Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) wow that post clearly shows you do not understand SR at all. The Lorentz trasforms does nothing to state one observer is truly at rest. It simply sets the observer at rest for matheematical convenience. Perhaps if you bothered to understand the math you would understand how this simplifies the ratio of change between Alice's reference frame to Bob's reference frame. That is the ONLY purpose of the transformation. To establish the ratio of change between two reference frames. You are basing your entire argument off a false and incorrect understanding. Here is a VERY simple analogy. Take a sheet of graph paper, then compare it to another sheet of graph paper whose squares are a different size. What is the RATIO of difference between the two graph papers ? This is the Lorentz transform. It is giving the ratio of change between graph A and graph B which only affects the x and ct coordinate lines. It doesn't matter which graph paper you use as a base zero value as you are only showing the Difference between the two graphs NOTHING MORE> Maybe this will help. Have you ever studied drafting ? [math]\gamma[/math] is NOTHING more than a scale factor.... it scales between one coordinate change to another coordinate change in an identical manner as the Draftsman ruler with a scale 1:2 Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) With the above, the Lorentz does not treat any event as special, or privileged it simply compares the two reference frames and describes the change in ratio between them. Lets use a simpler example of another scale factor application the scale factor a in cosmology. Want to know how easy this one is to understand ? A grade 1 student can easily understand this one. I have two volumes. A and B I will use radius to set each volume. A will be radius at time now. [math] R[/math] I will set B to be some past volume and I will give it a time derivative just to show it isn't at time now. [math]a=\frac{\dot{R}}{R}[/math] so if the radius at [math]\dot{R}[/math] is half the radius as the radius today then the scale factor (a) is 0.5. There is no privileged frame required to describe this, There is no need for one. [math]\gamma[/math] is precisely the same application. It is the ratio of change in the x and ct coordinates between two graphs. Just as the previous example you do not require a privileged frame to describe this ratio of change. Nor does it matter which frame you use as a reference. It does not state one frame is an eather or privileged frame. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) The Lorentz trasforms does nothing to state one observer is truly at rest. It simply sets the observer at rest for matheematical convenience. No need to address all the presumptuous, condescending "instruction" you so graciously offered in the remainder of this post. I've never disputed any of that. But thanks for finally conceding the only claim I've been making all along (but which has been uniformly denied by posters here, including you), eh? SR has nothing to with anything "truly" at rest. It has no actual correspondence to anything in physical, objective reality. As Lorentz (and many others, then and now) said, over a century ago, "local" time is merely a convenient mathematical fiction. It is not "true" time. 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) With the above, the Lorentz does not treat any event as special, or privileged it simply compares the two reference frames and describes the change in ratio between them. You might be better off to confine your comments to something you understand, eh? Lorentzian relativity doesn't seem to be one of those things. The essential difference between PFT's, which posit a "privileged" frame, and SR is that SR absolutely and categorically prohibits a preferred frame. To do so would be to commit suicide for SR. It would visit a "complete disaster" on the theory, like the Harvard prof said. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Considering I understand the math where you obviously don't you might want to look in the mirror on your last post. SR does not have a privileged frame of reference period. It is the Ratio of change between two frames period. Gamma is a parameter of proportionality between two frames. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Try this Galilean transform[math]\acute{x}=x-vt[/math][math]\acute{y}=y[/math][math]\acute{z}=z[/math] [math]\acute{t}=t[/math] The laws of physics is the same in each reference frame. The above represents Alice and Bobs frame of reference. The ratio of change between Alice and Bob is the Lorentz transform. Lorentz transforms [math]\acute{x}=\gamma(x-vt)[/math][math]\acute{y}=y[/math][math]\acute{z}=t[/math][math]\acute{t}=\gamma(t-\frac{vx}{c^2})[/math] the transforms are specifically the changes to the Galilean transformations when comparing frames when looking at their own frame the Galilean transforms apply directly. It is the relativistic CORRECTIONS to the Galilean transformation rules. BOTH Alice and Bobs frame uses precisely the same transformation rules under Galilean laws so neither is privileged. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) 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. Has it begun to dawn on you, in the least, why I said that math is not physics; that math doesn't not offer any insight into the plausibility of your starting premises; and that you must FIRST understand the concepts at stake before EVER trying to quantify them? The SR formulas, which you have so religiously insisted reflect "truth," merely affirm the postulates, and incorporate them, before you ever haul out a calculator. Punching the numbers in won't tell you anything about what's "true" beyond what you've already assumed is true, and have programmed into your biased "formula." SR's application of the LT is rigged from the get-go. As soon as you begin to unthinkingly apply it, you are far beyond the point of analyzing SR's (highly dubious) premises. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) You really are a friggen idiot aren't you. The very statement of the SR premises are directly derived by the math I just showed. Ignoring it is discounting the very application it is used in. However that's your tactic isn't it whenever you can't defeat an argument that involves something you didn't understand in SR you want to ignore the math which is where the application of those premises directly derive from in the first place.... You can't counter the math arguments as you refuse to even understand how they apply to the premises of SR. Instead you yarn on and on about how it involves privileged observers and ignore the mathematical proof that it DOES NOT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS IS THE SAME in each reference frame = no preferred frame idiot. You keep trying to apply the premise of preference to one frame over the other which is not SR. Then argue the invalidity of SR by that false argument. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Considering I understand the math where you obviously don't you might want to look in the mirror on your last post. SR does not have a privileged frame of reference period. Again, you misunderstand everything I've ever said on this topic. If you actually read any of them, that is. SR CLAIMS there are, and can be, no privileged frames. I never said it is right, I just acknowledged the fact that it made this clam. But it quickly repudiates it's own claims. In every calculation anticipated by SR there is ALWAYS a preferred frame, notwithstanding its disingenuous denial that they exist. That frame is always the frame YOU are in. YOU are the aether, in SR. In similar fashion, SR also purports to claim that all inertial frames are equivalent and "equally valid," but it also quickly renounces that claim. If I'm a passenger on a train, and a trackside observer's frame just as "valid" as mine, then why am I not free, in SR, to assume that he is the one at rest? It's seem that, in practice, some frames are just a little more "equal" than others, eh? Kinda like the pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm." ya know? Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) I am correctng your false assertions in your logic arguments period. If all laws of physics is the same in each reference frame then no reference frame has a privilege. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 THE LAWS OF PHYSICS IS THE SAME in each reference frame = no preferred frame idiot. Rave on, Fundie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Yeah next tactic of the lame. Face it your claiming false assertions to SR then trying to falsify it because you refuse to understand it properly in the first place. You can't defeat my argument so you resort to other tactics simple as that. You and I are both sitting at our computers having this conversation. We are both at different reference frames (notice that single word....do you not think its important ? REFERENCE (oh my maybe I was right that the transforms compare between frames by that very simple word...... If the laws of physics are identical for both you and I at our computers is there any way to identify a priori or preference between you and I ? Think about signal propogation delay and forget SR for a moment. We will never see how much time has elapsed between us typing on the computers and you receiving the information. There is a time delay as it is not instantly transferred. So how will we know unless we compare...the two frames for time of events transmit and receive. If no spacetime curvature (which in reality at extremely finite scales there is always some miniscule portion) time dilation does occur between particles to some degree. Then there is no need for a TRANSFORMATION If the two Galilean frames are identical in all laws of physics no transformation is required Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) I am correctng your false assertions in your logic arguments period. If all laws of physics is the same in each reference frame then no reference frame has a privilege. That's strictly an unproven" if," and what you're claiming has nothing to do with the "logic" of anything I've said. How quickly you all revert to the tacit assumption that SR is a "proven fact" rather than a compilation of unproven hypothetical premises, eh? Beyond that, it is a woeful misapprehension to assume that if two frames have the "same laws of physics," then they are "equivalent" for all purposes and that therefore one can never be preferred over the other. A very shallow, uninformed, and dogmatic view, I'm afraid. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) Oh really Why would you need a privelege frame if everything is identical between your frame and mine? can you answer that? How would you identify a difference between frames ? Can you answer that as it certainly isn't shallow but of significant importance. You don't even need a transform to begin with if everything is identical between your frame and mine. How can you call that a shallow view when a transformation between frames is not required if the two frames are identical in all laws of physics for every formula in physics.... (no transform one formula to another required) no time correction nor length contraction affects any formula involving any distinguishable set of events between your frame or mine. NO relativistic correction via transformation required hence no need to set a privileged frame for a transformation if the transform isn't needed. No way to establish a privileged frame if a transform is required either except through arbitrary choice. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) ...you want to ignore the math which is where the application of those premises directly derive from in the first place.... As I suspected, and said before, you actually think that the postulates of SR are derived from the math, rather than vice versa. You demonstrate that you understand absolutely nothing about theoretical physics when you make such statements. Because you are so naive, you have no way of comprehending just how naive you are. You're utterly confused, sorry. Edited July 21, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 For your CMB case the laws of physics is identical to now. As a matter of detail the CMB is surrounding you even today..... It never went away so what time period would you arbitrarily set for a priveleged reference frame with regards to time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 21, 2018 Report Share Posted July 21, 2018 (edited) As I suspected, and said before, you actually think that the postulates of SR are derived from the math, rather than vice versa. You demonstrate that you understand absolutely nothing about theoretical physics when you make such statements. Because you are so naive, you have no way of comprehending just how naive you are. You're utterly confused, sorry. You don't even respond to my logic arguments so give me that cop out. You haven't found a way to correct any of my statements nor falsify them even with logic so don't hand me I'm only arguing math. I have also provided you logic arguments. Edited July 21, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts