Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4092
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 am

ken wrote:
I have already on quite a few occasions actually stated one possible single unique frame of reference
But like as what happens what I write is not actually noticed and recognized or just gets dismissed or rejected
The only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:53 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:02 am
The same applies with scientific theories, some people believe that a theory could be true so they set out (unintentionally in some cases) to create the very experiments that will prove they are true. They have, in turn, so turned one theory into the desired one.
Nope. Scientists work exactly the opposite of this. They set up experiments to disprove their hypothesis or theory. If these tests fail to falsify the theory, scientists gain greater confidence that the theory accurately models reality. You don't seem to know anything about science.

As to rest of this post, it's just word wallpaper.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
davidm wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:23 pm
ken wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:03 pm

You answered that one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing.


That's correct. That's how it is.


If you insist 'that is how it is', then there is nothing more to discuss with you. You already believe that you KNOW what the actual truth is.
Really, can you not understand the things that other people write? You (deliberately?) ignore all the context of what I write. I have been quite explicit (as has uwot) that science does not pretend to ACTUAL TRUTH. Given this context, it should be obvious that when I write "that's how it is," it means that's how it is according to the theory. And the theory of relativity is constantly bolstered by empirical observations that validate and do not falsify the theory. Science is constantly trying to falsify relativity; not confirm it!

Apparently the whole discussion of GPS devices went right over your head.

If you don't think relativity is true, then you need to come up with a new theory that explains as least as much about the observed world, and more besides. Your rambling wall paper posts don't cut it.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:11 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
]

Let us say on a Universal perspective, if you knowing WHOSE PERSPECTIVE is necessary before you are able to answer that question.
Relativity theory shows there is no universal perspective -- no preferred reference frame. That's the whole point of the theory! If there IS such a universal perspective, then relativity theory would be wrong. So if you think that such a perspective exists, please show us what it is!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:20 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
If there is no one correct answer or if you do not know what the one correct answer is, then just say so. So we can move on.
There are MULTIPLE CORRECT ANSWERS -- as has been explained to you! As has been show you -- you can easily work out the math! -- in the case of a spaceship traveling at 90 percent the speed of light to Alpha Centauri relative to the rest frame of earth, earth observers will report that the ship takes about 4.5 years to arrive at AC. From the perspective of the ship's crew, the time is only about 2.2 years (as measured by the ship clock) and the ship is NOT therefore going faster than light because the distance between earth and AC is length contracted relative to the earth frame!

THAT IS THE ANSWER!

More: observers in inertial frames moving relative to one another will typically disagree on the temporal order of events! In one frame events A and B happen simultaneously; in another frame A happens after B, and in yet a third from frame B happens after A! Who's right? They ALL are! This is because of the question of what "really happens" is relativized to a frame and has no universal frame-independent meaning.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:25 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:22 pm
Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155

What about other forces coming from Coulomb's Law of Electrostatics? Or Magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory?

Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

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

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Walker » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:38 pm

Ken wrote:I do NOT look at and follow theories. I look at what IS and observe that.

By what observations do you know that the earth revolves around the sun, other than the observation that someone told you?

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:09 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:25 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:22 pm
Also, about Einstein:

"The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating
— Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155

What about other forces coming from Coulomb's Law of Electrostatics? Or Magnetism in James Clerk Maxwell's Electromagnetic Theory?

Also, I think that this also disproves Special Relativity and affirms an AEther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation
Yet another proof of the failure of Relativity:


http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:15 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:09 pm


Yet another proof of the failure of Relativity:


http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm
OMFG. SERIOUSLY???

:lol:

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:22 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:15 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:09 pm


Yet another proof of the failure of Relativity:


http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm
OMFG. SERIOUSLY???

:lol:
:/

I'm glad you've provided some great arguments that can rebut mine.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:23 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:20 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
If there is no one correct answer or if you do not know what the one correct answer is, then just say so. So we can move on.
There are MULTIPLE CORRECT ANSWERS -- as has been explained to you! As has been show you -- you can easily work out the math! -- in the case of a spaceship traveling at 90 percent the speed of light to Alpha Centauri relative to the rest frame of earth, earth observers will report that the ship takes about 4.5 years to arrive at AC. From the perspective of the ship's crew, the time is only about 2.2 years (as measured by the ship clock) and the ship is NOT therefore going faster than light because the distance between earth and AC is length contracted relative to the earth frame!

THAT IS THE ANSWER!

More: observers in inertial frames moving relative to one another will typically disagree on the temporal order of events! In one frame events A and B happen simultaneously; in another frame A happens after B, and in yet a third from frame B happens after A! Who's right? They ALL are! This is because of the question of what "really happens" is relativized to a frame and has no universal frame-independent meaning.
Which goes back to how Einstein was lying when he said that Special Relativity established our 'clocks and measuring rods' rather than disproving their reliability.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:31 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:23 pm
Which goes back to how Einstein was lying when he said that Special Relativity established our 'clocks and measuring rods' rather than disproving their reliability.
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.
Last edited by davidm on Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:32 pm

Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:22 pm
davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:15 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:09 pm


Yet another proof of the failure of Relativity:


http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm
OMFG. SERIOUSLY???

:lol:
:/

I'm glad you've provided some great arguments that can rebut mine.
You have an argument where, now? You linked to a crackpot (said nothing in your own words) and you call that an argument? :lol:

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:39 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:31 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:23 pm
Which goes back to how Einstein was lying when he said that Special Relativity established our 'clocks and measuring rods' rather than disproving their reliability.
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.'

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » 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
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:23 pm
Which goes back to how Einstein was lying when he said that Special Relativity established our 'clocks and measuring rods' rather than disproving their reliability.
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests