# Relativists Vs Absolutists

relativity

142 replies to this topic

### #18 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:41 AM

The main realization which comes from SR's "resolution" of the twin paradox is that it uses a preferred frame approach.  This is notwithstanding its manta that "all frames are equivalent," and its prohibition of the use of a preferred frame.

Why does it use a PFT?  Because it is forced to in order to arrive at the correct answer.  There is, and can be, no "reciprocal time dilation," even though SR theoretically insists on it.  The "all inertial motion is merely relative" premise of SR quickly get abandoned in favor of absolute motion.

For these same reasons, the GPS employs a preferred frame theory of relative motion.  It HAS to in order to generate accurate predictions of time dilation.  SR simply won't work in the "real world."

In the process of "resolving" the twin paradox, SR repudiates its own premises. It ends up claiming that there is only one correct answer, and shows that only one frame will provide that answer.  If it abandons itself, why should anyone else adopt it?

Edited by Moronium, 29 March 2019 - 11:40 AM.

### #19 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 12:08 PM

In the process of "resolving" the twin paradox, SR repudiates its own premises. It ends up claiming that there is only one correct answer, and shows that only one frame will provide that answer.  If it abandons itself, why should anyone else adopt it?

Never short on sophistry, SR then attempts to "resolve" the paradox by claiming that both paradox twins will actually agree that the travelling twin ends up younger.  There are at least two fatal flaws in such presentations:

1.  SR uses elaborate mathematical sleight of hand to "show" that, because the spacetwin changes frames, he will agree that he is younger.  But the whole scenario requires one to accept absurd and physically impossible assertions.  You must, for example, accept the proposition that an observer, many light years from earth can, by merely changing frames, "cause" hundreds or thousands of years to pass instantly on a distant planet (Earth).

2. But even after all that hocus pocus, it doesn't resolve the paradox.  It merely reinforces it.  The fact that the two twins now "agree" only proves that the reciprocal time dilation posited by SR is false. It also has to concede that the spacetwin is "really" (absolutely) moving. According to SR itself, after all, it is the "moving" clock which will run slow.  This also shows that the spacetwin was moving, because it is his clock, and only his clock, that has slowed down.

Edited by Moronium, 29 March 2019 - 12:20 PM.

### #20 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 12:42 PM

It would be like, metaphorically speaking, if Charles Dodgson, professor of Mathematics at Cambridge who also used the pen name 'Lewis Carrol', left Alice 'down the rabbit hole' or still in 'looking glass land' at the end of all of his novels.

Indeed. Then Alice would never return from a realm in which logical contradiction, fantasy, limitless imagination without foundation, and the absence of common sense reigned supreme.  That seems to be the realm which much of modern theoretical, so-called, "physics" is stuck in, eh, AG?

Edited by Moronium, 29 March 2019 - 12:50 PM.

### #21 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1478 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:47 PM

Indeed. Then Alice would never return from a realm in which logical contradiction, fantasy, limitless imagination without foundation, and the absence of common sense reigned supreme.  That seems to be the realm which much of modern theoretical, so-called, "physics" is stuck in, eh, AG?

It could be argued that their feet 'are not firmly anchored on the ground' Moronium.

BTW I received no response from another anti SR thread when I responded with a SR based methodology to replicate Ovyind Gron's Figure 9 Part C 'optical appearance' solution to a relativistically rolling ring problem.

Maybe you would like to explain how you would solve the problem of determining the emission times of 16 equally distanced points around the circumference of a relativistically rolling ring so that the photons emitted from each point all reached a camera/observer at a fixed point on the road the ring is traveling along, at the same time?

The following solution (red points labelled 1 to 16 above) was developed on another forum (link at the bottom) and it only uses x, y and t dimensions as the z axis = 0 to prevent distortion due to Born rigidity issues that is not a concern to this problem. I wasn't entirely 100% convinced that the solution was correct so I asked the 2 guys who developed it (after many many attempts and dead ends) to order the results in emission order so that any variations in the relativistic velocity could be identified. The following image shows that the axle velocity does not vary and is also consistent with the angular velocity of each emission point as the ring rolls along.

Just so you don't try to reinvent the wheel again (no pun intended) I will describe the basic SR method used below.

Several frames are used, a wheel frame, an axle frame and a road frame where the camera/observer sits. The emission points along the circumference of the wheel and the camera observer are all in the plane of rotation of the ring and the respective emission points are plotted in this plane (this plane does not actually exist as a 'frame' as such due to z = 0. This plane could actually be regarded as an SR time space as opposed to a variable GR space time). On this plane a straight line drawn from any of the emission points to the camera/observer represents the actual distance/time and path traveled by any photon emitted from an emission point, that all arrive at the camera/observer at the same time.

The solution is relatively simple once you realize that the x and y readings at each emission point on the time space plane form a right angled triangle with the stationary camera/observer and the photon travel time/distance from the emission point is the hypotenuse of that triangle (of height y and length x, x and y being the location of the emission point). The emission point is back calculated from the length contracted location of the tip of a spoke (the emission point is on the rings circumference at the end of the spoke) with respect to the axle location at the time of emission. This relationship between the emission point and the axle location allows you to further cross check the rings constant velocity i.e. the differences between the x positions of the axle at the photon emission times give you the velocity of the axle between emission points.

Please note that if you also apply time dilation to the process identified above you just put yourself back in 'wonderland' with respect to c being a constant in the time space plane used. If you search for Ovyind Gron's latest papers you will find that he has applied his work extensively to atomic models because things like QM have difficulties with accurate times and locations of things on atomic scales.

I also realize that, as well as atomic scales, the SR based solution methodology above can be applied on galactic scales as well when an observer/camera is in the same plane of rotation of a series of objects rotating around a common center of mass. i.e. a side on galaxy. It is a trivial exercise to extend this 'side on' galactic model (that represents maximum shift) to a basic 'front on' galactic model (that represents minimal shift) where all photons emitted at the same time from points all around the circumference of a rotating ring will arrive at the relatively stationary camera/observer at the same time if their photon paths are not blocked or distorted along the way.

So, in these 2 basic models and everywhere in between, the angle of the camera/observer to the plane of rotation of the rotating sources is the main determinant of the amount of shift of the emitted photons received by a camera/observer at rest relative to the center of mass of rotating sources. The only other trivial part required to create a general SR based galactic 'optical appearance' model is to factor in the relative motion of the center of mass of the galaxy with respect to the stationary camera/observer.

http://www.thephysic....html#post12639

Edited by LaurieAG, 29 March 2019 - 10:52 PM.

### #22 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 29 March 2019 - 10:57 PM

Well, AG, that's an impressive display of technical puzzle-solving, but, truth be told, not the kind of thing I'm very interested in.

I'm more interested in the fundamental postulates and premises of SR, and how well they correspond to basic physical assumptions about "reality."

I guess that's already apparent from my last few posts in this thread, if you've read them, though.

Edited by Moronium, 29 March 2019 - 10:59 PM.

### #23 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1478 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 02:17 AM

Well, AG, that's an impressive display of technical puzzle-solving, but, truth be told, not the kind of thing I'm very interested in.

I'm more interested in the fundamental postulates and premises of SR, and how well they correspond to basic physical assumptions about "reality."

I guess that's already apparent from my last few posts in this thread, if you've read them, though.

I received high distinctions for Technical Calculus and Discrete Maths in my Applied Science degree, and have worked extensively as a technical specialist, so I prefer to work things out from first principles and keep my feet on solid ground..

Moronium, if you don't think that you can solve this 'optical appearance' problem using whatever methods you think fit you should just say so instead of re-defining 'reality' as something that has nothing to do with 'optical appearance' (was Einstein referring to theoretical mathematicians as opposed to applied mathematicians?). Please note that SR based 'optical appearance' models (without intervening mass) depend on actual photon paths, while matter density and gravity model variants (Newtonian, GR and QM etc) are entirely different kettles of fish.

To reinforce and simplify these distinctions with respect to my previous posts in this thread.

1. Universal dark matter 'calculations'

Standard Compton wavelength = $\lambda$
Reduced Compton wavelength = $\frac {\lambda}{2 \pi}$

Ordinary matter calculations (with $\lambda$ separated) = ORD_c
$\Lambda$CDM matter calculations (with $\frac {\lambda}{2 \pi}$ separated) = $\Lambda$CDM_c

As $\lambda^2$ is in 'wonderland' and the differences between $\Lambda$CDM_c and ORD_c equations are described here. https://en.wikipedia...and_non-reduced

$\frac {\Lambda CDM_c \lambda}{2 \pi}$ = m = ORD_C $\lambda$

Dividing both sides by $\lambda$ leaves $\frac {\Lambda CDM_c}{2 \pi}$ = ORD_C

2. Galactic Rotation problem and dark matter

The following paper is a rebuttal to the 2012 paper by Moni Bidin et al. where they did not find any local dark matter.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033

Basically the difference between finding dark matter locally and not finding dark matter locally, as outlined in the paper, is due to using the galactic center as the radius of rotation as opposed to using the axis of rotation of the galactic center as the radius of rotation, for non central disk stars.

While 'optical appearance' solutions would use one (due to photons having no mass) you would have to use the other if you were measuring matter density and gravity etc.

Edited by LaurieAG, 31 March 2019 - 02:28 AM.

### #24 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Creating

• Moderators
• 1032 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 04:01 AM

I received high distinctions for Technical Calculus and Discrete Maths in my Applied Science degree, and have worked extensively as a technical specialist, so I prefer to work things out from first principles and keep my feet on solid ground..

Moronium, if you don't think that you can solve this 'optical appearance' problem using whatever methods you think fit you should just say so instead of re-defining 'reality' as something that has nothing to do with 'optical appearance' (was Einstein referring to theoretical mathematicians as opposed to applied mathematicians?). Please note that SR based 'optical appearance' models (without intervening mass) depend on actual photon paths, while matter density and gravity model variants (Newtonian, GR and QM etc) are entirely different kettles of fish.

To reinforce and simplify these distinctions with respect to my previous posts in this thread.

1. Universal dark matter 'calculations'

Standard Compton wavelength = $\lambda$
Reduced Compton wavelength = $\frac {\lambda}{2 \pi}$

Ordinary matter calculations (with $\lambda$ separated) = ORD_c
$\Lambda$CDM matter calculations (with $\frac {\lambda}{2 \pi}$ separated) = $\Lambda$CDM_c

As $\lambda^2$ is in 'wonderland' and the differences between $\Lambda$CDM_c and ORD_c equations are described here. https://en.wikipedia...and_non-reduced

$\frac {\Lambda CDM_c \lambda}{2 \pi}$ = m = ORD_C $\lambda$

Dividing both sides by $\lambda$ leaves $\frac {\Lambda CDM_c}{2 \pi}$ = ORD_C

What the hell does the ratio of the Compton wavelength to the reduced Compton wavelength have to do with the ratio of ordinary matter to $\Lambda$CDM matter?

One wavelength = 6.28 radians and the reduced Compton wavelength is for one radian, so the reduced Compton wavelength is just the Compton wavelength / 2 pi

This has absolutely nothing to do with the ratio of ordinary matter to Dark matter!

Nobody knows exactly how much dark matter there is; all we have is an estimate of anywhere between 80 to 90%

of matter/energy is dark. Your claim that the ratio is 2 pi is based on what? And how do you think the Compton wavelength has anything at all to do with this?

Edited by OceanBreeze, 31 March 2019 - 04:08 AM.

### #25 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 670 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 07:17 AM

"My sentiments exactly" as Moronium would say. I don't have any of my own except for maybe turning some of that math insight onto the topic of defining relative velocity which seems to be at issue here and everywhere else I've ever been.

Edited by ralfcis, 31 March 2019 - 07:27 AM.

### #26 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 10:06 AM

I received high distinctions for Technical Calculus and Discrete Maths in my Applied Science degree, and have worked extensively as a technical specialist, so I prefer to work things out from first principles and keep my feet on solid ground..

Moronium, if you don't think that you can solve this 'optical appearance' problem using whatever methods you think fit you should just say so instead of re-defining 'reality' as something that has nothing to do with 'optical appearance' (was Einstein referring to theoretical mathematicians as opposed to applied mathematicians?).

As a matter of hypothetical scientific theory, SR is really very simple.  It has only two basic postulates from which all deductions follow.  It has nothing to say about dark matter, the composition of light, or any other such tangential questions.

I don't know why you think I have tried to "redefine reality" or why you think you have your "feet on solid ground" by bringing up such topics here, AG.

I do think it's pretty clear that the nature of our respective interests differ substantially, however.  My interests lie more in the area of what might be called the "philosophy of science."

Edited by Moronium, 31 March 2019 - 10:11 AM.

### #27 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 10:24 AM

As far as "optical appearances" go, I think it is generally agreed that sense perception alone tells us nothing, in and of itself.  It all requires "interpretation."

To use a simple example, consider what we "see" when we see the sun "rise" at dawn, and thereafter. Is the sun moving across the sky, while we remain motionless, or are there alternative explanations of what we "see?"  If there are alternative explanations, which one is "correct?"  Such questions cannot be answered by simply "looking at the sun" (an "optical appearance").

I am of the opinion that SR, as a theory, places unwarranted emphasis on "optical appearances."  When I say "SR as a theory," I am really just referring to the necessary logical implications which the postulates of SR generate.

Edited by Moronium, 31 March 2019 - 10:44 AM.

### #28 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 31 March 2019 - 11:21 AM

I prefer to work things out from first principles and keep my feet on solid ground..

I'm not sure what you think the "first principles" are here, AG.

But, as far as SR goes, the "first principles" would be its two basic postulates.

If your "starting" point," begins with assuming the validity of those "first principles,"  then you have no concern whatsoever with the issues I do.

My "starting point" does not assume that the postulates of SR are "fact" or that they must be "true," and then proceed from there.

I start with asking: if these postulates are true, then what would that imply? Then I look to see if those implications "make physical sense," are logically consistent, correspond to observation, etc. Your "first principles" seem to skip those kinds of questions entirely.

That's one reason I say that our interests in the topic appear to differ significantly.

Edited by Moronium, 31 March 2019 - 11:39 AM.

### #29 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

Explaining

• Members
• 1478 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 03:07 AM

I'm not sure what you think the "first principles" are here, AG.

I suppose, as well as Arthur Compton's contribution (he started off as an Applied Scientist too), you don't understand how Emmy Noether contributed to relativity as we know it today.

Please at least read the following thread about the history of relativity before you comment further.

http://www.sciencefo...=+emmy +noether

### #30 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 03:46 AM

IPlease at least read the following thread about the history of relativity before you comment further.

http://www.sciencefo...=+emmy +noether

This makes it all the more obvious to me that we are talking about completely different subjects, AG.  I did find this aspect of Dyson's address interesting, though,

I happen to be a physicist who started life as a mathematician. As a working physicist, I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce..."As usual in such affairs,one of the two parties has clearly got the worst of it."

That was written almost 50 years ago, and I don't know what "divorce" he was talking about at that time.  But it seems to me that the estrangement became much more acute later.  After 30-40 years of the fervent pursuit of string theory, it seems to me that the rift between math and physics is now almost total.  From what I can discern, mathematics got the worst of it there.

On the other hand, math seems to have taken the upper hand, and is now considered by many to be physics.  Theoretical physicists are mainly just speculative metaphysicians, it seems.

Edited by Moronium, 01 April 2019 - 03:53 AM.

### #31 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 670 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 07:09 AM

Why not someone take on the philosophical definition of what is relative velocity before they think they can fly first.

### #32 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 07:12 AM

Why not someone take on the philosophical definition of what is relative velocity before they think they can fly first.

I've been through that with you a dozen times, Ralf.  It's not complicated, but you never seem to get it.

### #33 ralfcis

ralfcis

Explaining

• Members
• 670 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 07:40 AM

Are you practising that post in front of a mirror? Weird how no one else has any opinion on this. They'd rather talk about rolling mirror balls.

### #34 Moronium

Moronium

Creating

• Members
• 2894 posts

Posted 01 April 2019 - 07:46 AM

What's the basic difference between these two statements, Ralf?

1.  This tree is 6 feet taller.

2.  This tree is 6 feet tall.