Moronium Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 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. Empirical facts are simply empirical facts. They are not facts "of SR." They are only (mis)interpreted by SR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) "you are unwittingly defining time the same way" In a sense that's partly true because I use a ct axis. But I escape that by not defining ct = distance but ct = duration through time. 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. That's a good start, but you have not arrived at a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved. If you reject SR, then you're right back to accepting Newtonian 3 + 1 space and time where time and simultaneity are absolute, not relative. Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 1, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) Look how much you help me focus and clarify with your completely wrong understanding. Keep up the good work. That's why I started deleting posts, no point in being a bully. Edited April 1, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 1, 2019 Report Share Posted April 1, 2019 (edited) 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. Do you agree with this, Ralf? Just wondering how "clear" your "focus" (understanding) is. Edited April 1, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 It's a simple question, Ralf. Are you going to give an answer, or are you just going to evade all questions, as usual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 As I've discussed many times before, relative velocity is not about who's actually moving. That's irrelevant to the concept of relative velocity. Go back and read again and again instead of bringing it up again and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) As I've discussed many times before, relative velocity is not about who's actually moving. That's irrelevant to the concept of relative velocity. You're just showing how little, despite you alleged devotion to, and expertise in, math that you know about math, Ralf. The math in SR (and other theories) starts and basically ends with the Lorentz Transformations. The question of "who's actually moving" is absolutely critical there, and no mathematical calculations can be attempted until you answer it. It has EVERYTHING to do with relative velocity. You don't even know what's relevant. I do notice, however, that you consistently refuse to answer any questions. Why's that? Afraid you'll be unable to explain yourself, or be wrong, that it? You just make sure that you remain willfully ignorant. Edited April 2, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) Moronium, your ability with words and comprehension is truly astounding. I give you an answer. You don't accept it. So you conclude that I never gave you an answer because if I had, you would have accepted it. No one in relativity is absolutely moving, that includes the Lorentz transforms. It's the theory of r-e-l-a-t-i-v-i-t-y. You can't grasp that so you can't grasp any subsequent concepts. Truly asstounding! PS. I talk to my daughter's dog, Guiness, about relativity because he seems truly interested and maybe on some dog level he's able to understand. I find it very gratifying to fill him in on the latest. I don't get the same gratification with you. Edited April 2, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) Moronium, your ability with words and comprehension is truly astounding. I give you an answer. You don't accept it. So you conclude that I never gave you an answer because if I had, you would have accepted it. No one in relativity is absolutely moving, that includes the Lorentz transforms. It's the theory of r-e-l-a-t-i-v-i-t-y. You can't grasp that so you can't grasp any subsequent concepts. Truly asstounding! Who said anything about "absolute" motion? Again, you just display your iignorance. Have you ever, in your life, actually mathematically performed an lorentz transformation? And no, you didn't answer even the simplest of questions. You evaded it. Edited April 2, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 (edited) But, given your prior assertion on the topic, and your adamant refusal to in any way clarify or modify it, I'll just have to take you at your word You think that if I'm in a drag racer packed with high octane fuel, then mash down on the accelerator when the light turns green, then the car goes nowhere, but the spinning tires cause the ROAD to start moving backwards, and the crowd in the bleachers to start rushing past me, while I remain absolutely motionless, eh? Only a complete fool who has been thoroughly brainwashed by SR could ever think that, sorry. No wonder you're so confused. Edited April 2, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 I do graphically in every STD I produce but you wouldn't understand what the connection is between a graphical representation of a formula is. You just assume I'm trying my hand at a Jackson Pollock artwork. Anything you don't understand must be an evasion and not an answer. I can explain it but I can't understand it for you. You started wasting my time about 5 posts ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 Goodbye, fool Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 2, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 Yay, I win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted April 2, 2019 Report Share Posted April 2, 2019 This makes it all the more obvious to me that we are talking about completely different subjects, AG. I did find this aspect of Dyson's address interesting, though, I suppose, when you ignore the nature of the 'M' and 'R' (hint 'wave'), in CMBR you just get 'Cosmic Background'. Not much point in continuing this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralfcis Posted April 3, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) Ok Moronium, here's your argument in a nutshell. You drive a car down the road, it just doesn't have enough mass to cause the road underneath it to move at the same relative velocity from your car as you're moving from the road. Simple, action, re-action, momentum equations. That's not what relative velocity means. If 2 astronauts meet in space and one is twice as fat as the other and the skinny one blasts his jets at the fat one to get away from him, the fat one will move twice as slow away from the point that was between them, he will not also have half the relative velocity relative to the skinny guy. If the skinny guy blasted off sideways from the fat guy not hitting him with his jet, they would both have the same relative velocity to each other but not to the point of origin between them. But let's say the point of origin between them was "moving" due to the fact they were both blasted out of an air lock together at max jet pack speed and the skinny guy uses his jet sideways to blast himself back to the ship leaving his fat friend to continue moving with the point of origin between them. Would they now be separating faster from each other because the point of origin is no longer "absolutely" stationary and the fat guy is travelling with it? You will never be able to figure out the answer. Your "absolute" point of origin has been absolutely proven moving. Establishing who's more massive or who's actually moving has nothing to do with relative velocity. Edited April 3, 2019 by ralfcis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahrquad Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 I think a similar train of thought is whether a bullet fired from a ship traveling at the speed of light could exceed the speed of light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted April 3, 2019 Report Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) That's not what relative velocity means. Establishing who's more massive or who's actually moving has nothing to do with relative velocity. You don't even know what relative velocity means. Why do you try to opine about it? Your claim that the road is moving relative to the cars proves your inability to understand. You are just dutifully reciting the stupid SR dogma that "all frames are equivalent and equally valid." You have no understanding of the point being made, and I'm through trying to explain things to you. It's absurd to say that a guy in the car who claims that he is at absolute rest and that the earth and everything attached to it is/are the thing(s) moving has a claim that is "equally valid" with respect to the claim of a guy standing by the road who says it is the cars that are moving, not the road. If the claims of the two are not equally valid, then the claim that the motion between the two is merely "relative" is also invalid. In that case, as between the two, the motion is absolute, not relative. Edited April 3, 2019 by Moronium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.