is just an error.

### #609 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 1918 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:16 PM

My views, most of which are not mine, Ive just read the good work of others, should never be bundled up with my personal style or lack of.

If Hitler had a great idea, it would still be a great idea despite the fact that he is Hitler.

Be scientific, not judgemental on the messenger. Criticize the message content, not the bearer of the message.

I didn't mean "discredit" in that way.  Perhaps I should have said "disrepute."  When I sense that someone is highly emotional and very committed to their "cause," I tend to pay less attention to what they say.  I figure it's the same with others, too.  I would rather talk to a rational advocate that a crusading "activist."

I wouldn't try to "engage" a fervent global warming alarmist about the "science" of climatology, for example.

Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 06:27 PM.

### #610 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:21 PM

"Restate my assumptions. Mathematics is the language of nature. All things can be represented and understood through math."

-Maxwell Cohen

A character in Darren Aronsofsky's Pi: Faith in Chaos based on real people like Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and Daniel Tammet.

Pi does represent a concentric curve that can be followed to form a circle, or a sphere, which is all shapes combined. So like Isaac Newton, it is appropriate to derive your geometry based on pi when trying to find that secret geometry under which the universe behaves exactly. I know I have found it, my planck length is a Discovered Number more important than Pi.

Who cares hat some guy thinks about his math? Its a conviction he is espousing, not a fact.  And what if Pi is cool, and we can use it to model representations of natural spirals? It does not mean that the universe is Mathematical, it simply means that we have a tool  that can be used to count reliably what we see around us.

The notion that there is a HIDDEN SECRET UNDERLYING GEOMETRY to the universe is EXACTLY a religious belief. Its a cornerstone foundational belief, an article of Faith in the ancient mystical religions as presented in the Kabbalah. Its bundled up with Alchemy and NUMEROLOGY.

Which accounts exactly for modern physics going down that road, with Quantum, mass is just energy, turn lead into gold, and such claims. Relativity is CLEARLY a RELIGIOUS FAITH .

### #611 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:38 PM

There are a fair number of papers on this topic.  Read them if you want the reasoning behind their conclusions.  I don't pay much attention to it, but they don't reach the conclusion that "all relativity, and virtually all science after it, is therefore invalid."

Speed = distance divided by time.  You could leave the distance alone, and still get the same answer to speed by just adjusting the time more, I figure.  From what I gather, one reason they have never confirmed it's existence is because the LT effect on length is too minute to detect.

I'm agnostic about length contraction.  You can take it or leave it, I don't care.  I didn't respond to your post to start a debate about that issue.

Can you please give me a link to some paper that discusses LT that dispenses with everything except time dilation? ( or clocks loosing time)

And you seem to think that just because no one you know has thought that "all relativity, and virtually all science after it, is therefore invalid."

means that that idea is without merit.  It is NOT impossible or unreasonable to consider that we have gotten a lot wrong, and that this has adversely affected all of our scientific theories. "Apples fall to the ground" is not in jeopardy here, just most of the theoretical sciences and following conclusions.

The mere fact that you are always  having these debates with Relativists is evidence enough that all is not rosey.

All things can be see as having some RELATION to other things, that is Relativity. That's not the Relativity that is contestable.

So, I cant accept your conclusion that a hypothesis MUST be wrong because simply because of the "majority rules" logical fallacy.

It's entirely possible that much of modern Physics and Cosmology is wrong. If you can't entertain that idea, then you are placing an unfounded limit to your ability to entertain new ideas.

To dismiss my criticisms on the basis that I MUST be wrong, simply on the basis that IFI was correct, then much of modern science must be incorrect, is not a Scientific approach.

### #612 marcospolo

marcospolo

Understanding

• Members
• 377 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 06:49 PM

I didn't mean "discredit" in that way.  Perhaps I should have said "disrepute."  When I sense that someone is highly emotional and very committed to their "cause," I tend to pay less attention to what they say.  I figure it's the same with others, too.  I would rather talk to a rational advocate that a crusading "activist."

I wouldn't try to "engage" a fervent global warming alarmist about the "science" of climatology, for example.

Yet you are totally committed to your own cause. You just have a better control of you temperament.

We all cant be so level headed and calm. That's why we should not dismiss the thoughts of those less able.

I may be passionate about my discovery that much of what I read in the Scientific publications is nonsensical, and surely that's reason enough to get stirred up a little.

But I'm still open to critical review. If you can present a clear case, that I can't fault, Ill gladly jump on board. I have no PhD to prop up, no job in academia to loose, my income does not depend on this stuff.

In my view, my understanding and evaluation of the subject is all that matters. I don't care what some professor thinks in particular. If he is making sense, then Ill accept his ideas, till some contrary or better views surface.

I'm not going to believe in such and such, on the basis that some famous guy believe it.

I do think that its healthy to GENERALIZE when considering obtuse theories. Push the idea to opposite extremes, see if it still works.

That's the way I decided that I cant accept Einsteins work. Same for LT. And Quantum.

Edited by marcospolo, 11 February 2019 - 06:50 PM.