Relativists Vs Absolutists

[Vmedvil2]

So Moronium isn't telling. It's not mass, it's not gas, it's maybe blue shirts that determine who's actually moving which is his explanation of what causes age difference. The Lorentz transforms just can't crank out an answer until you know who's actually moving. Why is this guy allowed on a physics forum and an equally deranged person like Poly has been removed?

Poly was not removed for being deranged but for Thread Hijacking, Moronium is fine, he just has questions. Actually, I believe Poly to be a true genius he helped in my wormhole metric and was most valuable. His Sitter and Anti-sitter solutions sit in my equations. If you want him to stop thread hijacking just confront him about it like Dubbel did Poly.

 

It is only by Struggle and War that we discover our truth -Shadows

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Vic, I looked at your last link first.  Among many other things, it says this:

 

The CMBR is a diffuse and almost isotropic microwave radiation that apparently suffuses all of space. It is generally thought to be a relic of the big bang. While not really a test of SR, CMBR measurements may be of interest to some readers—there is a unique locally inertial frame near Earth in which its dipole moment is zero; this frame moves with speed ~370 km/s relative to the sun.

 

 

The author here concludes that this is "not really a test of SR," but I disagree.  He overlooks the fact that SR, as a theory, absolutely prohibits the use of any "preferred frame" which can be used to detect absolute motion.  But then he goes on to claim that there is a "unique locally inertial frame near Earth," which can "measure" the absolute motion of the earth, sun, galaxy, etc.  He is talking about a "preferred frame" when he does this.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok. I didn't know that about Poly. I shouldn't have said deranged, Moronium's struggle is with the truth. It just can't come out of his mouth nor is he interested in hearing it.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

Vic, I looked at your last link first.  Among many other things, it says this:

 

 

The author here concludes that this is "not really a test of SR," but I disagree.  He overlooks the fact that SR, as a theory, absolutely prohibits the use of any "preferred frame" which can be used to detect absolute motion.  But then he goes on to claim that there is a "unique locally inertial frame near Earth," which can "measure" the absolute motion of the earth, sun, galaxy, etc.  He is talking about a "preferred frame" when he does this.

If you want to use them then use them but I am just saying that reality doesn't quite have them, usually the "Preferred Frame" is used to simply real universe calculations.

[Moronium]

Vic, your second link is entitled "Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real."

 

Note that is does not say "Special relativity is real."  The article just uses the word "relativity," in a generic sense.  It discusses GR.

 

Nobody disputes that "relativity" is real.  But SR is not the ONLY theory of relative motion.  At one point the articles talks about "the predictions of special relativity" in connection with time dilation.

 

But as I have pointed out in the other thread, the predictions of time dilation which he discusses are a product of the LT, NOT SR, per se.  The verification of the LT does nothing to "prove" special relativity.
 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Vic, your second link is entitled "Three Experiments That Show Relativity Is Real."

 

Not that is does not say "Special relativity is real."  The article just uses the word "relativity," in a generic sense.  It discusses GR.

 

Nobody disputes that "relativity" is real.  But SR is not the ONLY theory of relative motion.  At one point the articles talks about "the predictions of special relativity" in connection with time dilation.

 

But as I have pointed out in the other thread, the predictions of time dilation are a product of the LT, NOT SR, per se.  The verification does nothing to "prove" special relativity.

 

 

And I am telling you that time has to dilate the universe would not be the same without it for the reasons stated in the other thread.

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35318-three-air-tight-reasons-why-no-object-can-ever-reach-an-event-horizon/page-3

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

When I said Moronium has a struggle with the truth, I didn't mean his ideas were dishonest, his defense of his ideas is dishonest. He won't answer questions once he knows he's been caught lying as is evidenced by our last run in. He won't answer how he determines one party is moving and the other is not.

[Vmedvil2]

When I said Moronium has a struggle with the truth, I didn't mean his ideas were dishonest, his defense of his ideas is dishonest. He won't answer questions once he knows he's been caught lying as is evidenced by our last run in. He won't answer how he determines one party is moving and the other is not.

 

He just wants to be right is all, well, he has hit a brick wall, I have a Grand Unified Field Theory I know the way the universe works on a modeling forum it was created with 20,000 views.

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

And I am telling you that time has to dilate the universe would not be the same without it for the reasons stated in the other thread.

 

 

Again, NO ONE, certainly not me, is claiming that time does not dilate.  That's not the point.  You're ignoring the point.

 

Your claim was that the current state of SR has been proven to be correct.  Nothing about time dilation proves SR.  To the extent it "proves" SR, it also proves competing theories which incorporate the LT.

[Vmedvil2]

Again, NO ONE, certainly not me, is claiming that time does not dilate.  That's not the point.  You're ignoring the point.

 

Your claim was that the current state of SR has been proven to be correct.  Nothing about time dilation proves SR.  To the extent it "proves" SR, it also proves competing theories which incorporate the LT. 

LT?

[Moronium]

LT?

 

Lorentz transformations, which serve to quantify Lorentz's prediction of time dilation. Lorentz predicted this around 1892, over a decade before SR came along.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Lorentz transformations, which serve to quantify Lorentz's prediction of time dilation.

Okay, I will tell you now those "Rest Frames" are theoretical baseline comparisons for simplification of the calculation  but I agree that LT, is a correct methology of calculation, you are talking about the below correct. I use the LT matrix myself sometimes.

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Regarding your second link (from wiki) that article refers to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity, pertaining to alternate theories of relative motion, which says:

 

By giving the effects of time dilation and length contraction the exact relativistic value, this test theory is experimentally equivalent to special relativity, independent of the chosen synchronization. So Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

 

 

So again, it belies your claim.  SR is not required to explain the phenomena.  Other perfectly viable theories also do this.  Nothing you've cited "proves" SR, as a theory.

 

SR posits "relative simultaneity."  Lorentz's theory posits"absolute simultaneity."  Both employ the LT (established by Lorentz, not Einstein).  The theories are polar opposites in this respect.  But they are also "equivalent" in certain limited circumstances.  Testing those equivalent aspects does NOTHING to "prove" one in favor of the other.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Regarding your second link (from wiki) that article refers to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity, pertaining to alternate theories of relative motion, which says:

 

 

So again, it belies your claim.  SR is not required to explain the phenomena.  Other perfectly viable theories also do this.  Nothing you've cited "proves" SR, as a theory.

 

I know how bad you want your "Rest Frame" to exist but in my mind it doesn't unfortunately I took 6 years of physics and nothing about that education tells me that the "Preferred Frame" or "Rest Frame" predicts the physical universe only a model of it, other models can be used, Hell, I use a Quaternion Geometry myself so I won't say it is wrong the geometry you use, but the preferred time-space by physics is the one put forward by SR. There are other correct geometries any Geometry that is equal to T_uv is correct. That is usually the test, does the geometry contain or equal T_uv at some point.

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

 preferred time-space by physics is the one put forward by SR. 

 

Well, Vic, you, and others, are free to prefer whatever theory you want, at least insofar as it does not contradict empirical observation or logical tenets.

 

But "preferring" a theory does not "prove" that it is correct, which was your claim.

 

On the other hand, the Hafele-Keating experiment, the daily operation of the GPS, and  number of other tests serve to disprove SR as a viable theory of relative motion.  It does not apply in the "real world."  If used, it makes predictions which are wildly inaccurate.  Only a preferred frame theory accurately predicts the observed results in those cases.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Well, Vic, you, and others, are free to prefer whatever theory you want, at least insofar as it does not contradict empirical observation or logical tenants.

 

But "preferring" a theory does not "prove" that it is correct.

 

On the other hand, the Hafele-Keating experiment, the daily operation of the GPS, and  number of other tests serve to disprove SR as a viable theory of relative motion.  It does not apply in the "real world."  If used, it makes predictions which are wildly inaccurate.

 

There are also experiments that do prove parts of it correct but that is why it is still a theory, theories are the closest physicists have to the truth, experimental evidence gives it popularity and credit. If one experiment proves it wrong then that is fine it is still by far the closest one out there, in my opinion besides my own of course, mine has more proof than Einstein's geometry. It isn't hard to beat Einstein in proof but in usefulness and simplicity Einstein is King.

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

There are also experiments that do prove parts of it correct but that is why it is still a theory, 

 

 

Well, OK, we seem to agree on one thing, at least, to wit:  SR has not been proven, as you claimed eariler.

 

I don't completely agree with the above statement, however.  Experiments can never "prove" a theory.  That includes my preferred theory of relative motion, i.e., a PFT.

 

But experiments can DISPROVE a theory, even if "parts of it" appear to be correct.  As I have also noted, "part" of SR does indeed appear to be correct, especially the part which SR appropriated from a PFT, i.e., the LT.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium