Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

We live in an age where every crackpot can post any nonsense and expect to be taken seriously, unfortunately there is always someone who will take them seriously, and not only that will run with it and claim that the nonsense is valid. I believe they are taking relativity on a very basic level, as in the truth is whatever you want to believe, it's all relative.
Last edited by thedoc on Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:43 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:39 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:31 pm

Oh! Now Einstein is a liar! Do you think it's because he was a Jew? :o

Also, the rest of what you wrote is your usual gobbledygook.
I have nothing againt Jews. And my gobbledygook is actually quality stuff that you can't argue against so you post one word replies like 'No.'
Throughout this thread, as anyone who has read it can see, I have posted long and thoughtful responses. Then you come along, who never heard of a non-intertial frame, who doesn't know what a fictitious force is, who links to crackpots and ... what? I'm supposed to indulge you?

Maybe uwot has more patience than I.

Hint: The twin paradox is not a paradox, as the crackpot to whom you linked claims.
thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:49 pm We live in an age where every crackpot can post any nonsense and expect to be taken seriously, unfortunately there is always someone who will take them seriously, and not only that will run with it and claim that the nonsense is valid.
Can you direct me to those thoughtful responses? I can't search through a million pages for them. Crackpot is ad-hominem. I think one day I might jump on the Special Relativity bandwagon just so I can throw non-arguments and ad-hominems and forget science or philosophy and history of science whenever I want to disprove someone.

And you're darn right it's not a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction in terms of it being valid in any form of logic or commons sense.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pm If it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
I think this is the source of your confusion.

The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

uwot wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf anything, in Einstein's gedankenexperiment,I've been wondering if we have a train with a light-clock on it, and a man with a light-clock on the embankment what would happen? The light-clock would work by cycles of being reflected once up and once down for one full cycle. Now, when the train starts moving, does it, or does it not have the same time as the embankment clock?
What you have to remember is that special relativity describes what observers see when they pass each other with uniform relative velocity. If they continue with that uniform velocity, they will never know what the other's clock says, because they will simply be getting further and further away from each other.
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it does, then relativity is wrong because of simultaneity and non-relativity and regardless of motion the clocks would be in synchronicity.
If the conditions of special relativity are broken, so that the clocks stop their uniform motion and can be brought back together, then in all likelihood they will tell different times. That's the woefully misnamed 'Twin's Paradox', which was confirmed by Hafele-Keating and every subsequent test.
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
Are you assuming that there is some absolute time? Tell you what; read my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Better still, buy the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722
In response to the bolded: Seriously? Whenever I move out of a room with a clock the clock stops working?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:50 pm Can you direct me to those thoughtful responses? I can't search through a million pages for them.

Crackpot is ad-hominem.

And you're darn right it's not a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction in terms of it being valid in any form of logic or commons sense.
Either too lazy or has a very short memory.

Perhaps crackpot is an ad-hominem but if the person has no valid argument and posts nonsense they are a crackpot, so it's more descriptive of the person's character.

Relativity is not logical if you are referring to the typical uneducated version of logic.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pm If it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
I think this is the source of your confusion.

The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
No, He stated that the speed of light is constant, if the light has to travel a longer distance it will take longer to travel that distance.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:57 pm In response to the bolded: Seriously? Whenever I move out of a room with a clock the clock stops working?
As has been stated numerous times, clocks will measure different times when moving relative to each other, why is that so hard to understand.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:04 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm

I think this is the source of your confusion.

The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
No, He stated that the speed of light is constant, if the light has to travel a longer distance it will take longer to travel that distance.
The reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.

So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:11 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:04 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm

You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
No, He stated that the speed of light is constant, if the light has to travel a longer distance it will take longer to travel that distance.
The reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.

So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
In fact, I can quantify this light-clock by it being c/2pi.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:50 pm Crackpot is ad-hominem.
No, it isn't. Another thing you don't know is what "ad hominem" means.
I think one day I might jump on the Special Relativity bandwagon just so I can throw non-arguments and ad-hominems and forget science or philosophy and history of science whenever I want to disprove someone.
lol
And you're darn right it's not a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction in terms of it being valid in any form of logic or commons sense.
No, it isn't. :?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
Light speed and light clocks are not the same thing. :?

Light clocks on different inertial frames get out of synch because of the invariance of the speed of light as measured in all inertial frames.

As I have explained in detail.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:16 pm
Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pm
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.
Light speed and light clocks are not the same thing. :?

Light clocks on different inertial frames get out of synch because of the invariance of the speed of light as measured in all inertial frames.

As I have explained in detail.
You're contradicting yourself here. You say its invariant, then say that a light-clock can have different times. Where is your consistency?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:11 pm The reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.

So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
:lol:

Unbelievable.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

I mean, just holy shit.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

The clocks in the different inertial frames become unsynchronized because of the constancy of the speed of light. That is, the light in the moving frame relative to the rest frame does not obey Galilean additivity -- if it did, the two clocks would remain in synch!
Post Reply