Relativists Vs Absolutists

[ralfcis]

I just got in, still no answer from Confused. He's hiding in the corner he painted himself into.

[Moronium]

I see you still haven't learned to read, Ralf.  I answered your question a long time ago.  I'm not going to keep repeating it just because you keep asking for something you already have.

[Moronium]

You never read anybody's posts except your own, over and over. Ralf.  It's not just me.  You never look at a post with the intent of trying to understand what's being said.  At best you skim it, searching for a word or phrase that you want to dispute.  You never even understand what you think you're disputing and, in your mind, refuting.  It gets tedious, Ralf.

 

The end is always the same.  You declare everybody in the universe to be wrong, except for you, the most brilliant person who ever lived.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok so you're not going to answer. It's not mass, it's not gas, it's not blue shirts. Just one word. How do you determine who's the one moving? Is it the one with the moving van outside? No answer because you're afraid?

[Moronium]

Ok so you're not going to answer. It's not mass, it's not gas, it's not blue shirts. Just one word. How do you determine who's the one moving? Is it the one with the moving van outside? No answer because you're afraid?

 

 

Go back and read, fool.

[Moronium]

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, 

 

I don't care if a rest frame "exists" or if SR chooses to avoid acknowledging one, even conceptually, for the sake of mathematical convenience.

 

As far as I'm concerned, SR is mathematically consistent, and that's not my complaint about it.

 

What I want from physical theories is that they be logically consistent from a physical and conceptual (not merely mathematical) standpoint.

 

One big problem with SR is that its disciples don't just say:  "It's a convenient modelling tool."  No, they can't just stop there.  They feel compelled to insist that it is also physically "true" to boot.

 

In order to try to defend and "prove" that claim, they engage in limitless sophistry, specious reasoning, fallacious logic, indefensible philosophical assumptions, self-contradiction, etc.  But even that's not the worst of it.

 

The worst of it is this:  By insisting that they are talking about "proven science" they badly abuse the thought patterns of the gullible.  Those people accept the ridiculousness of it all on the basis of "authority."  Then they repeat it, dutifully.  They become converts to this school of sophistry and serve as tireless dogmatic proselytizers for their new found religion.

 

The destructive results go far beyond the issue of whether there is a preferred frame.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The worst of it is this:  By insisting that they are talking about "proven science" they badly abuse the thought patterns of the gullible.  Those people accept the ridiculousness of it all on the basis of "authority."  

 

I'm talking about you, here, Ralf, although you're far from being the worst in this respect.

 

You at least have enough sense to seriously suspect some of SR's more dubious claims.

 

But you have imbibed so much koolaid in the past that you cannot even begin to articulate your (well-justified) suspicions.  You invariably return to the folds of the faithful and begin spewing SR dogma.  You can no longer think clearly about the topic.  You've been too thoroughly indoctrinated.  To be honest, It's a pitiful thing to see.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I did, there's nothing to read. So find a little courage, stop lying  and just give me a one word answer. Let's pretend that word exists because we both know it doesn't. 

[Moronium]

I did, there's nothing to read. 

 

Stop lying and go read it.  I'm just not willing to fool around addressing your posts if you never demonstrate your willingness to read what I say anyway.

 

The answer is simple, and right in front of your face, without me pointing it out, to begin with..  That you can't figure it out on your own just demonstrates how lost you are.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Is this your answer?

 

"The only known factor which causes non-gravitational time dilation is movement, i.e., increased speed.  Not mass, not acceleration, not "frames of reference," not anything else."

 

Because that isn't even my question. My question is how do you establish who's actually moving (which is irrelevant to age difference anyway).So your answer is the one who's moving is the one who's moving. Brilliant.

 

Here's more of your brilliant reasoning:

 

" Because, relative to the earth, the guy in space is the one who is REALLY moving.  He ages less because he is the one moving.  Not hard to discern that, without or without SR.  He's the one who blasted off into space.

 

By the way, I never said, thought, implied, or otherwise indicated that the question of relative versus absolute velocity had any dependence whatsover on "who has less mass."

 

By SR's own admission and standards, Ralf, acceleration is absolute, not relative motion.  Does that give you any clue?

 

By the way, I explicitly said its NOT mass, and its NOT acceleration.  But we always knew you can't read, so I'm not surprised."

 

Explain how you don't contradict yourself in the last 2 lines and answer the question, how do you discern who's "actually" moving. Stop hiding, stop lying.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I've actually answered your question, multiple times, in a variety of ways, Ralf.  I was vainly thinking you might understand one of them.

 

Hell, now I'm starting to take pity on you.  Here, read this post again.

 

 

Let's go back to the drag racer again.  I deliberately over-simplified that, but I'll take a little more time here.

 

Here's the way SR tells the story:

 

1.  When he hits the gas, he is the one moving, absolutely, not relatively.  It's not the road moving backwards, or that the fans in the bleachers are moving toward, him.  They are stationary.  He is moving.

 

2.But later something strange occurs, when he hits top end and just keeps the pedal to the floor.  At that point he is no longer accelerating.  Now he is in inertial motion, moving in a straight line at a uniform speed.  So, now what?

 

3.  Then, at that instant, he stops on a dime.  He is immediately completely at rest.

 

4. At that very same moment, the crowd starts moving toward him, and the road underneath him moves away from him.  He is no longer moving absolutely.  On the contrary, he is absolutely at rest.  He is once again in the preferred frame for the entire universe, just like he was before he hit the gas.  Now it is everything and everybody else who is moving absolutely, not him.

 

Guzzle that, eh, Ralf.?

 

But don't try to tell guys like Newton that.  They might think that, even though he had hit top end, the driver would just continue moving at that speed unless some external force acted upon him.  They might even think that he needs to let off the gas, hit the brakes, and pull the parachute cord to slow down, quickly, anyway.  The driver knows better, because he knows SR.  He can't "slow down" now.  He's already absolutely  stationary.

 

SR says all inertial motion is merely relative, but that acceleration is absolute.  A PFT says that ALL motion is absolute.  This eliminates all the "paradoxes" of SR.

 

In any given circumstance different evidence, whether sense perception, conceptual, or otherwise, will "tell" us who's moving.  At other times, we may not be able to tell, but that's not the question.

 

Say I'm sitting on the corner, chuggin some wine with my homey, and there's a car parked across the street.  Then some guy comes out of his crib and starts the car.  Then I SEE him move.  Not just me, SR "sees" it also, because he is accelerating.  There's no question about whether its me, and my corner, and my homey, moving or the car. The car's motion is absolute, not relative.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Victor said:

 

"there is vast amounts of proof that relativity is correct in its current state"

 

There are vast amounts of proof the theory of relativity gets the correct answers that support experimental results but that's no proof the theory is correct in how it gets those answers. In fact, I don't think there's a single precept of the theory that I think isn't partly wrong and can be better explained. Relativity is also limited on its range of correct answers, it leaves many undetermined.  Sure, like Confused, I'm free to be delusional but unlike Confused, I have the math to back me up. Should be easy to prove me wrong.

[ralfcis]

There ya go, "because he is accelerating"

 

"By SR's own admission and standards, Ralf, acceleration is absolute, not relative motion.  Does that give you any clue?

 

By the way, I explicitly said its NOT mass, and its NOT acceleration.  But we always knew you can't read, so I'm not surprised."

 

So you'd also deny a more massive object is much more difficult to accelerate so as you explicitly said, it's not mass that determines who is actually moving. You painted yourself into a corner and want to lie your way out. I get it, that's why there's no point in discussing anything with a disingenuous person to put it politely.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

So you'd also deny a more massive object is much more difficult to accelerate so as you explicitly said, it's not mass that determines who is actually moving. You painted yourself into a corner and want to lie your way out. I get it, that's why there's no point in discussing anything with a disingenuous person to put it politely.

 

 

Like I said, Ralf, you're an utter fool who just wants to be contrary because you think it proves you're superior.  You aint, sorry.  You still think blue shirts cause people to knock off liquor stores.  You can't discern the insignificant from the essential.  You can't even interpret a statement, except in some illogical, completely distorted, way.   Apparently you got an Acme Strawman Kit when you were a kid, and have been playing with it ever since.

 

You impute your own utter lack of logical competency to the guy you're talking to.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There ya go, "because he is accelerating"

 

"By SR's own admission and standards, Ralf, acceleration is absolute, not relative motion.  Does that give you any clue?

 

By the way, I explicitly said its NOT mass, and its NOT acceleration.  But we always knew you can't read, so I'm not surprised."

 

 

I said that acceleration has nothing directly to do with clock retardation, and it doesn't.   Clock retardation is a function of instantaneous speed, ONLY.  You don't have to be accelerating to experience so-called "time dilation."  Nor does it alter the extent of time dilation in the least if you are accelerating.

 

Relative motion does not "cause" clock retardation.   Only absolute motion does.  That's the issue, not mass or some other irrelevant circumstance.  SR denies that all motion is absolute.  SR is wrong about that, as prominent physicists have consistently pointed out ever since SR was invented.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You are pathological. The question was and is how does the great Moronium determine who is absolutely moving. Your answer is personal attacks and smoke bombs. 

[Moronium]

You are pathological. The question was and is how does the great Moronium determine who is absolutely moving. Your answer is personal attacks and smoke bombs. 

 

Learn to read, fool. Forget it, that wouldn't help.  You need to learn to understand what you read.  No real hope for that.

 

I explained to you how absolute motion is determined, as a theoretical matter, dozens of times, including in the thread which this one superseded after it was closed.

 

You can't comprehend a word of it.  You still can't grasp what either relative motion or absolute motion even means in the context of theories of relative motion.  You've been brainwashed.

 

You're quick to shout "ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE!!!" because you've been trained to do so.  But have no clue about what you're even saying when you shout it.  Of course that doesn't keep you from KNOWING you're right.  Not in the least.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Moronium