On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:48:38 AM UTC, rotchm wrote:
Rotchm said: Should we believe the person who can't solve simple math/physics problems, or the person who can?
I don’t argue ideas of my own devising. Don’t attack me if I am not presenting the statements of others in the best way or without sometimes making mistakes. So don’t trust me, instead assess the claims made by all sides and choose the one you feel is best match to the conditions.
Ive looked at Relativity and find it nonsensical but I find the alternatives to be rational. What do you want me to do? Ignore the rational and embrace the nonsensical?
Rotchm said: Does that (wood or plastic) ruler you have near by real? Does it exist?
Is that ruler a reference frame? Can it be used as a reference frame?
My reply, is NO, it’s a Ruler. Its use is to measure distances between two points. It has no fixed location, no origin, no orientation, plus it’s a solid object so it cant be a Abstrace creation that does have those properties.
Rotchm said: In physics, a reference frame Are not abstract. They are real physical things. They have operational definitions.
I reply: WTF? Not even worth my comment. See my final sentence.
Rotchm said: “An object exists. It has coordinates in a specified coordinates system (reference frame).”
I reply: No, No it does not have any coordinates in any system unless someone arbitariarly assings such an imaginary coordinate system for some anaylsis puro=pose. Nothing real has occurred, its an abstract conceprual matter.
Rotchm said: “I have told you that you do not understand the concept of frames” Doesn't this maybe tickle your brain a little, in that perhaps it is you who is wrong since everybody is telling that you are wrong...? “
I reply: Nope, I know that the Majority of any group are usually known to be mindless followers who never have an original thought of their own. It’s the old 80/20 rule.
And I listen to people who speak rationally, using sound logic and display an ability to reason and think critically. That’s not you or Einstein.
I said: For instance, if I create a frame located on my big toe,
Rotchm said: Create? Are you now contradicting yourself in that you're saying you are physically setting something up?
I thought you said frames are abstract. Here, your big toe is not abstract. It is a real thing. And you are using it as the origin of a reference frame, say.
I reply: Wow you are so confused.
I created a CONCEPT, an ABSTRACT coordinate system, not a physical object. My toe is a physical object, and I’m IMAGINING that it will suffice as a reliable Origin for my intended use of this imaginary coordinate system.
I said> Whats included in my frame? Every fucking thing in the whole universe!
Rotchm said: “Somewhat yes. However, in physics, frames are not that large. Frames or coordinate systems have a defined span.
We do experiments in a finite region of space and time. This finite space and time is our "frame". Beyond that, there is nothing of Interest since we are not measuring outside of that, and become irrelevant to the experiment or scenario.”
I reply: Yeah? Who said? Was it just Professor Rotchm? Who are you to say what the limits of my imaginary frame of reference are? Or what I might like to include in my thought experiments. I’m a Physicist, I can think as big as I wish. (Physicist, someone who studies Physics)
Rotchm said: “So I'm going to ask you again to see what is your comprehension of these topics: within the space station, is that an inertial frame or not? “
I reply: You are not fit or knowledgeable enough to judge if I’m comprehending these topics.
Because you will only attempt to make that assessment an on the basis of my conformity to your preconceived and cherished personal beliefs on the subject.
But to answer anyway, the space station is not in any frame, I decided not to assign it one.
I said: > So to do Physics I never need to create any more than the one frame.
Rotchm said: “Perhaps you don't need anymore. But other people might have a need.
None of the less, in physics, there are infinitely many frames.
The race car is a frame, you as a spectator have a frame...”
I reply: Nope, no I don’t have any frames anywhere, I looked, stripped naked, there are none, come to think of it, Ive never seen one ever. And really, I don’t care if others need their frames.
The could be lots of frames laying about, but they don’t exist inside physics. Imaginary frames might be used by people working with Physics principals, ( if and when necessary) but no frames are automatically existing anywhere.
I said> Every motion I observe can be measured and calculated back to my frames
Rotchm said: To your frameS ? Above, haven't you been peddling that you never need to have more than one frame?
I reply: I COULD just use one frame that includes every type of motion possible, or I could assign a million frames just to piss you off.
Rotchm said: “That is, you can obtain the space-time coordinates of the events you seek.”
I reply: Nope, Nah.. I never need to even give imaginary Spacetime a single moments thought.
I always find that every motion conceivable can be fully recorded and related back to whatever I want to use as my “home origin” using simple distances and occasionally noting the Time but only if changes in position are involved.
Rotchm said: “Exactly what we have been telling you, what special relativity says. No matter which friend (Rotchm means Frame) you used, nature will do what it does, Independent of your choice of frames. But depending on the frame (observer), the volume is obtained can differ from one frame to another.
I reply: NOPE nah and no. Regardless of the choice or even use fo any frame, there can be no changes in “volume” ( I think Rotchm means “Value”)
Rotchm said: “In the Racing Car example, for you the position is changing. For the driver, his position is not changing”
I reply: Still another big NO. For me, the driver is stationary inside a car which is moving while I remain stationary watching it. And for the driver, He is stationary inside a car that is moving while some really smart guy is stand stationary watching.
The two observers in their two different frames both will come to the exact same conclusion. There will never be any difference of opinion between the two observers if actual real Physics principals are applied, and by Physics I mean Classical Physics.
Rotchm said: “The driver says that he is always at x=0, whereas you say he is always changing position. “
I reply: Rotchm you are an idiot. Really. No kidding, and idiot who can’t think for himself.
Why have you decided that I am supposed to plot that drivers x location from some stationary location, but then you also decided that the driver will want to plot his x position from the origin of his own arse? (Driver thinks: if my frame is centered up my arse, then I have not moved anywhere in this howling Porsche that is strangely using up fuel as fast as a lizard drinking water, while Ive not moved from x = 0?
How stupid do you think racing car drivers are?
Rotchm said: “So how can we find out who was the right one?” ( me or him)
I reply: As you want a test, and I want to physical test what you are claiming, here is my suggestion:
You claimed that “In physics, a reference frames are not “abstract”. They are real physical things.
“Since inertial frames do exist”….
So before we go any further, I’ll give you my mailing address, and you can post to me one of your “Inertial Frames of Reference” since you have so many of them. And that they really physically exist. Question: When attaching it to something, do I need to use bolts? Sticky tape or welding? Or will super glue do it?
I can’t keep talking to you about REAL reference Frames if Ive never held on in my hands or sat on it. Ill stop discussing these things with you until you send one frame to me for my amusement.
While you are posting frames, why not send one to that poor racing driver, a frame that he can attach to the ground at my feet, so that he can then appreciate that he is sitting in a race car, and passing my location oat high speed, and thus is not at x=0 because such a measurement is useless in his situation.
And although I use flippant language, this claim by Rotchm that the driver will claim that he is at x=0 is taken directly form Einstein’s paper, and it is exactly where Einstein deceives idiots like Rotchm… Because in fact the observer in Einstein’s paper is EXACTLY like the race car driver, and Einstein has his “driver” observer guy place his “frame of reference” directly into his rectum, so that he can claim that x=0 when in reality that Observer has actually already moved away from x=0 just like the race driver has and for exactly the same reasons.
The may very well be something up Rotchm’s arse, but it probably not imaginary or abstract in nature.