Relativists Vs Absolutists

[ralfcis]

1 is 2 letters longer.

[Moronium]

Yeah, that's the basic difference, sho nuff!  You wouldn't know "basic" from "baseball."

[Amplituhedron]

This is all so incredibly asinine. Which is it, Moronium? The ECI is the “preferred” frame? The CBR? What? Do tell!

 

Mo doesn’t understand that in general relativity, all coordinate systems are equally valid, because NONE of them are absolutely at rest. You can do your calculations from a frame in which it is presumed that the sun orbits the earth, and that’s fine! The calculations will be harder, but they will work — just like Ptolemy’s calcs were perfectly valid and used correctly for more than a thousand years!

 

When the ECI or CBR is used, they are “preferred” for ease of calculation, and NOT because they are privileged in the sense of the theory of relativity barring such “privileged” frames. Using ECI or CBR does NOT violate relativity — it CONFIRMS it!

 

Gawd!

[ralfcis]

And you, Moronium, don't know literal from literate because you'd see my answer was the perfect answer to your question. I said 1 is longer than the other. Your #1 is nonsense. There is no such thing as a tree six ft taller unless you compare it to something. That's why you don't understand what relative means, or perspective or slopislipryslopism or anything else you read. Learn up but learn how to comprehend what you read first.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

You can do your calculations from a frame in which it is presumed that the sun orbits the earth, and that’s fine! The calculations will be harder, but they will work — just like Ptolemy’s calcs were perfectly valid and used correctly for more than a thousand years!

 

This is just wrong, on so many levels.  Like SR, ptolemic astronomy can make fairly accurate predictions of certain things, but it contradicts much of what we observe. The aberration of starlight, stellar parallax, the motion of a Foucault pendulum, the coriolis effect,  and diurnal tides, for example, just to name a few minor ones.  We would have to reject all known laws of gravity, whether Newtonian or general relativistic.  The stars would have to revolve around us at speeds many times that of light, etc.  In short we would have to reject virtually all known laws of physics, and a geocentric model could not provide viable alternative explanations.  This is not a matter of mere convenience.  The earth really is moving relative to the sun, rather than vice versa.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

There is no such thing as a tree six ft taller unless you compare it to something. .

 

 

You're starting to catch on just a little, Ralf.  The first statement is relative, the other is absolute.  I thought that's what you were asking about.

 

The word "tall," standing alone, is also rather meaningless. Taller than what?  An ant?  A beer bottle? A Munchkin, the empire state building?  What?

 

But "six feet tall" has a built in standard.   You're six feet tall if you're on the sidewalk, on top of a ten story building, or in a 100' deep hole in the ground.  It doesn't change.  The implication is that the top of your head is six feet higher than whatever you're standing on.

 

That's why you don't understand what relative means

 

 

 

Project much, Ralf?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Something is absolute when you set a standard, or a benchmark, to gauge it by.

 

Saying that a mountaintop is 3000 feet higher than the valley is strictly a relative statement.  It tells you nothing about the absolute elevation of either.

 

Saying one is 4,000' above mean sea level and the other is 7,000' involves making absolute statements, not just relative ones.

 

In a theory of relative motion, "absolute motion" does not mean that the motion involved is something eternal, immutable, and universally true in some platonic sense.

 

All you need to do is set a single standard for comparing motion (a preferred frame) in order for it to be absolute in the theoretical sense intended.

 

The earth can have an infinite number of speeds "relative to" other objects.  But if you establish, say, the CMB as the preferred (hypothetically motionless) frame, then it's motion with respect to the CMB is absolute, not relative.

 

I doubt that you can understand that Ralf.   You never have before.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Proving, once again, that you have no clue about what relative motion is, Ralf.  That's why you're always asking.  You're hopelessly confused.

 

Another way to look at relative versus absolute motion is that one is (supposedly) frame dependent and the other frame independent.  But the theoretically intended meaning is what I said. 

 

If a guy on the sun thinks that the earth is revolving around it he is correct.   If a guy on the earth thinks the same thing, then he is also correct.  The motion between them is deemed to be absolute, not relative. As between the two, the Sun is the preferred frame in that context.

 

SR forbids any such agreement EVER.  It claims that ALL motion is merely relative. It strictly prohibits the acknowledgement of a preferred frame.  In SR, every observer must claim that he, and only he, is in a preferred (motionless) frame and that every other frame is moving.  Every frame must contradict the claims of every other frame. And then SR claims, absurdly, that they are all correct.

 

In SR, NOBODY is moving, while, at the same time, EVERYBODY is moving.  An absolute contradiction, devoid of any and all standards for motion.  The very concept of motion is rendered incoherent, incomprehensible, and meaningless.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.In SR, NOBODY is moving, while, at the same time, EVERYBODY is moving.  An absolute contradiction, devoid of any and all standards for motion.  The very concept of motion is rendered incoherent, incomprehensible, and meaningless.

 

 

If you take SR seriously, anyway.  Nobody does.  Not even SR adherents.  In practice, SR routinely violates it's own premises.

[Moronium]

I notice that you have deleted the hysterical denunciation of my post 41 which you had previously posted, eh, Ralf?

 

Why did you do that?

 

Is it possible that you're actually beginning to understand it?

[Moronium]

Say two cars are going down the highway, and one is traveling 10 mph faster than the other.

 

10 mph would  therefore be their relative speed, and it would be the same for both.  It tells you how fast they are going relative to each other, but no more.

 

If I wanted to assign an absolute speed to them, I would posit some frame of reference (say it's the road) which they could both refer to as a standard that was to be treated as being "at rest" (that would be the preferred frame).

 

Then I might find that one was going  60 mph (relative to the road) and the other 70 mph.  Those would then be their respective absolute speeds.

 

Relative speed:  10 mph, for each

 

Absolute speed:  60 mph for one, 70 mph for the other.  That's the difference between relative motion and absolute motion, get it?

 

Would the road really and absolutely be "at rest?"  Of course not. It's moving too, along with the whole earth.  But within the framework of my hypothesis, the motion of each relative to the road would be still be "absolute."  And the speed differential of each relative to the other would still be merely "relative."

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

3 relative velocities. 2 to a chosen common reference frame and 1 relative to each other. The same road is going 60 mph relative to 1 and 70 mph relative to the other. The same road is travelling at 2 different relative velocities. The road is composed of infinite overlapping treadmills. 2 oncoming cars share a road that is going in opposite directions without tearing the earth in two. How fast are they going relative to empty space or to the speed of light? They are travelling 0 relative to empty space (as proven by the MMX) and c relative to the speed of light. c relative to the speed of light has 2 components that add up to c according to this equation c² = v_t² + v_x². In order to keep your velocity as c from your perspective and everyone elses, you aren't moving relative to yourself so your c = velocity through time v_t. But people outside yourself will see your v_t shrink as your relative velocity through space v_x goes up in order that your overall c remains at c; no length contraction required. You are always moving through time and through space at a combined velocity of c and you're fixed at that speed just like a photon. Relativity says a photon has v_t = 0 but v_x = c. (I disagree, in my theory, if you follow the math, a photon always goes at 2c where v_x = v_t = c because time does not stand still for light, it has a frequency.) Our c is composed as a mix of vt and vx all overlapping each other like infinite overlapping treadmills from different perspectives. These are the facts and they are undisputed by those who know. Unfortunately, they are incomprehensible to those who don't but they are relativity nonetheless.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

These are the facts and they are undisputed by those who know. Unfortunately, they are incomprehensible to those who don't but they are relativity nonetheless.

  

No those are merely the products of Minkowski's misconceived spacetime concoction which was designed to formulate  a dubious "geometrical interpretation" of SR.

 

Neither SR nor Minkowski's interpretation thereof are "facts," but it doesn't surprise me that you uncritically accept them as such.

 

And you'll still never understand relative motion, notwithstanding that you will use the term frequently. You think that if motion is "relative to" something, then it is, ipso facto, "relative motion.  Nothing could be more naive.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I'm uncritical? I'm nothing but critical of the theory of relativity. I bash it and Einstein all the time. I've been thrown out of forums so many times because of my total disrespect for established science. But I do not disagree with the empirical facts of relativity which I explain to myself without the contradictions, paradoxes and really bad assumptions Einstein made to explain those facts. 

 

And plus, if you remember my entrance onto this forum this year, I thought I was only 1 contradiction away from totally accepting relativity if it could be explained away. It was only when I discovered how Einstein defines time that I threw in the towel and realized that the theory of relativity was unsalvagable and fatally flawed in my book as a circular religious argument.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The same road is going 60 mph relative to 1 and 70 mph relative to the other

 

 

Another preposterous claim which you gullibly swallow whole cloth.  As between the cars and the road, the road is NOT the thing moving.

 

Only the cars started their engines, hit the gas, accelerated, and began moving. The road didn't.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It was only when I discovered how Einstein defines time that I threw in the towel and realized that the theory of relativity was unsalvagable and fatally flawed in my book as a circular religious argument.

 

And yet, by adhering to it's basic premises, you are unwittingly defining time the same way.  You can't escape the ghost of SR.

[ralfcis]

"you are unwittingly defining time the same way"

 

In a sense that's partly true because I use a ct and a ct' axis. But I escape that by not defining ct = distance but ct = duration through time. So the velocity of time through time or rate of time is ct'/t. In each frame the rate of time is ct/t = c. This is a very important distinction from Einstein's understanding. My ct axis is not another space axis stuck in the same potato as the other 3 space axes, it is a true time axis.

Edited April 1, 2019 by ralfcis