Relativists Vs Absolutists

[ralfcis]

From my perspective, I'm trying to explain things to you. But I can't because you're the absolute center of knowledge.  You can't have 2 absolute centers, that would be a paradox. That is your reasoning on everything that I've seen. No wonder you have no hope of ever understanding the first thing about SR or any other type of physics. Is there no membership title of "Confused" we can confer on Moronium? It seems to go with his pic.

[Moronium]

From my perspective, I'm trying to explain things to you. But I can't...

 

You're right about that much  Just keep guzzling that koolaid.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[LaurieAG]

From Google, get them to change their answers if you think differently.

 

Why is special relativity called?

Special Theory of Relativity is called “Special” because it is limited to a special case of inertial frames of reference. An inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which the First Law of Newton holds true. Motion is inertial, if the moving object moves with constant velocity or is at rest.

What are the 2 postulates of special relativity?

The first postulate of special relativity is the idea that the laws of physics are the same and can be stated in their simplest form in all inertial frames of reference. The second postulate of special relativity is the idea that the speed of light c is a constant, independent of the relative motion of the source.

What is the difference between general relativity and special relativity?

The “General Theory of Relativity' is related to gravity. ... The difference between the two theories is that the theory of general relativity throws light on the force of gravity with respect to curving four-dimensional space-time. As per Einstein, the accelerative and gravitational forces are equal and same.

Does general relativity include special relativity?

2 Answers. Yes, special relativity is a special case of general relativity. General relativity reduces to special relativity, in the special case of a flat spacetime. ... Like special relativity, general relativity also assumes that the speed of light is universal.

 

[Moronium]

Does general relativity include special relativity?

 

Answers. Yes, special relativity is a special case of general relativity. General relativity reduces to special relativity, in the special case of a flat spacetime. ... Like special relativity, general relativity also assumes that the speed of light is universal.

 

Very few modern physicists agree with these claims, AG.  Around 1950 Einstein himself admitted that his attempt to build GR "on top of" SR was unwarranted and unjustified.

 

The flat spacetime of SR is strictly incompatible with the curved spacetime of GR.  GR does not "reduce to" SR, although it can "approximate" it when gravitational factors are minimal.  As your google source notes, GR is a theory of gravity, not relative motion, like SR is.

 

Nor is there anyone to speak of who agrees that the speed of light is universal in GR. Einstein never made that claim.  He asserted that in GR the speed of light is variable.  The "time dilation" of GR is absolute, not relative.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Special Theory of Relativity is called “Special” because it is limited to a special case of inertial frames of reference.

 

 

Einstein was never satisfied with SR as a theory.  His ambition, when he embarked on GR, was to demonstrate that all motion, inertial and non-inertial, was relative.  He struggled for years in the vain attempt to realize this ambition, feeling assured several times that he had succeeded in doing so.

 

But, in the end, he had to admit failure on that score, and the modern consensus seems to be that he did fail.  In the process of trying, however, he did come up with a great theory of gravity.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

My last two posts were merely designed to respond to your question about anyone who "thinks differently," AG.

 

But is there any other reason why you made that post?  Suppose no one did think differently.  Was there some other point?  Something you were "driving at?"

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 No one in relativity is absolutely moving, that includes the Lorentz transforms. 

 

 Completely wrong.  When SR makes calculations using the LT, there is ALWAYS absolute motion involved.  Every time, without exception.  You simply have no elementary understanding about what's happening with either the math or the concepts.  You don't understand the concepts.

 

Some SR adherent TELLS you it's relative motion and you believe it because you don't know any better.  Nor do you know how to figure it out for yourself, so you're stuck.  When it is explained to you, you reflexively reject any conclusion which you think might be inconsistent with your pre-existing half-baked notions.  You're even more  dogmatic than the dogmatist you got your information from.

 

Keep guzzlin that koolaid, Ralf.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Before turning to the LT, the first thing SR does is establish a frame that is ABSOLUTELY "at rest" (a preferred frame).  Everything in the entire universe which is moving with respect to that preferred frame is moving.  It is not.  The motion with respect to it is absolute, by definition, even if some ignorant fool claims it is relative.  When the calculation is finished, only one of the two objects involved will end up with "time dilation."  That is the MOVING clock in SR.  It is always the moving clock which runs slow, according to the LT.

 

While it is invariably and routinely establishing preferred frames, and thereby positing absolute motion, SR will scream that there is no such thing as a preferred frame or absolute motion.  Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.  He's not the Wizard of OZ.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Are you now wearing a curtain?

[Moronium]

You would have to ask, because you can't see.  You have a curtain over your entire head, with a five gallon jug of koolaid under it to guzzle.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I ask you this:

 

Have you ever, in your life, actually mathematically performed a lorentz transformation?

 

 

And your answer is this:

 

I do graphically in every STD I produce but you wouldn't understand what the connection is between a graphical representation of a formula is. 

 

You can't do math.  All you do is play with graph paper.  You have no clue how the math underlying the "graphical representation" you put so much faith in even arrived the at "representation" you mistakenly call "Relativity."  The "connection" you speak of is completely obscure to you. You don't know what numbers went into the math equations, so you have no comprehension of what came out of them, or why.  You're like a dog intensely watching a chess game.  The only thing that dog is "thinking" about is how it can surreptitiously grab a pawn and then run off to gnaw on it.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If you have two objects, A and B, which are moving at a speed of .8c, relative to each other in SR, which one gets time dilated, etc?  Put another way, which one is moving, Ralf? 

 

A?

 

or B?

 

Or is it both, just at different speeds (or perhaps identical speeds)?

 

You'll never get any kind of answer from the LT until you determine that.

 

Put another way, SR is gunna have to take that relative motion and somehow turn it into absolute motion before it can employ the LT.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Here is the diff between your definition of preferred frame, reference frame, absolute frame and relativity's definition. Relativity can choose to depict either frame as stationary or moving when in fact both are moving. You say only 1 is actually moving and it's based on mass. So a car is moving but the road underneath it can't be. If you're on a treadmill, the tread is moving and you're not. But if two planets pass each other, which is moving and which isn't. At what point does the imbalance in mass determine who is actually moving? Don't start pretending you know the first thing about math please. I can tolerate ignorance and even stupidity but when you add dishonesty to the mix then I start losing my patience.

[Moronium]

. Relativity can choose to depict either frame as stationary or moving when in fact both are moving.

 

Sure, anybody can depict anything as anything.  They can "depict" an elephant as the planet Jupiter if they want.  But does that have any correspondence to reality?

 

No "preferred frame" has to be universal.  As between any two objects, one can be the preferred frame over the other.  You still don't understand the theoretical meaning of absolute motion at all.  As between the earth and the sun, the sun is the preferred frame.  Relative to the earth, it is stationary, while the earth is, relative to the Sun, actually moving.  They are not "equally valid" frames of reference.  In order to claim that the Sun is orbiting the earth, rather than vice versa, you would have to invalidate virtually all known laws of physics. For that matter, if the earth were not moving relative to the Sun, it would have dove directly into the Sun eons ago, and would not even exist today.  One is the preferred frame, in that context.  Likewise, in that context, the motion of the earth is absolute, not relative.  Since you can't understand the meaning of absolute motion, it follows that you can't understand the meaning of relative motion either.

 

If I hit a baseball with a bat, only a fool would conclude the the baseball remains motionless, while the bat accelerates away from it.  But you would claim it, it seems.

 

Nobody ever said that you always have enough information to determine which object is moving faster than another (well, other than SR, which ALWAYS knows, I mean).  But that's not the same as saying you can NEVER tell which of two objects is the one actually moving as SR tries to claim.  A nuance that you are incapable of understanding, I know.

 

Now answer the question:  Which one is moving, A, or B?  Which one experiences time dilation (same question).

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Who is actually moving in your absolute sense of who has less mass is irrelevant to determining relative velocity. That is the answer. Both A and B are moving relative to each other. Neither is stationary but either can be chosen as stationary.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

You have a serious drinking problem, Ralf.  You've been hitting that koolaid HARD, haven't you?   How many gallons a day to you swill?  100? 1,000?

[ralfcis]

Yup, I'm the dummy here.