Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Redshift isn't observation yet you didn't want to include that. Interference requires observation to have meaning. Observation has been included, and I discussed observation with you. Your response is it counts as evidence under science hence not applicable. You don't want observation you want believe Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 So, then, you don't understand the question, I see. This response is a complete non sequitur. And the example it came from was dealing with light clocks, NOT the measurement of a (irrelevant) doppler shift. So that's just a second way in which you demonstrate your lack of understanding. A third misconception is that "gravitational" redshifts are even involved. At best it would be redshifts caused by a difference in relative motion, not gravity. But, again, even that is not relevant. For a second time I'll give you a hint. The question is about raw sense perception versus deductions therefrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 If you really think you understand the question, then answer it, not some irrelevant question that was never asked. It's been like me asking you what time it is, and you "answering" by saying "my wife has red hair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) more blah blah get to the point Your right no one gets what your getting at. Perhaps there is a reason for that. try a different way to communicate it Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) This thread will probably get locked, Case Closed your theory is rejected by around 20 forum members, Review of your theory is closed as Rejected. This is in the hands of Buffy and Sanctus along with the other admin team, now, which did not lock your thread last time. Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) more blah blah get to the point Your right no one gets what your getting at. Perhaps there is a reason for that. try a different way to communicate it Let me state it as a demand for "evidence," since that's what you think you're dealing in You, and other posters here, claim that the phenomenon of viewing a distant light clock on an object which is moving relative to you reveals that it's clock is running slow. That's false, as even simple reflection will show. That is a (totally unwarranted) mental conclusion based on unproven premises, not sense perception. It is not an "observation.' It is a theoretical deduction. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 loved that episode Dubbelosix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) I'll put the essentially the same question in the context of a doppler shift for you even, how's that? Using appropriate instrumentation, and proper analysis of the information it provides, I determine that object B is moving at a speed of .5c relative to me. B does the same, and agrees with me about our relative speed. OK, that's great. We agree on something. What else does my instrumentation tell me? Does it tell me that I am the aether and that I am at compete and absolute rest, with the consequence that EVERYTHING else, in the entire universe, that is moving with respect to me is moving, while I remain at rest? No, a doppler shift does not, and and cannot, provide that information to me. And yet, according to SR, anyway, I "know" it to be true, somehow. How do I know it? Hint: This is not a question about math. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) I'll put the essentially the same question in the context of a doppler shift for you even, how's that? Using appropriate instrumentation, and proper analysis of the information it provides, I determine that object B is moving at a speed of .5c relative to me. B does the same, and agrees with me about our relative speed. OK, that's great. We agree on something. What else does my instrumentation tell me? Does it tell me that I am the aether and that I am at compete and absolute rest, with the consequence that EVERYTHING else, in the entire universe, that is moving with respect to me is moving, while I remain at rest? No, a doppler shift does not, and and cannot, provide that information to me. And yet I "know" it to be true, somehow. How do I know it? Well, you use Special Relativity to find all of that, which is a proper theory to use in these situations. B is moving a .5c relative to you, is what it says and you are in a rest frame along with everything in the universe is also moving at their non rest movements, END. Edited July 21, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Well, you use Special Relativity to find all of that, which is a proper theory to use in these situations. B is moving a .5c relative to you, is what it says and you are in a rest frame along with everything in the universe is also moving at their non rest movements, END. Many physicists, such as cosmologists employing the CMB as a preferred frame, and the theoreticians who helped devise the GPS by using the ECI as a preferred frame, would disagree that SR is the "proper theory to use in these situations." But, forget agreement. What is your answer? I take it to be: "I know it to be true because SR tells me I must believe it, and because I always obey the commands of SR." Right, Vic? It gets a little tautological, eh? "I know what SR says is true, because I know what SR says is true." Also known as the fallacy of "begging the question," i.e., "proving" your premises by assuming they're true, and then saying them all over again, as "proof." Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Let me come back to this paragraph again, one which induced Shus to start getting rhapsodical about math and SR: Let's say I'm on a moving train, passing a guy standing by the tracks. Let's say I believe I'm the one moving, not him. Let's say I understand SR. Under those circumstances I would conclude that my (not his) watch is running slower. If he also assumes that he is not moving, then he will reach the same conclusion that I do (mine's slower, his is faster). There is no "reciprocity" about it, now. We don't disagree about whose watch is running slower, we agree. What would SR say about this? BUZZ! WRONG! ALERT! VIOLATION! PROHIBITED THOUGHT! Me: What!? What did I so, SR? SR: You done bad, boy, that's what! Don't ever, EVER, I SAY, think that you are moving. EVER! Got it, boy? That is a blasphemous thought. I guess this must somehow be related to what David Morin, the Harvard physics prof that I quoted, said. He said it would be a COMPLETE DISASTER for SR, as a theory, if two observers did not make mutually exclusive claims about their own state of motion. Not sure how, exactly, though. Can anyone help explain this to me? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) The great thing was, SR was not really the ultimate work of Einstein, but an expression of his creation. There were many authors that came to the conclusions that Einstein portrayed in his take of relativity theory. He got all the pieces and put them altogether. Einstein was a genius, no doubt about it. But he was under duress when he proposed SR. According to his own account, he had been struggling for 8 years to somehow reconcile Galilean relativity with Maxwell's laws and the finding that time slowed down with motion. He was, he said, finally ready to give up. But he kept clinging to his strong philosophical conviction that, for the sake of simplicity and symmetry, the laws of physics MUST be the same in all frames. So he finally decided to just haul off and DECLARE it to be the case. Unfortunately, he had to settle for inertial frames only. A disappointment to him (which he planned to somehow correct later), but it was better than nothing. For a variety of reasons, he was never satisfied with SR as a theory. He later admitted that, at the time, he was a devout disciple of Ernst Mach, the positivist. He also later admitted that positivism was "nonsense" and came to ridicule Mach's positivistic philosophy of science. Well, so what? No one's perfect, eh? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) I guess this must somehow be related to what David Morin, the Harvard physics prof that I quoted, said. He said it would be a COMPLETE DISASTER for SR, as a theory, if two observers did not make mutually exclusive claims about their own state of motion. Not sure how, exactly, though. Can anyone help explain this to me? No one? My math aint so hot, can one of you expert mathematicians help? If the train passenger and the trackside observer actually agreed that one of them (the guy by the tracks) had the faster watch and the other (the train passenger) had the slower one, would they both still measure the speed of light to be the same in their respective frames? If not, would that be a "complete disaster" for the theory of special relativity? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Polymath Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 No one? My math aint so hot, can one of you expert mathematicians help? If the train passenger and the trackside observer actually agreed that one of them (the guy by the tracks) had the faster watch and the other (the train passenger) had the slower one, would they both still measure the speed of light to be the same in their respective frames? If not, would that be a "complete disaster" for the theory of special relativity?Alright enough bashing you there are superluminal exchanges in nature mathematically described here Before that model breaks the news and is made public as the big bang killer, I'll describe real tachyons without math: Now you's 006 discussion here about galaxies flying apart faster than light because the expansion of the spacetime continuum exceeds the velocity of light from our point of view. Well that's actually how particle pairs become entangled. The metric (a numerical value referring distance divided by time like 6 miles per hour) is changing for the speed of light where a distance isn't actually proportional to a time over very small distances because an electron for example has a denser charge than a particle of light. These are the fabric of spacetime distorting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 ...the peer view committee has voted to reject your theory, sorry, it is not plausible that SR is wrong. Well, I guess there's just no need to waste any time with math when you already know what the answer is, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) The Lorentz transform was invented by Lorentz, but that is NOT what SR uses. In SR the v (velocity) is relative. In Lorentz's theory it is absolute. HUGE difference, notwithstanding that the FORM (but not the substance) of the formula is exactly the same. What-say we take a little closer look at the holy, omnipotent, and infallible Math involved here, eh? Both SR and a PFT tell you that it is only the moving clock which runs slow. So what is the difference, mathematically, between the two theories? Lorentz's equations, while telling you that only the moving clocks run slow, do not, and cannot, by themselves, ever tell you which of two given objects is the one moving slower. You'll have to figure that out for yourself, by some other means. Math aint quite so omnipotent in his scheme. SR altered Lorentz's transforms (not in form, but in permissible applications of the formula), to suit its purposes. In SR's scheme the answer to an empirical question like "which one is moving faster?" is no longer an empirical question. The MATH answers it for you, all conveniently in advance. This makes it easier, because such potentially difficult empirical questions are eliminated. It's kinda like magic, know what I'm sayin? Now, with SR, you know that you are the aether. A nice side benefit to this is being told that you're *very* special, eh? Now, that's my kinda omnipotent deity, sho nuff! Now the entire universe revolves around ME! MATH akbar! Aint that right, Censorhip Crew!? It's kinda your holy obligation to defend the world from any heretic who would DARE suggest that the entire universe doesn't revolve around YOU. I can understand that. Maybe some 9/11 style attacks should be made on any university which aids, abets, and harbors some criminal infidel blasphemer who denies the TRUTH of SR, eh? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts