Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Relativity And Simple Algebra

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
191 replies to this topic

#188 9olymmoth

9olymmoth

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 134 posts

Posted Yesterday, 07:16 PM

Oh my GAHD! I will not be dragged into the void. I will answer a coherent question from time to time but will not engage in incoherent agenda banter.

The reason I've attempted to add legitimacy to it doesn't come from incoherent banter motivated by an agenda.

 

I understand the basis for non-instantaneous quantum leaps because I've literally graphed the damn thing and have seen it for myself, albeit on a much smaller scale than the dimensions in that link describe.



#189 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:27 PM

There must be another explanation because that one leads to all kinds of claims that are physically impossible. I just want to try to understand what the majority of scientists see in relativity. I'd just like to see one explain away all the contradictions I see.... Maybe one of the other theories will satisfy my objections.

 

 

Yeah, give it up, Ralf.  If you learn up on PFT's (preferred frame theories) you'll find that all the contradictions disappear (never arise).

 

As it stands, you can't begin to understand a PFT, because you're so wedded to SR.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 09:50 PM.


#190 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:41 PM

 I will admit the argument Greene gives is very circular in that it's impossible to tell the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion. Did the combo law come first or did the Lorentz transforms or did time dilation? 

 

 

The two postulates come first.  Everything else (the LT, which includes time dilation, the combo law, and a whole lot else)  "follows" from them. 

 

If I say:

 

1.  All elephants are green.

2.  This animal is an elephant

3.   Therefore, this animal is green.

 

Then the logic is impeccable.  The conclusion follows from the premises, so the reasoning is logically "valid."

 

But that doesn't mean it's true as a matter of fact.

 

Math is just applied logic.  It too can be "logically" correct, but empirically unsound.

 

That's why I put the word "follows" in scare quotes in my second sentence.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 09:56 PM.


#191 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 208 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:14 PM

Ok, so unless Popeye tells me different, I think I got it all straight now and can continue on with my quest  to see if light signals can be used to allow Bob and Alice to agree on the correct proper time between them. I'm hoping the answer will be yes.



#192 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1918 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:17 PM

Ok, so unless Popeye tells me different, I think I got it all straight now and can continue on with my quest  to see if light signals can be used to allow Bob and Alice to agree on the correct proper time between them. I'm hoping the answer will be yes.

 

I'll give you the quick answer to that right now.  Yes they can.

 

But ONLY IF they agree on which one is moving.  SR requires them to disagree.  A PFT generates no such dispute.

 

Actually, in a PFT, whether they personally agree or not is irrelevant.  Such a theory does not concern itself with the personal opinions or perceptions of subjective observers.


Edited by Moronium, Yesterday, 11:21 PM.