Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Relativists Vs Absolutists

relativity

  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#137 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:01 PM

It's not hard for a person like you to conclude that you're the only one who knows anything.  The first step is simple, and anyone can do it, anytime:

 

1.  Make a claim that is both logically and physically impossible.  Nobody else will agree with you.

 

But the second step requires more ambition and determination.

 

2.  Ignore all facts, do not let logic of any kind get in your way, and keep telling yourself you are right and have to be right because....well, because you're the most brilliant person in the world, that's why!

 

3.  You will then be the only person in the world who "knows the truth."



#138 ralfcis

ralfcis

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1077 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:19 PM

And what's your pathology on compulsive and pathological lying and why society acts as an enabler by giving the benefit of the doubt to those who only exploit that etiquette? 



#139 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 04:29 PM

Ralf, I realize that some of the things I say to you are "insensitive" or harsh, but they're not mean-spirited.

 

I've watched you and your M.O. for quite a while now, and I am merely describing to you what I (and no doubt everyone else) see(s).  Your worst enemy is your own attitude and behavior.  You stultify yourself.

 

Will that ever help you to get a more realistic assessment of yourself?  Probably not, no.  But a "friend" will tell you the truth, even if it's something you don't want to hear.  


Edited by Moronium, 04 April 2019 - 04:35 PM.


#140 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1533 posts

Posted 04 April 2019 - 10:47 PM

LOL



#141 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 07:22 AM

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.

 

 

I'm not sure I completely understand what you are saying when you say "those "Rest Frames" are theoretical baseline comparisons for simplification of the calculation."  But I think I do, more or less.  If I understand you correctly you are now saying that, notwithstanding your persistent objections that preferred frames do not comport with "reality," they are useful and even necessary.  If that's what you're saying, I agree.  The truth is, you can't make any meaningful calculations without positing a preferred frame, however arbitrary that designation may be.

 

SR, when employing the LT, always establishes a motionless, preferred frame, i.e., one which is treated as being at absolute rest.  By  doing so, it mimics a PFT in a half-assed way.  And that's the reason that it can, in limited circumstances, appear to give an "answer" which matches one provided by a PFT.

 

Now, I understand, and to a large extent agree with, your point about a preferred frame being an "idealization."  But what I think you're overlooking is that, if you want to reject this because it's "unreal," then you should object FAR more strongly to SR than to a PFT (preferred frame theory).  

 

In the big picture, SR ends up positing an infinite number of "preferred frames," each of which is simultaneously "in motion"  from a different perspective. In SR the "facts" presumed in any given frame of reference contradict the "facts" of every other frame, and vice versa.  The only possible result of this is conceptual chaos and utter absurdity from any physical or logical perspective.  It doesn't take long for SR to end up abandoning its own premises and contradicting itself.

 

Yet you seem to think that SR "in it's current form" is superior.  Why is that, Vic?


Edited by Moronium, 05 April 2019 - 10:41 AM.


#142 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 08:04 AM

In the big picture, SR ends up positing an infinite number of "preferred frames," each of which is simultaneously "in motion"  from a different perspective. In SR the "facts" presumed in any given frame of reference contradict the "facts" of every other frame, and vice versa.  The only possible result of this is conceptual chaos and utter absurdity from any physical or logical perspective.  It doesn't take long for SR to end up abandoning its own premises and contradicting itself.

 

 

To elaborate some on the post I made earlier (post #125), what I find most appalling is that otherwise reasonable people undertake to "prove" that this is all logical, consistent, and "true."  That attempt necessarily resorts to the most dubious form of logical fallacy, and one must effectively eschew logic in order to convince oneself and/or others that it is all "true."

 

Worse yet, otherwise reasonable people fall for this vain attempt to prove that "black is white."  This corrupted "logic" is then presented and represented as "apparent to all."  I find this to be inexplicable and discomforting.


Edited by Moronium, 05 April 2019 - 08:09 AM.


#143 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 10:23 AM

Now, I understand, and to a large extent agree with, your point about a preferred frame being an "idealization."  But what I think you're overlooking is that, if you want to reject this because it's "unreal," then you should object FAR more strongly to SR than to a PFT (preferred frame theory)

 

 

As I have noted before, Newton calculated, to an amazing degree of accuracy, the masses and velocities of every (then-known) planet in the solar system.  How did he achieve this feat?

 

By using a PFT, that's how.  He first designated the solar barycenter as his "preferred frame" and used the frame of the fixed stars for his background contrast.

 

Did he claim that the fixed stars were "really" at rest?  No.  He just said it was a close enough approximation to suit his purposes.

 

He chose the barycenter because, relative to it, everything else in the Solar System (Sun included) moved while it remained stationary.

 

The point is that his decision to choose these frames was well-reasoned, well-justified (as it turned out), and extremely useful to establishing an understanding of "natural laws."

 

In contrast, the preferred frames selected by SR are completely arbitrary, without any discernible relationship to "reality," and ultimately lead to wildly inaccurate predictions, especially when more than two objects are involved.

 

Try to imagine how wrong Newton would have been if he, like SR, had assumed that all frames are equally valid and used the earth as his preferred frame, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 06 April 2019 - 06:35 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity