Jump to content
Science Forums

The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists


Recommended Posts

The CMB can be used to define a cosmic rest frame, sort of (the CMB isn't completely uniform), but this is in no way a preferred frame in the context of the scientific definition of the term 'preferred'.

 

 

Well, A-wal, you've got your work cut out for you.  Maybe you can start by straightening out that nobel prize winning physicist at Berkeley (Smoot) who said it was a preferred frame.  But you better pack a lunch.  He's just the first of many you're gunna have to learn up, ya know?  Like this guy, and all his homeboys, know what I'm sayin?

 

 

Special relativity with a preferred frame and the relativity principle: cosmological implications
(Submitted on 11 Oct 2016)
The modern view, that there exists a preferred frame of reference related to the cosmic microwave background (CMB), is in apparent contradiction with the principles of special relativity. 

 

 
These guys obviously don't have your expertise in scientific terminology, but they get paid a lot of money.  You could probably take all their jobs away from them, eh!?  But, why work?  That Smoot guy won a million dollars on a TV game show.  Just blackmail them with the threat of exposing their ignorance to the world and you could be sitting pretty in short order, I betcha!
Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 258
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light   I have read through all twelve pages of crap, moron.  I am not a physicist, and readily admit

Essentially, that's argument from incredulity. (As is most of your anti-relativity crankery).   Ignoring the learnings of relativity and insisting on a naive pre-relativity view won't get you far.    

Again, that's simply incredulity on what's actually going on.   While on that train, if it's moving smoothly at some constant speed, what experiment could you do to conclude you were "really" moving a

 ...you can't even understand the scientific definition of preferred. This (amoung other reason far too numerous to list) is why you're regarded as a complete joke....  The CMB... is in no way a preferred frame in the context of the scientific definition of the term 'preferred'.

 

 

If I thought there any profit to be gained from it, I might ask you to give some reasons for making this claim.  But, even apart from having no interest in semantic quibbling with you, I could obviously never understand it anyway.  Your insights are just beyond my ignorant grasp.

 

But, that said, it can still be profitable for YOU.  Write up a 20-30 page paper explaining just why all the academic frauds are completely wrong.  But don't publish it.  Circulate it amongst them.  Once they see that you are right and they are completely wrong, they'll pay huge sums to you not to publish it, just so they can avoid the embarrassment of being exposed as fools.

 

But here's the best part!  You can, just like Stormy Daniels, take a crapload of hush money, but THEN publish your paper anyway.  You'll get all the cash and STILL be recognized as a scientific genius that way, see!?

 

I will only request a modest 10% of your huge take for mapping out this strategy for you, OK?  Whaddaya say!?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those claiming that a preferred frame of reference does exists (in which physical laws are not equivalent to other frames) need to provide evidence to support their claim. The onus is not on those claiming something with no evidence does not exist to support their claim.

A preferred frame has not only never been shown, it's never been shown that there's any need for one to explain any observations or any reason at all to suspect that this magical reference frame does or, even could, exist.

If I were to send a paper to physicists explaining accepted science as if it wasn't already considered as factual they'd assume, with good reason, that I'm as insane as you obviously are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A preferred frame has not only never been shown,

 

If I were to send a paper to physicists explaining accepted science as if it wasn't already considered as factual they'd assume, with good reason, that I'm as insane as you obviously are.

 

 

Still can't read, eh, A-wal?  No bigass surprise there. Every inertial frame is a preferred frame, fool.

 

Although all inertial frames are equivalent under classical mechanics and special relativity, the set of all inertial frames is privileged over non-inertial frames in these theories...In theoretical physics, a preferred or privileged frame is usually a special hypothetical frame of reference in which the laws of physics might appear to be identifiably different (simpler) from those in other frames.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame

 

Do you know what "simpler" means?  You should, it's a close cognate of "simpleton," eh?

 

This would seem to violate the postulates of Galilean and Special Relativity but there is a preferred frame in which the expansion of the Universe looks most simple. That frame is the average rest frame of the matter and CMB and from that frame the expansion is essentially isotropic. (Dr. Geo Smoot)

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

Well, your prospects of blackmailing his *** aint lookin so good no more, eh?  Here I thought you had something to back up your factual assertion, like a 20-30 page paper, or something, ya know?  Silly me. You aint even got one sentence.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is not on those claiming something with no evidence does not exist to support their claim.

 

 

That would be you, eh?  You're the one claiming no preferred frame exists anywhere.  Best brush up on your scientific lingo next time, eh?  Semantical quibbling is worthless to begin with. It's the tactic of the ignorant.  It aint no substantive argument (not that you would even know what that is).

 

"It's better to just keep your pie-trap plumb shut, and look like a damn fool, than to open that sucker wide and prove it" (A. Lincoln)

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

All that said, physicists treat the CMB as a preferred frame in another sense, too.  They treat it as a preferred frame for the purposes of discerning the ABSOLUTE (not relative) motion of the earth:

 

The COBE DMR has made the best measurement and map of the dipole anisotropy and the dipole amplitude and direction are now a calibration signal for CMB anisotropy experiments....We attribute the dipole anisotropy to the motion of the Earth and Solar System relative to the universal CMB radiation field and thus the distant matter in the Universe.

 

 

 

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/u2/

 

Ask an observer on earth what his speed with respect to the rest of the universe is.  If he accepts SR he will insist that it is ZERO.  If he rejects this, and instead says "I acknowledge my own motion and measure my speed by assuming the CMB is, relative to me, motionless," then he has rejected SR.  He has treated the CMB as the preferred frame for purposes of determining absolute motion.

 

Keep in mind that, despite preaching that "all inertial frames are equally valid," SR does NOT allow you to make a free choice to treat "either one" as being motionless.  You must always treat YOUR frame of reference as the preferred one. Yes, Virginia, there IS a preferred frame, and you're in it.  Some pigs are just a little more equal than others, ya know?

 

It's not even a question of fact--it's merely a matter of which theory you choose to affirm and pledge your allegiance to.  Even if you were, somehow, actually absolutely motionless (with the CMB moving past you), you would still have rejected and spurned SR by claiming otherwise.  You are a sacrelious heretic, a traitor, an apostate.  You have flagrantly disregarded and willfully disobeyed the commands of your leader. The death penalty would be appropriate, I figure.  THAT is simply unforgivable.

 

Did any of you devout students of SR ever wonder how it was that your professor always KNEW which of two objects was moving when he reeled off examples on the blackboard?  Who is he, God?  How does he come to know the unknowable?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did any of you devout students of SR ever wonder how it was that your professor always KNEW which of two objects was moving when he reeled off examples on the blackboard?  Who is he, God?  How does he come to know the unknowable?

 

 

Some of you might respond by saying "He doesn't claim to KNOW!  He's just talking hypothetically."

 

Well, OK, then.  But how does that relate to the real world?  You're saying he's just making stuff up, without any disclosed rational basis, right?  Suppose these were two real objects in the real world.  If you asked him which one was moving, what would he say THEN?

 

If he's not going to betray SR, then he'll have to say:  "Nobody can ever know."  So then, which clock has slowed down?  "Nobody can ever know."  Well, Doc, is there anything we KNOW about relative inertial motion?   "Naw, there aint."

 

No way to make any kind of prediction about the real world under those circumstances, eh?

 

I wonder how it is that he happens to know that the earth twin ages more in the twin paradox?  Because he has stabbed SR in the back and declared that the earth is the preferred frame in those circumstances, maybe?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, then, I'm a physics professor who teaches SR.  It's 5:00, quitting time, and I'm really sick of all these ignorant students who can't seem to understand anything about SR.  I'm ready to go home and get a beer. Uh, wait, that aint right.  What I mean to say is that I'm ready for home to come to me and bring me a beer.  I never move, I kinda forgot there, for a minute.

 

So, upon my command, the office and the building I'm in start moving away from me while my car comes to me.  I start it up and mash down on the gas pedal.  Always willing to obey me, the earth now starts moving away from me and my house starts moving toward me.  The earth makes a sharp change of direction for me whenever I want to make a left or right turn.

 

Finally, I get to my driveway and I shut off the engine.  Then my refrigerator comes to me and a beer comes out of it into my hands.  I guzzle it.  It's amazing how much a guy can achieve by telekinesis, eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!!

 

The bible has 10 commandments.  SR basically has only one (above).  Why is this unquestionable dogma, this article of absolute faith, so important, you might ask.

 

Because, as I've said before, the whole theory is absolutely dependent on different observers making mutually exclusive claims and then defending those views to their death. In addition, you are required to say that "both are right."  But, again, why?  Because, as the Harvard physics professor (David Morin) I've quoted noted, if they didn't take that stance, it would be a "complete disaster" for SR.

 

But why would it be a "disaster?"

 

Let's say I'm on a train I boarded in Jackson, Mississippi, and instead of asking the conductor "Does Memphis stop here?," I ask "Does this train stop in Memphis?"  Where's the sin?

 

Here's the problem. If I do that, then I have implicitly acknowledged that I (and my entire frame of reference, for that matter) am/is moving--not the earth, while I (supposedly) remain motionless.  SR requires that I refuse to acknowledge (or even entertain the possibility) that I am moving, because, if I did, the speed of light would no longer be seen to be constant in my frame.

 

Why not?  I will still measure the speed of light to be c, right?  Right, but you would also be aware that, because you are moving, your measuring instruments have been distorted due to your motion.  You would then correct for that error and, after doing so, you would find that the speed of light is not really c in your frame.  You only measured it to be because you have inaccurate clocks and rods.

 

What happens to "relative simultaneity" then? It's gone.  Replaced by absolute simultaneity.  SR CAN'T have that, eh?  It would be a "complete disaster" for the theory.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say I get on a train, and it accelerates at the rate of 1 mph per hour (so that after 60 hours I reach the speed of 60 mph). Since I am accelerating this is ABSOLUTE motion, according to SR. So, during those 60 hours my motion will be absolute (i.e., I will be the one moving, not the earth).

 

Now, then, let's say that after reaching 60 mph I stop accelerating, and just "cruise" at 60 mph.  What happens now?

 

A HUGE difference, that's what! Now I am moving inertially (at a uniform speed in a straight line).   If you believe SR then, at that second, I have stopped on a dime and become completely motionless.  Whereas, just a second ago, I was moving at 60 mph while the earth remained motionless (relative to me), now the situation has completely reversed itself, instantaneously, no less.

 

Forget Newton's laws of motion.  According to SR an object in motion does NOT "tend to stay in motion, unless an external force is impressed upon it."  It stops instantly as soon as it stops accelerating.  This is, after all, ancient wisdom, ya know?  According to them, the earth could not possibly be moving.  If it were, and if I threw a ball straight up in the air, then it would not come straight down to me, because I would have moved in the meantime. That's because the ball, no longer being attached to the earth, would lose all "forward" motion. 

 

In other words, there is no inertia, just like Aristotle said.  Therefore, they knew the earth was stationary.  For some, Galileo dispelled that mistaken notion, but, then again, he was just some johnny-come-lately trying to challenge the infallible one--Aristotle.

 

Believe that if you want, solipsists.

 

Me, in my lack of sophistication and utter inability to grasp the subtle, yet obvious, mystical "truth" of SR, I will say that inertial motion is also absolute (just like accelerating motion). I console myself with the knowledge that at least I'm in semi-respectable company (e.g., Galileo, Newton, Feynman, and millions of others of their stature) that way.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say I get on a train, and it accelerates at the rate of 1 mph per hour (so that after 60 hours I reach the speed of 60 mph). Since I am accelerating this is ABSOLUTE motion, according to SR. So, during those 60 hours my motion will be absolute (i.e., I will be the one moving, not the earth).

 

Now, then, let's say that after reaching 60 mph I stop accelerating, and just "cruise" at 60 mph.  What happens now?

 

A HUGE difference, that's what! Now I am moving inertially (at a uniform speed in a straight line).   If you believe SR then, at that second, I have stopped on a dime and become completely motionless.  Whereas, just a second ago, I was moving at 60 mph while the earth remained motionless (relative to me), now the situation has completely reversed itself, instantaneously, no less.

 

Forget Newton's laws of motion.  According to SR an object in motion does NOT "tend to stay in motion, unless an external force is impressed upon it."  It stops instantly as soon as it stops accelerating.

 

Believe that if you want, solipsists.

 

 

That is where Acceleration and Interia come into play, Es = (1/2)kx2   There is a spring constant for the mass of the object in solid form if the strength of said bonds goes above the amount of attraction it will cause the matter to be destroyed E=MC2 .   The speed of light in a volume of space cannot be gone above but space itself can be warped by matter, This Warping of space and matter is what we call frame dragging which causes gravitational and Temporal Distortion along with Space Distortion as space is warped there is no prefered frame but all frames are relative to each other. Einstein actually made the "Rest Frame" @ V = 0 , or at zero velocity to start the equations frames as always at "Rest" which is why it is preferred to other frames as all can be measured relative to it as where the relationship begins between the two elements of the equation.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Einstein actually made the "Rest Frame" @ V = 0 , or at zero velocity to start the equations frames as always at "Rest" which is why it is preferred to other frames...

 

Exactly.  V would of course equal 0, by definition, in a "rest frame."  And, of course the "rest frame" is always the preferred frame.  I agree with you there, too.

 

But where does Hooke's law and all that quantum mechanical  and gravitational (general relativity) stuff come into this?  The question is "which one is the rest frame in SR?"  Which one is moving?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

   The speed of light in a volume of space cannot be gone above but space itself can be warped by matter, This Warping of space and matter is what we call frame dragging which causes gravitational and Temporal Distortion along with Space Distortion as space is warped there is no prefered frame but all frames are relative to each other. 

 

 

I have already, in another thread, I think, cited some passages from a physicist who favored the "quantum foam" explanation for gravity (i.e., the theory you seem to be talking about here).  According to him, that theory solves a lot of problems caused by GR. But, according to him, the theory works out ONLY IF you ditch SR and posit a preferred frame.  Go figure, eh?

 

Here, I'll repost a small portion of it from  http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31146-whats-up-with-gravitt-and-spacetime-curvature/?do=findComment&comment=356655  (see post #13).

 

The Einstein assumptions leading to the Special and General Theory of Relativity are shown to be falsified by the extensive experimental data. Contrary to the Einstein assumptions absolute motion is consistent with relativistic effects, which are caused by actual dynamical effects of absolute motion through the quantum foam, so that it is Lorentzian relativity that is seen to be essentially correct.

 

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another select passage from that paper, which basically agrees with what I just said in post #250 (i,e,, that inertial motion, like accelerating motion, is absolute).

 

Absolute rotational motion had been recognised as a meaningful and observable phenomena from the very beginning of physics...But for absolute linear motion the history would turn out to be completely different. It was generally thought that absolute linear motion was undetectable, at least until Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory appeared to require it. In perhaps the most bizarre sequence of events in modern science it turns out that absolute linear motion has been apparent within experimental data for over 100 years.

 

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one more excerpt which I can't help but chuckle at:

 

...these absolute motion experiments have given experimental support for a new theory of gravity....Of course no such quantum description of gravity is derivable from quantising Einsteinian gravity itself....The denial of this possibility [my note: i.e., absolute inertial motion] has resulted in an unproductive search for dark matter. Indeed like dark matter and spacetime much of present day physics has all the hallmarks of another episode of Ptolemy’s epicycles, namely concepts that appear to be well founded but in the end turn out to be illusions, and ones that have acquired the status of dogma.

 

 

 

Heh, "ptolemy's epicycles," eh?  I hear that.  "Spacetime."  What a misguided concept, eh?

 

Minkowski should have stuck to math, and Einstein should have stuck to physics.  In 1949 Einstein told Karl Popper that his biggest regret was in adopting (temporarily) Mach's "positivist" philosophy of science in the first place (1905).  He later strongly condemned that philosophy, equating it with Berkeley's solipsism. Although positivism was the prevailing philosophy of science at the time, history was on Einstein's side.  Positivism has since been completely discredited and rejected as a viable philosophy of science (since around 1950).  But, as Popper also noted, by 1920 the "subjectivists" (as Popper called them), inspired by SR, had completely taken over the reigns of "physics."

 

His instincts told him better at the time, but he ignored them.  He initially said (regarding Minkowski's spacetime analysis) that it was "superfluous over-learnedness."  Around that time he also said:  "Since the mathematicians got involved, I don't understand special relativity myself anymore."

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

THERE ARE NO PREFERRED FRAMES!!!

 

The bible has 10 commandments.  SR basically has only one (above).  Why is this unquestionable dogma, this article of absolute faith, so important, you might ask.

 

 

Leaving ideology aside, it should be self-evident that I can know something "is" moving, even if I can't readily know its speed.  Like when i watch a car go down the highway from a distance or watch a jet plane go overhead, for example.

 

Again, apart from philosophical dogma (like that of Leibniz, which I have noted), why would anyone be inclined to believe that, just because you don't know an object's absolute speed, you can't even know if it's moving?

 

As Newton pointed out, Leibniz, and the other relativists of his ilk, basically contradicted their own damn selves with their mechanics, which tacitly assumed the existence of absolute motion.

 

When you're in a gravitational field, like earth, for example, it takes energy and work for something to move.  If I put a 50-lb rock in my front yard, it will never move without a force being applied to it.  Why?  Because gravity is "holding it in place," so to speak.  The force of gravity must be overcome if it is to move.

 

Recognizing that work is required for something to move is just one (of many) "clues" which lead you to conclude that one thing (like a guy on a train) is moving and another one (like a rock) aint.

 

When the philosopher Samuel Johnson was asked by his companion, Boswell, how the very crafty solipsistic arguments of George Berkeley could possibily be refuted, he didn't say a word.  Instead he looked down, and kicked a rock.

 

Then he said: "I refute it thusly."  Pretty simple, actually, eh?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...