Relativists Vs Absolutists

[Moronium]

That is the answer. Both A and B are moving relative to each other. Neither is stationary but either can be chosen as stationary.

 

 

The twin paradox resolution utterly disproves this.  Sure you can "choose" to treat the spacetwin as being stationary, if you want.  But you would be flat WRONG if you did.

 

The spacetwin may "think" he's "at rest" and is therefore the one in the preferred frame, but he aint.  It is demonstrated that the frame of the earth twin is the preferred one.

 

Why?  Because, relative to the earth, the guy in space is the one who is REALLY moving.  He ages less because he is the one moving.  Not hard to discern that, without or without SR.  He's the one who blasted off into space.

 

Now, take a big-azz slug of that koolaid, and tell me that they are BOTH in the preferred frame, eh?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Who is actually moving in your absolute sense of who has less mass is irrelevant to determining relative velocity. 

 

By the way, I never said, thought, implied, or otherwise indicated that the question of relative versus absolute velocity had any dependence whatsover on "who has less mass."

 

You said that, not me.  Which just goes to once again prove that you don't understand nuthin.

 

If you saw that a guy who robbed a liquor store armed with a sawed-off shotgun was wearing a blue shirt, you would conclude that wearing a blue shirt causes people to knock off liquor stores.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Why?  Because, relative to the earth, the guy in space is the one who is REALLY moving.  He ages less because he is the one moving.  Not hard to discern that, without or without SR.  He's the one who blasted off into space.

 

 

Now, notwithstanding the clear mathematical dictates of the LT (not to mention common sense), some SR apologist will try to tell you that the guy moving has NOTHING to do with his aging less.  Later they will also tell you that it is the moving clock which slows down, when they're off guard, of course.

 

You will believe him.  Both times.  Then you will probably beg him for some more koolaid.  Let's face it--you're addicted.

 

In response he may tell you that you can never tell which of two objects is moving, that all inertial frames are completely valid, that therefore there can be no preferred frames, and that all motion is relative.

 

Then you will find yourself awestruck by his genius.  Then you will run to tell all your friends about the unique insights you have learned to parrot, eh?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

The only known factor which causes non-gravitational time dilation is movement, i.e., increased speed.  Not mass, not acceleration, not "frames of reference," not anything else.

 

And, as has often been demonstrated empirically, it is NOT relative motion which is relevant to clock retardation.  Only  absolute motion is.

 

Wise up, Ralf.  I know you won't, but you should.  Maybe you even would if you could kick your drinking habit, but that aint gunna happen.

 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I am just soooo dumb. So what's your criteria to tell who's moving, as if that's any way important? It definitely has nothing to do with mass as you've just denied that. I'm betting the answer will be . . . mass. You just haven't been able to articulate that until this moment so I jumped the gun. No wait, it's who steps on the gas, that's who's moving. No gas, no movement. I stand corrected. It doesn't even have to be gas. It could be Fred Flintstone's foot power too.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

By SR's own admission and standards, Ralf, acceleration is absolute, not relative motion.  Does that give you any clue?

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's go back to the drag racer again.  I deliberately over-simplified that, but I'll take a little more time here.

 

Here's the way SR tells the story:

 

1.  When he hits the gas, he is the one moving, absolutely, not relatively.  It's not the road moving backwards, or that the fans in the bleachers are moving toward, him.  They are stationary.  He is moving.

 

2.But later something strange occurs, when he hits top end and just keeps the pedal to the floor.  At that point he is no longer accelerating.  Now he is in inertial motion, moving in a straight line at a uniform speed.  So, now what?

 

3.  Then, at that instant, he stops on a dime.  He is immediately completely at rest.

 

4. At that very same moment, the crowd starts moving toward him, and the road underneath him moves away from him.  He is no longer moving absolutely.  On the contrary, he is absolutely at rest.  He is once again in the preferred frame for the entire universe, just like he was before he hit the gas.  Now it is everything and everybody else who is moving absolutely, not him.

 

Guzzle that, eh, Ralf.?

 

But don't try to tell guys like Newton that.  They might think that, even though he had hit top end, the driver would just continue moving at that speed unless some external force acted upon him.  They might even think that he needs to let off the gas, hit the brakes, and pull the parachute cord to slow down, quickly, anyway.  The driver knows better, because he knows SR.  He can't "slow down" now.  He's already absolutely  stationary.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

It's gettin crystal clear now. Alice takes off from earth, she accelerated, she's the only one moving so she will age less than Bob back on earth. Simple pimple. No need for all that complex relativity ideas. All you need to know is who accelerated. Nothin to do with mass. Oh, but wait, let's get Alice's ship to push the earth away from her. Now Bob and the earth will age less than Alice when Bob flies the earth back to her. Sumtin's wrong. The earth ain't movin too fast. It's the same ship. Can't figure out what's wrong. Alice is still on the earth even though the earth must be accelaratin with the engines at full throttle. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok that was mean. I laid a trap for you, you fell in and then I kicked sand in your face. I'm not proud of it. I'll erase it if you want.

[ralfcis]

Even if you're now willing to commit that the difference is a combination of mass and acceleration, you'd still be dead wrong. Your relativist opposites would also be dead wrong. Acceleration has nothing to do with age difference whether you establish who is actually moving, or if it generates an equivalence to gravity, or if you're in a rindler metric relative to a minkowski metric or any theory you might ascribe to acceleration, you'd all be dead wrong.

[Moronium]

Even if you're now willing to commit that the difference is a combination of mass and acceleration, you'd still be dead wrong. 

 

Heh.  Just keep on guzzlin that koolaid which you claim you refuse to drink, eh, Ralf?

 

By the way, I explicitly said its NOT mass, and its NOT acceleration.  But we always knew you can't read, so I'm not surprised.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok so what is it then. Think hard. There aren't many more stories left to make up. Pick a word. This is just getting really pathetic. 

[Moronium]

Ok so what is it then

 

 

Learn to read, and you'll know.

 

Do yourself a favor and don't where blue shirts any time, any where, or any place..  You do that, and, next thing you know, you'll be in prison for killin some 5 year-old kid selling koolaid on the corner, just to steal his treasure.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

I can tell you that the Absolutionists are dead wrong as there is vast amounts of proof that relativity is correct in its current state.

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

I can tell you that the Absolutionists are dead wrong as there is vast amounts of proof that relativity is correct in its current state.

  

Really, Vic?  That's news to me.  Like what proof?

[Vmedvil2]

Really, Vic?  That's news to me.  Like what proof?

 

I have listed it before but there are like 10 experiments that prove relativity works, google relativity experiments.

 

Here are Three

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/22/three-experiments-that-show-relativity-is-real/

 

Here are a few more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

 

I think this is even more

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Edited April 4, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

So Moronium isn't telling. It's not mass, it's not gas, it's maybe blue shirts that determine who's actually moving which is his explanation of what causes age difference. The Lorentz transforms just can't crank out an answer until you know who's actually moving. Why is this guy allowed on a physics forum and an equally deranged person like Poly has been removed?

Edited April 4, 2019 by ralfcis