Jump to content
Science Forums

The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists


Recommended Posts

 

If "theory A" claims that "grass is green" because "God painted it green" the fact that I can prove that grass is green does absolutely nothing to prove theory A.

 

 

Formally, this is known as the fallacy of "affirming the consequent."  It might take this form:

 

1.  If the god Mercury were pulling the sun across the sky with a team of horses, then the sun would move from east to west.

2.  The sun does move from east to west.

3.  Therefore it has been proven that Mercury is dragging the sun across the sky every day.

 

Unfortunately, all naive claims that a "scientific" theory has been "proven to be true" are merely forms of this fallacy.

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

When we say that an empirical experiment "confirms" theory A, we are not saying that it "proves" theory A.  We are simply saying that the empirical findings are not inconsistent with theory A.  Finding that "grass is green" would not prove the theory that is it green because God painted it green.

 

It would, however, "confirm" that theory.

 

So, obviously, "confirmation," in and of itself, says very little about the "truth" of a theory.  And this is especially true when the supposed "confirmation" is of a fact that is far from unique to a particular theory.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

The following excerpts are from a paper by László E. Szabó entitled 'Lorentzian theories vs. Einsteinian special relativity – a logico-empiricist reconstruction;"

 

 

It is widely believed that the principal difference between Einstein’s special relativity and its contemporary rival Lorentz-type theories was...that special relativity revealed more fundamental new facts about the geometry of space-time behind these phenomena....According to this widespread view, special relativity was, first of all, a radically new theory about space and time. A theory about space and time describes a certain group of objective features of physical reality, which we call (the structure of) spacetime.

 

This is however not the case...Special relativity does not tell us anything new about space and time.  The Lorentz theory and special relativity are identical theories of space and time.

 

Although special relativity does not tell us anything new about space and time, both special relativity and the Lorentz theory enrich our knowledge of the physical world with the physics of objects moving at constant velocities—in accordance with the title of Einstein’s original 1905 paper. The essential physical content of their discoveries is that physical objects suffer distortions when they are accelerated from one inertial frame to the other, and that these distortions satisfy some uniform laws.

 

According to the conventionalist thesis, the Lorentz theory and Einstein’s special relativity are two alternative scientific theories which are equivalent on empirical level (see Friedman 1983, p. 293; Einstein 1983, p. 35). Due to this empirical underdeterminacy, the choice between these alternative theories is based on external aspects. (Cf. Zahar 1973; Grünbaum 1974; Friedman 1983; Brush 1999; Janssen 2002.)

 

Due to the popular/textbook literature on relativity theory, there is a widespread aversion to a privileged reference frame.  However, like it or not, there is a privileged reference frame in both special relativity and classical physics. It is the frame of reference in which the etalons are at rest. This privileged reference frame, however, has nothing to do with the concepts of “absolute rest” or the aether; it is not privileged by nature, but it is privileged by the trivial semantical convention providing meanings for the terms “distance” and "time."

 

It cannot be too strongly emphasized that there is no getting away from preferred operations and unique standpoint in physics; the unique physical operations in terms of which interval has its meaning afford one example, and there are many others also. (Bridgman 1936, p. 83)

 

Many of those, like Einstein himself (see Point 25), who admit the “empirical equivalence” of the Lorentz theory and special relativity argue that the latter is “incomparably more satisfactory” (Einstein) because it has no reference to the aether....I want to clarify that Lorentz’s aether hypothesis is logically independent from the actual physical content of the Lorentz theory.

 

 

 

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9896/1/leszabo-lorein-preprint.pdf

 

I have quoted some of the conclusions drawn by Szabo in this lengthy paper, which states in detail his basis for drawing these conclusions.  Those interested should read the entire paper.

 

Many say that SR and LR are "the same theory."  In many senses this is true.  Both use the Lorentz Transforms and the LT are at the heart of each theory.

 

This guy is saying that from a logical (as opposed to ideological) standpoint, they are the same.  

 

SR, even if "true," does not say anything new about space and time, according to this guy.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with even trying to discuss SR is that there are multiple versions of it, and people start taking bits and pieces from different versions, when they are not compatible.  Without great care, it's never even clear what the topic (SR) even is.

 

Szabo's paper addresses the "modern" version of SR (i.e. Einstein's original, 1905, interpretation of SR).  As I have noted before, a minkowskian version later came to prevail for a period of 30-40 years until it was basically empirically disproven.  That version held that clock retardation and length contraction were mere illusions and did not "actually" happen.  Once it was shown, by experiments using more advanced technology, that time dilation was "real," Bondi, Robertson and other physicists had to scramble to come up with an interpretation of SR which did not contradict the facts.  In the end they had to settle for what was basically a (limited) version of Lorentzian relativity.

 

It was that (now discredited) version of SR that denied that "clocks slowed down" but instead claimed, very mystically, that "time" slowed down. Lengths didn't contract, but rather "space" changed.  This DID give rise to some claims about space and time changing.  But again, it has long since been shown that the LT do correspond to actual physical changes (to objects, such as clocks and rods, that is, not abstractions like "space" and "time"), so that "interpretation" of SR is now obsolete and rejected as being inconsistent with empirical observations.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Years before Einstein (1901, as I recall), Poincare made the observation that you could, by employing Lorentz's transforms, achieve a "subjective" form of the relativity principle if each observer was, and remained,  ignorant of his own motion.  In that case, all observers would measure the speed of light to be the same, and there would be no way to discern one inertial frame from another.

 

For Poincare, this was merely a curious observation.  It was based on ignorance and had nothing to do will objective reality, in his view.  Such observers were mistakenly equating what Lorentz called "local time," with actual, or "standard" time.

 

Lorentz created the concept of local time, but, like Poincare, attributed no physical significance to it.  For him it was just a fictitious device which could be profitably used as a calculational shortcut.  It was a "mathematical trick," no more, no less.

 

Then Einstein came along and said that "local time" was "true time."  Voila!  SR had been created, with all it's solipsistic implications.

 

Neither Poincare nor Lorentz ever believed SR had any relationship to physical reality.  But this was NOT because they didn't understand it.   They were the ones who came up with the ideas to begin with.  They "understood" what Einstein was saying perfectly.  They just didn't think it had anything to do with physical reality.  In their view, the theory was not physics, but rather metaphysics.They were NOT solipsists, so they weren't good prospects for recruitment to the club which marvelled at the "truth" of SR.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted Yesterday, 03:22 PM

Quote

 

However, like it or not, there is a privileged reference frame in both special relativity and classical physics. It is the frame of reference in which the etalons are at rest. This privileged reference frame, however, has nothing to do with the concepts of “absolute rest” or the aether; it is not privileged by nature, but it is privileged by the trivial semantical convention providing meanings for the terms “distance” and "time."

 

 

 

http://philsci-archi...in-preprint.pdf

 

You could easily view Newton's notion of "absolute'" time, or "true" time as basically synonymous with "standard time."  That's what I take this author to be saying here.  The "true" time is not whatever my wristwatch happens to say, whether it's fast, slow, or both at different times.

 

If the standards we use to set or "establish" a common time say it is now 5 P.M. and my watch says it's 5:05 P.M. then I reset my watch to match the "true" or "correct" time.  Standards, however arbitrary, are absolutely essential to any kind of scientific endeavor.  That's essentially what a preferred frame of reference does, i.e. it sets a common standard so meaningful comparisons can be made.

 

That makes time "absolute."  NOT in the sense of being universally applicable, but in the scientific sense of being frame-independent, not frame dependent (aka "relative").  All frames acknowledge one frame as "the standard."  Then there are no more endless disputes about whose watch is "right."  By mutual agreement the time in the preferred frame is deemed to be "right."

 

It's done every day in every branch of science.  Why should SR be different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim made by SR is that nothing can exceed the speed of light.  Is this "true?"  Let's see how that works out.

 

Let's say that, by some fixed standard, object A is going 100 times the speed of light.  Impossible, right?  No, because A is still going 0 mph according to SR.  He is not moving in "his" frame.

 

Well, but if A is going 0 mph, then, from his perspective, things are passing him at 100 times the speed of light.  Impossible, right?

 

No, because all those things that "seem," to him, to be going 100 times the speed of light are actually going 0 mph.   Just ask them.

 

So nobody is exceeding the speed of light here.  By constantly shifting standards, it is indeed impossible for anything to ever exceed the speed of light.  Everybody is going 0 mph, by their standards.  And everybody is right, because all frames are equally valid.

 

If you don't find this to be a reasonable position, then you are just a damn fool who hasn't heard the news.  Newton was WRONG!!  There is no "absolute" time or "absolute" motion.   Try understanding for a change, dumbass. All motion is RELATIVE, get it?  Go take a class in SR.  They'll school your sorry butt, and they'll school it good.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if your devotion to relativism extends to moral relativism?  Like, for example, ISIS members may believe that it's not only "right," but actually demanded by God, that they chop off the heads of babies by the hundreds, maybe?  No one can be said to be right or wrong about their personal preferences.  No action is better or worse than another.  All views are equally valid, and a person who tortures, mulilates, sexually molests, and then kills a child is "right," in his mind and therefore beyond question or reproach--you believe that kind of tihng, too?

 Oh, FFS.  I started reading this thread knowing I was diving into a shithole, but I didn't imagine how bad it was.  I couldn't make it past the first page.  Relativity of position and motion as measured by different observers is not the same as moral relativism.  There is absolutely nothing that links the two other than the unique idiosyncrasies of the English language.  Stop being an idiot.  If your point of view requires lying to promote it, then it might not be useful.

Edited by JMJones0424
Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim made by SR is that nothing can exceed the speed of light.  Is this "true?"  Let's see how that works out.

 

Let's say that, by some fixed standard, object A is going 100 times the speed of light.  Impossible, right?  No, because A is still going 0 mph according to SR.  He is not moving in "his" frame.

 

Well, but if A is going 0 mph, then, from his perspective, things are passing him at 100 times the speed of light.  Impossible, right?

There is never a case that observer A is travelling one hundred times the speed of light, as no matter the speed the observer is traveling, the measured speed of light that observer A makes is the same as your measurement.  Velocity of the observer is not added or subtracted from the speed of light measured by the observer.  If you can't wrap your mind around this verifiable fact, then it's no surprise that you reject SR.  However, your claims are entirely without experimental support, and in fact, every experiment shows that your claim is false.

 

You simply do not understand reality, and in your ignorance, you continue to assert that things that are measurably false are true.  You are either an idiot or a liar.

 

SR accounts for the fact that c is constant regardless of one's velocity related to another's velocity.  The only way to square this is that time and distance are variables, since the speed of light verifiably isn't.  This, of course, has nothing to do with moral relativism, as it's an entirely different subject and only an absolute moron would insist that they are linked.

 

I'm quite upset that you would equate special relativity with moral relativity for no other reason than that they share a word in English.  The fact that you have done this is evidence that you understand nothing of either of the concepts or that you are willing to stretch your claim to encompass that which is absolutely irrelevant in order to shame others into accepting your point of view.  I used to think you were just an ignorant liar.  Now, I'm beginning to think you are something even worse.  I think you are a zealous idiot.

Edited by JMJones0424
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is never a case that observer A is travelling one hundred times the speed of light, as no matter the speed the observer is traveling,

 

 

 

Heh, you again, eh?  As always, you completely miss the point.  Substitute .5c for 100c.  Same difference.  Nobody moves if everybody is at rest.

 

And if EVERYBODY is ALWAYS "right" in their subjective perceptions, opinions, assumptions, and conclusions, then, yes, there is a strong analogy to moral relativism.  There simply are no objective standards.

 

A claims he is at rest.  So does B.

 

Tell me, JM, who's right?  A, or B?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, me again liar.  There is a significant difference between .5c and 100c, but in the case you've provided, I agree somewhat.  Nobody is moving if everyone is moving at the same velocity together.

 

And if everybody is always right in their relative motion to another observer when they are moving together, this says absoltuely nothing one way or the other about moral relativism

 

You are either an idiot or a liar.  My money is on liar.

 

If A is moving without acceleration and maintains a constant distance from B, then they are both at rest to each other.  A is a lying piece of ****, though, and will knowingly pervert his knowledge of physics to support his abhorrent political views.

 

EDIT: In fact, If you ignore the crap about moral relativism, then the difference between .5c and 100c is important, because c is a physical constant.  We could claim, accurately, that there's no fundamental difference between .5 feet and 100 feet.  Feet is not a physical constant.  The speed of light is, and it is because all observers, regardless of their velocity, measure the speed of light to be c.  So, you can't just wave your hand and say that there is no fundamental difference between .5c and 100c.

 

If we assume A and B measure a difference in velocity between them, then we know that this difference must be less than 1c, as if it was greater, then A would not be able to observe B and vice versa.  The way that A can explain B's movement and the way that B can describe A's movement is through a Lorentz transformation.  This is a fact that has been confirmed and continues to be confirmed, regardless of your idiotic assertions.   None of this, at all, has a lick to do with moral relativism.  If you continue to assert that it does, then you are a liar.

Edited by JMJones0424
Link to post
Share on other sites
If A is moving without acceleration and maintains a constant distance from B, then they are both at rest to each other.

 

 

 

Typical non sequitur from you.  How does that in any way address the question of the case where both A AND B say they are moving, relative to each other, and both claim that they are at rest and only the other is moving?

 

Who's right?  A, or B?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A is a lying piece of ****, though, and will knowingly pervert his knowledge of physics to support his abhorrent political views.

 

 

 

You're pretty good at getting outraged, eh, JM?  I haven't said a single words about politics, but, since you brought it up, perhaps you'd like to give us all a lecture about how poor, innocent MS-13 has been victimized by Trump, eh?

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nine pages of crap and you continue.

 

Assuming no one is accelerating, then both A and B are at rest.  If they are moving in respect to each other, then they can use a transformation to relate to each other's motion.  You would know this if you bothered to read any of the replies that were made to you.

 

Twittler is the worst thing to happen to this country since the Korean War.

 

Your grasp on physics is shockingly poor.  You have been given the tools to correct your ignorance.  If you fail to do so, then it is your choice alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, just answer the damn question, eh, JM?

 

Who's right, A or B?

 

Edit:  Well, I guess you did answer it, sorry:

 

...both A and B are at rest.

 

 

You have not said a single word about science.  You have, however, clearly indicated your metaphysical devotion to the ideology of solipsism.

Edited by Moronium
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the goddamn response moron.  Both are right.  A measures B to be moving in respect to A, and B measures A to be moving in respect to B.  They can agree upon their situations by using a Lorentz transformation.

 

If their relative movement is greater than 1c, though, then they can't know that the other exists, so a relative movement of 100c between them is just stupid.

Edited by JMJones0424
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...