Personal Topic

[marcospolo]

Of course. Just look at the twin paradox, for example.  Or the fact that he said a clock at the equator would run slower than one at the pole.  Many other examples, too.  He uses the notion of absolute motion to explain why simultaneity is "relative."  And of course that is done in his attempt to establish that motion is NOT absolute.  The concepts were all inconsistent from the get-go.

 

I'm not aware of any time where he expressly admitted that, though.  Do you have a passage in mind?  Why do you say that?

 

I agree that he pretty much said it indirectly, but not directlly.  He directly admitted, for example, that the speed of light is not invariant in GR (not that he could successfully deny it).  He also said that he was not justified in trying to force his GR spacetime to "reduce to" the flat spacetime of SR at low speeds in an attempt to "salvage" SR.

I must have read it somewhere, I'm not into collecting snippets of info to later use to beat up others arguments. I am just interested in this subject for my own amusement. Does not matter what others think. Nothing i say is going to influence anyone away from their own ideas.

[marcospolo]

Chem never says a word about SR, let alone does he "ramble on" about it.  He just comes around every now and again to denounce everyone as a "crank" without ever attempting to point out a single instance where he believes someone is wrong or has made a bad argument.

true, I was maybe just lumping everyone here into three camps, the Relativists, the Absolutists, basically that's just Moronium but I have a foot in there too, , and the one person who thinks that something is still not right with it all. That's me.

[Moronium]

He uses the notion of absolute motion to explain why simultaneity is "relative."  And of course that is done in his attempt to establish that motion is NOT absolute.  The concepts were all inconsistent from the get-go.

 

In that example he says the train passenger is "equally entitled" to claim that he is the one at rest.  Several immediate problems with this:

 

1. Why is that?  He doesn't say why, really, he just says it.  That's not a "scientific" claim at all.  It's a philosophical position.

 

2.  As a physical matter, the train passenger is clearly not "equally entitled" to claim he's at rest.  Einstein later does, at one point, admit this, but he tries to gloss it over by resorting to his "philosophical" stance.

 

3.  In his system (SR), the train passenger is NOT equally entitled to presume that his frame is moving.  He MUST (not just arbitrarily choose to) declare himself to be "at rest."  So the two frames are not so "equivalent" after all, eh?

 

If ever taken literally (it never is, in practice), the train passenger would never ask what time the train stops in Chicago.  He would ask what time Chicago stops HERE?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

In that example he says the train passenger is "equally entitled" to claim that he is the one at rest.  Several immediate problems with this:

 

1. Why is that?  He doesn't say why, really, he just says it.  That's not a "scientific" claim at all.  It's a philosophical position.

 

2.  As a physical matter, the train passenger is clearly not "equally entitled" to claim he's at rest.  Einstein does, at one point, admit this, but he tries to gloss it over by resorting to his "philosophical" stance.

 

3.  In his system (SR), the train passenger is NOT equally entitled to presume that his frame is moving.  He MUST (not just arbitrarily choose to) declare himself to be "at rest."  So the two frames are not so "equivalent" at all, eh?

 

If ever taken literally (it never is, in practice) the train passenger would never ask what time the train stops in Chicago.  He would ask what time Chicago stops HERE.

And once again, you are totally correct. No rational argument can counter the simple facts here. Yet they do argue, but not rationally.

 

I doubt that one can call Einstein's claims that the train guy can call himself stationary, as being a philosophic point of view, its just error, plain and simple.

And placing the guy in a spaceship does not change the situation either, as you have pointed out in earlier posts.

 

But why do Relativists always just skip over this clear contradiction between SR and reality?

Certainly they have never supplied any rational response to justify their beliefs on this point.

 

It's a mystery how religious dogma can have such a blinding effect on its adherents.

[Moronium]

But why do Relativists always just skip over this clear contradiction between SR and reality?

Certainly they have never supplied any rational response to justify their beliefs on this point.

 

 

 

There are a number of explanations for this (not that I think they're good ones).  Take Chem, for example.  He thinks SR explains "more" than an alternative view does, when it actually explains nothing at all.  He likes thinking along the lines of "principles," not facts.

 

As a mathematical matter it greatly simplifies things.  Beyond that, for mathematicians, it has an amazing aesthetic "beauty" to it.

 

Because they have been taught to think so, SR disciples are often under  the woefully mistaken impression that SR has been "proven" to be true, whereas Lorentz's view has been "proven" to be false. This is basically where their unshakable "faith" in SR comes from in most cases.

 

Then there is the philosophical disposition to consider.  At the time he invented SR, Einstein was a devout disciple of Mach's philosophical positivism.  In that context, SR kinda seems to "make more sense."  Einstein later utterly rejected this philosophical view, but it was too late by then for him to counter the  philosophy of science that Mach exemplified.  Due in large part to SR, it had taken over scientific thought.  It has since been almost universally rejected as a viable philosophy of science, but, that said, many still tacitly adhere to it.

 

There are other reasons, such as saving the time-honored "principle of relativity" from further questioning.  And other reasons that are more historical accidents than anything.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I doubt that one can call Einstein's claims that the train guy can call himself stationary, as being a philosophic point of view, its just error, plain and simple.

 

 

Well, you're not alone, by any means.   Actually that's the way most SR disciples think.  They want to deny that there is any element of (quasi-religious) philosophy to their claims, and assert that it's all a matter of fact.

 

But I disagree with your viewpoint, as do many others,

 

Even a guy who says "I don't believe in philosophy--it's all speculative bullshit" is, ipso facto, adopting a philosophical position without realizing it.

 

That's another huge difficulty that arises when speaking to SR disciples.  The hardest preconceptions to overcome are those which a guy denies he even has.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Ive posted my revision of this ideas, dumbed down so you can follow, as apparently you are having trouble keeping up.

 

 

Your typical sneer, eh?  It would be impossible to "dumb down" what that guy said.  It's as dumb as it gets.

 

Look, even if he had said (which he didn't):  "First, I want to make it clear that I believe in absolute time. For me, that is the absolute truth. Now then...."

 

The "now then" part would still be utterly ridiculous.  Maybe his middle initial is short for "Crackhead," which may or may not be better than "Crank."

 

I have no idea why you think this guy articulates, in that video clip, some view that YOU hold.  I can only surmise that he is something of a hero of yours, who you feel obligated to defend.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Cranks who can't do math are more authentic, that's the differentiiator.

 

 

No, not really.  In fact most of the guys I see who claim that they have "proven relativity wrong," whip out convoluted math analyses which they say proves Einstein wrong.  Then some competent mathematician easily points out the flaws in their arguments.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Your typical sneer, eh?  It would be impossible to "dumb down" what that guy said.  It's as dumb as it gets.

 

Look, even if he had said (which he didn't):  "First, I want to make it clear that I believe in absolute time. For me, that is the absolute truth. Now then...."

 

The "now then" part would still be utterly ridiculous.  Maybe his middle initial is short for "Crackhead," which may or may not be better than "Crank."

 

I have no idea why you think this guy articulates, in that video clip, some view that YOU hold.  I can only surmise that he is something of a hero of yours, who you feel obligated to defend.

I'm no fan of this guy, he looks a bit creepy. I just turned off the screen and listened to what he was trying to say, as far as I could discern.

Two days ago was the first time I had seen his video, and Ive not watched the other one, maybe there are even more...

I always took his view to mean exactly that Time is Absolute, and NOW is now everywhere.

As I agree with that, and additionally cant see value in the LT idea, and neither does he, I thought he may have some points worth considering.

However, although you also believe in Absolute Time, you do believe in LT so are not much interested in his ideas.

 

The sneer is mandatory is it not? I thought it was part of the forum rules.

[Moronium]

Another reason why SR disciples are so devoted, I think, is that they think it let's them pose as superior intellects who are the only ones capable of grasping "ultimate truth."  Only they are wise enough to transcend "common sense" and embrace the real truth.  They ridicule those who do otherwise as simplistic and naive.

 

It's like a mystical cult in possession of rare and esoteric metaphysical truth, sho nuff.  Be there, or be square.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I agree with that, and additionally cant see value in the LT idea, and neither does he....you do believe in LT so are not much interested in his ideas..

 

 

Did you ever read that paper you said you were going to "digest?"

[Moronium]

The chemist identifies the LT as the scourge of all modern science, which needs to be abolished.  He is on a crusade to expose it as fraudulent.  It is, indeed, the root of all evil.  The Devil, you might say, which he feels duty-bound to destroy.

 

Unfortunately, the chemist has no sense of nuance or sophistication in distinguishing concepts.  Witness, for example, his inability to discern time from the hands on clocks.

 

It never even occurs to him that he may have misidentified the true source of the problem (or you either, it seems).

 

He's probably unaware that there are alternative theories of relative motion (which also employ the LT) which posit absolute time.  He's like the SR  disciples he opposes in that sense.  It's the "only game in town," he thinks.

 

We've probably all seen movies where the audience is subtly, but distinctly and consistently, led to conclude that a certain character in the movie is the "villain" who is secretly responsible for all the horrendous events which occur. The evidence against him just keeps piling up. Then, at the end, it turns out that he was the good guy all along.  Often it is actually the seemingly "sweet, innocent" one who is the real culprit.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Did you ever read that paper you said you were going to "digest?"

I downloaded it, but as Ive just moved to a new house, there is little time, still lots to do here.

Ill have a read on Friday when i'm on duty on at the local Museum. It's often quite.

[marcospolo]

The chemist identifies the LT as the scourge of all modern science, which needs to be abolished.  He is on a crusade to expose it as fraudulent.  It is, indeed, the root of all evil.  The Devil, you might say, which he feels duty-bound to destroy.

 

Unfortunately, the chemist has no sense of nuance or sophistication in distinguishing concepts.  Witness, for example, his inability to discern time from the hands on clocks.

 

It never even occurs to him that he may have misidentified the true source of the problem (or you either, it seems).

 

He's probably unaware that there are alternative theories of relative motion (which also employ the LT) which posit absolute time.  He's like the SR  disciples he opposes in that sense.  It's the "only game in town," he thinks.

I'm not sure you are allowing him to think that time and clocks are distinct. His argument depends on Absolute time, not absolute clocks, even though he uses Einsteins clock scenario, its only used because people are already familiar with it. It seems to me that he necessarily knows that clocks are not time. Not only is he anti LT but clearly he is very opposed to SR and probably GR to boot. He is putting his claim that LT has a problem to RELATIVISTS, who think in terms of clocks, which is pulled directly from Einsteins own paper.

 

Anyway, as I suggested, forget the Chemist, (which is Physics anyway) and just respond to my statements on a similar vein.

But Im not worried if you do or not. Seems that there are now only the two of us nuts in this topic anyway, the Relativists have all gone to church.

Edited February 14, 2019 by marcospolo

[Moronium]

Anyway, as I suggested, forget the Chemist, (which is Physics anyway) and just respond to my statements on a similar vein.

 

 

 

I've responded.  Repeatedly.  Over, and over, and over again.  Virtually ad infinitum, you might say.  You don't seem to pay the slightest attention to any of it.

 

Your idea of a "thoughtful response" to what I say seems primarily be to re-assert, even more vociferously than the last time, that the LT are senseless and "impossible."

 

Apparently the only thing you would accept from me as being a "response," would be for me to say.  "I agree completely!  You're absolutely right!  The LT sucks."

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I mean, really, Marco, what is your great alternative assessment?  Boiled down, it seems to be that:

 

1.  The ticking rates of clocks cannot change, and any apparent empirical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, it just doesn't happen.

 

2.  Therefore all clocks tick at the same rate, at least if they're not defective.

 

Sounds like the chemist, sho nuff.

 

And yet you appear to claim that you are able to make a distinction between "time itself" and clocks.

 

You also appear to concede that the ticking rates of clocks can change with gravity.  This at least concedes that external conditions can affect internal clock ticking rates.  But how do you explain that variety of "time dilation?"  Without an explanation it's "impossible," right?

 

Even using the phrase "time dilation" reveals a confusion of clocks with time, but it is built into the vernacular these days.

 

My position makes a distinction.  I say that, although clocks rate do vary with speed, that has no effect on time itself, nor does "time itself" affect clocks. Clock retardation does not occur because "time" slows down.

 

I also think I can also rationally reject the proposition that my dog pissing on the lawn is the cause of "time dilation."

 

I'm comfortable with saying what does not cause "time dilation" even if I can't precisely say what does.

 

I suppose I could say that "speed" causes time dilation.  But only because there seems to be an invariable correlation between the two.  That doesn't "explain" it.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I mean, really, Marco, what is your great alternative assessment? 

 

In another sense, you can be seen as ratifying and adopting the Minkowski view.  From a rational viewpoint, the LT effects on clocks and rods must be seen as strictly illusory (non-existent) in that interpretation.   Like you, they need to say that clocks do NOT slow down, if they are to be consistent.  Same with length contraction.

 

Per Minkowski, clocks do not "slow down," time does.  Rods do not contract, space does.

 

By trying to say there is no "physical meaning" to the LT, you (and the chemist) are putting yourself directly into their camp.

 

As I said to you at the get-go (not that you paid any attention), for many decades that was the accepted view of the LT by SR theorists, i.e. that the LT were strictly illusory phenomena.  It was only after empirical findings showed that the effects of the LT were actual and real that they were forced to change their tune.  But that concession also undercuts, and basically destroys, the whole Minkowski spacetime "geometrical" interpretation of SR.

 

Not that they will admit that.  As always, they just try to account for internal inconsistencies by hand-waving, then go on their merry way.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Moronium