Discussion:
frames of reference are misused by Einstein
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 22:59:44 UTC
Rotchm recently made a claim on another Conversation, then deleted my response like a coward who has been caught out lying.

The discussion was regarding the question of why Einstein failed to simply include the mathematics that accommodate acceleration, (includes Gravity) into his already published Theory of STR? Why drop that theory totally to develop a totally new theory just to account for acceleration called GR?

Modern Mathematicians claim to have modified STR equations to account for acceleration, so there really is no reason to have another theory of GR especially when GR and SR are incomparable. (One requires absoluteness, the other forbids it)

Rotchm made the claim that there was a difference centred around the notion that although STR was modified to account for acceleration, it was still a "special case" because there was still a requirement that the accelerating object was accelerating "in" an Inertial Frame of Reference that also housed the "stationary observer", so it was not like GR at all. It was only still possible WITHIN an inertial frame even though it was able to calculate time dilation etc for a NON Inertial object, INSIDE the "master" Inertial frame.

Now this is absolutely pure BS and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists, who never are able to stick to one story, and have a foot in every camp as they swap their claims constantly to still appear to have a solid hypothesis.
Why is it BS?
Well because he claims that we have two observers here, one has been placed in an inertial frame and the other is supposed to be "in" that inertial frame, but NOT moving initially......
Think about that for a moment...
STR stipulates exactly that the theory ONLY work is all motion is INERTIAL.
Einstein further demands that an inertial observer (with attached imaginary frame) cant tell if he is stationary or moving --- he has no right to claim to be in a “preferred frame” which is “stationary”.
This is expressly forbidden in the theory.
So lets apply what Einstein demands in his SRT to this new setup of Rotchm.
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.

Here we only have two observers, with imaginary frames attached to their big toe, and all we know for sure is that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.

Therefore because its possible that either can be accelerating or maybe both are accelerating, then we cant apply the mathematics of the Lorentz equation even if it included some additional refinements to allow for acceleration of “the body that is accelerating” relative to the body (or frame if you must) that is “stationary”.
To assign the condition of Stationary or accelerating to either of these observers is to exclude this scenario from the possibility that it can be classed under the terms defined in the STR.

As this is a "thought experiment", we can add in more complications as this will only cloud the issue we are trying to solve, this I learned from Einstein personally over a toast and coffee.

Any replies that do not stay with this topic, and that sidetrack will be deleted.
Any replies that insinuate that another contributor is unable to understand, will be deleted. If someone does not understand, its because YOU have failed to make a coherent case.
Any comments from shills working for Chinese or Israel communists will be deleted. (FACT: both China and Israel employ thousands of profession shills that scour the forums for content they don't like, and try to influence the arguments by inserting propaganda.)
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 23:08:26 UTC
Typo fixes:
As this is a "thought experiment", we can add in more complications ..... this should read "we can NOT add in more complications....

and earlier in the document:

"Well because he claims that we have two observers here, one has been placed in an inertial frame and the other is supposed to be "in" that inertial frame, but NOT moving initially......"

Should read: " but NOT with INERTIAL motion.....
Michael Moroney
2022-01-06 23:19:15 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists,
I guess it's official, as if there was ever doubt. While "everything
isalllies" showed up appearing to be a babe in the woods, unable to
figure out Giggle Groups, it looks like s/he was a crackpot all along.
Or has deteriorated very rapidly. Using the word "relativist" is a dead
giveaway of a crank. Let's see how many other crank dogwhistle words
show up in future posts.
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Post by everything isalllies
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
The one (if not both) accelerating cannot claim to be stationary, except
momentarily.
Post by everything isalllies
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.
If both sense they are accelerating, neither can claim to be stationary.
If one is not accelerating, there is an inertial frame in which he is
stationary.
everything isalllies
2022-01-06 23:56:58 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists,
I guess it's official, as if there was ever doubt. While "everything
isalllies" showed up appearing to be a babe in the woods, unable to
figure out Giggle Groups, it looks like s/he was a crackpot all along.
Or has deteriorated very rapidly. Using the word "relativist" is a dead
giveaway of a crank. Let's see how many other crank dogwhistle words
show up in future posts.
And attacking me with personal insults is the tactic of fanatics who have no valid statement to make.
Lets see if his later comments are valid...
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is accelerating exactly please?
Post by everything isalllies
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
The one (if not both) accelerating cannot claim to be stationary, except
momentarily.
Again a lack of clear thinking... we cant tell who is the one doing the acceleration. You have not provided a way of deciding.
Post by everything isalllies
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.
If both sense they are accelerating, neither can claim to be stationary.
If one is not accelerating, there is an inertial frame in which he is
stationary.
And finally he reiterates the same lack of knowledge.
No one ( neither of the two objects) is able to "sense" that he is accelerating. The only can see that the distance between them is increasing with acceleration.

This planet is accelerating all the time, not only due to its orbit, but its velocity along the not quite circular trajectory is not constant. But you can "sense" this in you bones right? The whole Solar System is spiralling through the Universe, at some considerable (varying) speed, and I guess you can "sense" this as well?
Michael Moroney
2022-01-07 04:18:55 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists,
I guess it's official, as if there was ever doubt. While "everything
isalllies" showed up appearing to be a babe in the woods, unable to
figure out Giggle Groups, it looks like s/he was a crackpot all along.
Or has deteriorated very rapidly. Using the word "relativist" is a dead
giveaway of a crank. Let's see how many other crank dogwhistle words
show up in future posts.
And attacking me with personal insults is the tactic of fanatics who have no valid statement to make.
Or that the poster is so hard-headed and resistant to legitimate

Or, (and this is the case here) I have been here for a very long time.
I've seen a long line of "anti-relativists", as they sometimes call
themselves, come and go. A few never "go" until they die. You are almost
identical to so many of them. Not just similar, almost identical.

They all come here, huffing and puffing, "knowing" that SR/GR are wrong
and Einstein a fraud, because, well just because. They almost always
have an idée fixe regarding the wrongness of GR/SR or the fraudulent
nature of Einstein. This idée fixe cannot be fixed with any amount of
logic. Typically it possesses them. It rules them. It will never allow
them to be convinced that it is wrong. It pwns them. A few times, an
argument "almost" convinces them with a very convincing argument. When
that happens, they often go silent for a day or three, but come right
back with the same illogic and the idée fixe is stronger than ever, as
if the almost-convincing argument never happened.

They almost always are poor at physics and/or math and/or logic. They
frequently don't know the difference between SR and GR, such as talking
about the effect of gravity on an SR problem. Because of the poor
physics/math/logic plus the diamond-hardness of their idée fixe, trying
to help them through the equations is useless on them. Because of poor
physics skills, they frequently misinterpret many of SR's predictions
and "paradoxes", doing such things as thinking simple inertial motion of
two objects and resulting time dilation is the "traveling twin paradox"
when it's not. They don't know many "paradoxes" were created by Einstein
and his supporters for teaching purposes. They think the teaching
Often their incorrect physics is part of their idée fixe and therefore
cannot be corrected.

Many believe there is some sort of conspiracy to "promote" Einstein for
various nefarious reasons. Sometimes it's physicists to keep some gravy
train of money flowing to them somehow. Or it's the Jews promoting a
Jew. Or,... I often sense some paranoia here. They don't accept that
experimental results overrule even the best theory. Or refuse to accept
experimental results that actually agree with SR/GR.

Many rely on their day-to-day experiences too much. Low speeds add
simply, so when SR says high speeds don't, their intuition rejects it so
they feel SR just has to be wrong about that. Just because "it's
illogical". They think in absolutes. Since there is always some gravity,
there can be no SR situations. Almost doesn't count to them. As if that
somehow "disproves" SR. Real physicists (and engineers) calculate the
effects of such things to determine if they are relevant or not. If
smaller than, say, measurement errors, it can be disregarded. Physics
papers these days track errors and publish the expected error range.

They always think Einstein invented the idea of the speed of light being
constant c for everybody. Sometimes they think Einstein invented the
false (to them) idea of relative motion, often not even accepting that
Galileo is guilty of that. Many times in their arguments they jump back
and forth between frames in their "disproofs" of SR. Many appear to
have megalomania and/or narcissistic personality disorder, causing them
to march in here thinking they'll shut down those "relativists" once and
for all, as well as get angry when their beliefs are challenged. They
have several dogwhistle terms most use (such as "relativist"), making me
think there are many "anti-relativist" chat sites out there. With their
poor science/math skills, they are prime examples of the Dunning-Kruger
Effect regarding physics. They score high on Baez's crackpot index.
They frequently won't accept the words of experts when the expert in a
field points out a flaw in their line of thinking. (see NPD/megalomania)

Why SR/GR and not, for example, quantum mechanics/QED/QCD? QM is
and science is simple enough for most people to understand somewhat,
while quantum anything math is quite difficult to say the least.
Post by everything isalllies
Lets see if his later comments are valid...
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is accelerating exactly please?
They feel a force.

Since you say there are only two objects, I suppose you'll object to the
objects being observers testing for non-Newtonian behavior of objects
with them, but that would be another way.
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
The one (if not both) accelerating cannot claim to be stationary, except
momentarily.
Again a lack of clear thinking... we cant tell who is the one doing the acceleration. You have not provided a way of deciding.
You assumed your outcome. An accelerating object will feel a force.
F=ma said Newton.
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.
If both sense they are accelerating, neither can claim to be stationary.
If one is not accelerating, there is an inertial frame in which he is
stationary.
And finally he reiterates the same lack of knowledge.
No one ( neither of the two objects) is able to "sense" that he is accelerating. The only can see that the distance between them is increasing with acceleration.
This planet is accelerating all the time, not only due to its orbit, but its velocity along the not quite circular trajectory is not constant. But you can "sense" this in you bones right? The whole Solar System is spiralling through the Universe, at some considerable (varying) speed, and I guess you can "sense" this as well?
Did you calculate the magnitude of these accelerations? No? BTW, the
acceleration from the rotation of the earth causes a measurable effect
on the strength of local gravity.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 11:00:07 UTC
(I removed all the rhetoric as its not necessary to know what you personal feelings involve , related to my beliefs.)
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is accelerating exactly please?
They feel a force.
Ok, Ok, Ok, my approach here is wrong. An accelerating body must be able to measure that a force has been applied, even though it may be unnoticed by a humans senses.
So we CAN theoretically detect that a body is under acceleration.

Now the rest of your comments refer to acceleration and ive conceded that I was wrong here on that point.

HOWEVER, my original argument was that if acceleration can be used to decide which twin is going to be younger, then I submit that we look at a revised twin story that also creates the same type of Paradox.
And because I've removed the possibility if any acceleration of either twin, (or time keeping devices,- same applies) then you can not use acceleration of one twin to explain why only one of them can claim to be younger.

So as I sad somewhere earlier, just organise the thought experiment so that the twins are only in Einstein's inertial frames the whole time, so there can now be no asymmetry of motion. What one twin claims can also rightly be claimed by the other. There is no need to have the "travelling twin" depart form the Earth, he can already be in an inertial state of motion as he passes the other twin, at t=0 in this experiment.
Next, there is no necessity for that twin to return back to the starting point either. Einsteins Time dilation only requires that there is a linear one directional velocity involved, not a reciprocating motion for Time dilation to become a factor. As its a thought experiment we as the thinkers, can figure out according to Einsteins claim that the twin that's moving will be younger. He does not need to return to his brother to make this experiment useful.

So this is the nature of the Paradox in this slightly revised Twin story: Either twin CAN CLAIM to be the stationary one, and thus be the younger, and according to Einsteins, they are both correct.
So we DO indeed have the paradox where a>b and yet b>a if both twins make the same claim.

By the way, myself i'm an idiot apparently, but my x wife is a Professor of mathematics at a large University in China, (I lived there for 6 years) and I also have a friend who is a nearby neighbour who is a Physicist and her father before her was also a Physicist. She currently works for the Australian Armed Forces in a research facility. Now the funny thing is that I don't often get the opportunity to talk to anyone face to face about Physics and my criticisms of Einstein's theories, (QM is also rubbish as well)
so I was really happy that we were able to sit down after dinner and I put my objections re Relativity to her for her comments. I really expected a full on argument exchange. However this was not what happened.
Nope, she agreed with me that Special and General relativity were not scientific. She said that almost every Physicist never needs to give these things a moments thought in order to get on with their work.
After learning it well enough to pas the exams, its basically never used again.
Her job previous the Army was with a private sector company where she was involved in developing a process to manufacture what she called "Quantum Dots". I asked her was she kidding because I think Quantum is the biggest load of nonsense since Einsteins relativity. Again she surprised my with her reply. She said that when she was given that assignment, she read up on the available literature about Quantum Dots, and then tossed the lot in the bin and went ahead with conventional Physics to get the work done.

Of course you wont believe me, but I don't care, its what occurred.
So now back to the story that reveals a Paradox.
I've explained the new twin story, and the paradox, please explain how to "solve" it.
rotchm
2022-01-07 15:00:45 UTC
So this is the nature of the Paradox in this slightly revised Twin story: Either twin
CAN CLAIM to be the stationary one, and thus be the younger, and according to Einsteins, they are both correct.
So we DO indeed have the paradox where a>b and yet b>a if both twins make the same claim.
Which version of the twin paradox are you referring to now?
Since this thread is already cluttered, do start a new one for my above question.
Michael Moroney
2022-01-07 21:22:48 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Next, there is no necessity for that twin to return back to the starting point either.
Then the twins never meet again. They cannot directly compare ages, but
only communicate info to each other. If one twin, when a light year
apart from each other, receives a message from the other saying "I'm 30
years old!" but he's 31 when receiving it. The reverse is also true,
the other twin sends a similar "I'm 30" and is received when he's 31.
They cannot agree on the ages, each sees the other as a year younger.

Also the traveling twin requires a turnaround, either physically or
virtually, as one turns around and returns.
Post by everything isalllies
By the way, myself i'm an idiot apparently, but my x wife is a Professor of mathematics at a large University in China, (I lived there for 6 years) and I also have a friend who is a nearby neighbour who is a Physicist and her father before her was also a Physicist. She currently works for the Australian Armed Forces in a research facility. Now the funny thing is that I don't often get the opportunity to talk to anyone face to face about Physics and my criticisms of Einstein's theories, (QM is also rubbish as well)
Well good for her, not that has anything to do with the price of tea in
China. If you want a pissing contest, my brother is one of the most
knowledgeable and respected experts on CO2 uptake in plant
photosynthesis in the world. So there.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 23:05:26 UTC
Michael Moroney, you are not very good at this are you?
You said: If one twin, when a light year
Post by Michael Moroney
apart from each other, receives a message from the other saying "I'm 30
years old!" but he's 31 when receiving it. The reverse is also true,
the other twin sends a similar "I'm 30" and is received when he's 31.
They cannot agree on the ages, each sees the other as a year younger. "
You seem to believe that this time delay in communication means that no consensus can be achieved.
If you claim to have had your birthday last September, and I only hear about it in December, I will understand that you are now 3 months older than when you sent the message back in September.
This is classical rational thinking, but of course Einstein Relativists have trouble with thinking.
Paul B. Andersen
2022-01-08 14:29:26 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Next, there is no necessity for that twin to return back to the starting point either.
Then the twins never meet again. They cannot directly compare ages, but
only communicate info to each other. If one twin, when a light year
apart from each other, receives a message from the other saying "I'm 30
years old!" but he's 31 when receiving it. The reverse is also true,
the other twin sends a similar "I'm 30" and is received when he's 31.
They cannot agree on the ages, each sees the other as a year younger.
You seem to believe that this time delay in communication means that no consensus can be achieved.
If you claim to have had your birthday last September, and I only hear about it in December, I will understand that you are now 3 months older than when you sent the message back in September.
This is classical rational thinking, but of course Einstein Relativists have trouble with thinking.
Let's make a very realistic version of this scenario,
one which could be performed in the real word.

Each of two persons A and B has a spaceship with
the following equipment:
- an atomic SI-clock with a digital display showing
the time in seconds with four decimal digits.
- a video camera filming the display
- a radio sender sending the video picture
and displaying it on a monitor
- a rocket engine capable of accelerating
the ship at a = 100 m/s² (≈ 10g)

Each person will see a picture of the other person's
clock display on her monitor.

The two persons in their ships are somewhere in
interplanetary space so far from the nearest planet
that the curvature of spacetime can be ignored.
They are moving at a speed v = 3 km/second relative
to each other, and as they closely pass each other
they both set their clocks to zero.

When one of the person's clock shows 10,000,000.0000 seconds
(10 million seconds, ≈ 115.7 days), what will she then
see the clock on her monitor show?

I am sure you can easily calculate this, because
you probably know that it is an empirical fact
that the Doppler shift of EM-signals is:
D = √((c−v)/(c+v)) (c is the speed of light)
So when the spaceships are receding from each other
at v = 3 km/s, D = 0.99999000005

That means that each person will see the clock on
the monitor showing 10,000,000.0000⋅D = 9,999,900.0005 seconds
when her own clock shows 10,000,000.0000 seconds.

I am sure you will find the above to be obviously true.
Or don't you?

-------------------------------------------------------

Now a slightly harder part, but I am sure you will be

A remains inertial (not running his rocket) during the following.

When B's clock shows 10,000,000 seconds she fires her rocket
an accelerates at 100 m/s² towards A.
60 seconds later, when B's clock shows 10,000,060 seconds,
A's speed relative to B will be 3 km/s towards B.
(The speed is changing by 100m/s² ⋅ 60s = 6 km/s,
from 3 km/s away from B to 3 km/s towards B.)

At some time A and B will again closely pass each other
with relative speed 3 km/s. They compare their clocks.
B's clock will obviously show: time out + time of acceleration
+ time back = 10000000s+60s+10000000s = 20000060 seconds

What will A's clock show?
-------------------------

When A and B are receding from each other, D = 0.99999000005
When A and B are approaching each other, D = 1.00001000005
During the short acceleration we can assume D = 1.

Hint: No reason to try to use any relativity equations.

Use common sense, and the Doppler shifts given above.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Buddy Good
2022-01-08 15:17:03 UTC
Each of two persons A and B has a spaceship with the following
- an atomic SI-clock with a digital display showing
the time in seconds with four decimal digits.
- a video camera filming the display - a radio sender sending the video
and displaying it on a monitor
- a rocket engine capable of accelerating
the ship at a = 100 m/s² (≈ 10g)
Each person will see a picture of the other person's clock display on
her monitor.
idiot. The signal will be such close to randomly shifted, they will not
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 14:56:57 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
(I removed all the rhetoric as its not necessary to know what you
personal feelings involve , related to my beliefs.)
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them
is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have
no way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists
only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is
They feel a force.
Ok, Ok, Ok, my approach here is wrong. An accelerating body must be able
to measure that a force has been applied, even though it may be unnoticed
by a humans senses.
So we CAN theoretically detect that a body is under acceleration.
Not just theoretically. It’s an everyday occurrence. You should know this
from experience.
Post by everything isalllies
Now the rest of your comments refer to acceleration and ive conceded that
I was wrong here on that point.
HOWEVER, my original argument was that if acceleration can be used to
decide which twin is going to be younger, then I submit that we look at a
revised twin story that also creates the same type of Paradox.
No, it’s not the same kind of paradox. In this case, no twins meet, and
there is no observational result — note OBSERVATIONAL — that one twin is
younger.
Post by everything isalllies
And because I've removed the possibility if any acceleration of either
twin, (or time keeping devices,- same applies) then you can not use
acceleration of one twin to explain why only one of them can claim to be younger.
So as I sad somewhere earlier, just organise the thought experiment so
that the twins are only in Einstein's inertial frames the whole time, so
there can now be no asymmetry of motion. What one twin claims can also
rightly be claimed by the other.
That’s correct.
Post by everything isalllies
There is no need to have the "travelling twin" depart form the Earth, he
can already be in an inertial state of motion as he passes the other
twin, at t=0 in this experiment.
Next, there is no necessity for that twin to return back to the starting
point either. Einsteins Time dilation only requires that there is a
linear one directional velocity involved, not a reciprocating motion for
Time dilation to become a factor. As its a thought experiment we as the
thinkers, can figure out according to Einsteins claim that the twin
that's moving will be younger. He does not need to return to his brother
to make this experiment useful.
Now tell me how this would be experimentally confirmed with an experiment.
Not a supposition. Not some handwave that this is what the other twin
*must* be experiencing. I’m talking about how you might CONFIRM any claim
Post by everything isalllies
Either twin CAN CLAIM to be the stationary one, and thus be the younger,
and according to Einsteins, they are both correct.
So we DO indeed have the paradox where a>b and yet b>a if both twins make the same claim.
There is no point to make such a claim if it cannot be experimentally
confirmed.
Post by everything isalllies
By the way, myself i'm an idiot apparently, but my x wife is a Professor
of mathematics at a large University in China, (I lived there for 6
years) and I also have a friend who is a nearby neighbour who is a
Physicist and her father before her was also a Physicist. She currently
works for the Australian Armed Forces in a research facility. Now the
funny thing is that I don't often get the opportunity to talk to anyone
face to face about Physics and my criticisms of Einstein's theories, (QM
is also rubbish as well)
so I was really happy that we were able to sit down after dinner and I
put my objections re Relativity to her for her comments. I really
expected a full on argument exchange. However this was not what happened.
Nope, she agreed with me that Special and General relativity were not
scientific. She said that almost every Physicist never needs to give
these things a moments thought in order to get on with their work.
Well, that’s an idiotic statement.
Post by everything isalllies
After learning it well enough to pas the exams, its basically never used again.
Her job previous the Army was with a private sector company where she was
involved in developing a process to manufacture what she called "Quantum
Dots". I asked her was she kidding because I think Quantum is the
biggest load of nonsense since Einsteins relativity. Again she surprised
my with her reply. She said that when she was given that assignment, she
read up on the available literature about Quantum Dots, and then tossed
the lot in the bin and went ahead with conventional Physics to get the work done.
Of course you wont believe me, but I don't care, its what occurred.
So now back to the story that reveals a Paradox.
I've explained the new twin story, and the paradox, please explain how to "solve" it.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Townes Olson
2022-01-08 18:11:33 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
There is no necessity for that twin to return back to the starting
point. Einstein's time dilation only requires that there is a linear
one directional velocity involved, not a reciprocating motion for
time dilation to become a factor... Either twin CAN CLAIM to be
the stationary one, and thus be the younger... So we DO indeed have
the paradox where a>b and yet b>a if both twins make the same claim.
No, it’s not the same kind of paradox. In this case, no twins meet, and
there is no observational result — note OBSERVATIONAL — that one twin
is younger. There is no point to make such a claim if it cannot be
experimentally confirmed.
It can be. What he is describing is a well-known variation of the twins “paradox”. It is an objective verifiable fact that, for two relatively moving clocks, each clock runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. To observe this, for each clock we can construct inertia-based rest coordinates, i.e., two grids of standard rulers with standard clocks at rest and inertially synchronized, and note that the other clock runs slow in terms of these coordinates. The relation is perfectly reciprocal and objectively verifiable.

Equivalently, we can have two rows of ideal clocks, each row being inertially synchronized, moving past each other in opposite directions, and note that the elapsed time on each clock between passing two consecutive clocks in the other row is less than the difference between the times on those other clocks as it passes them. This is perfectly reciprocal, but it does not imply the existence of two numbers a,b such that a>b and b>a. Rather, if clock A is at rest in x,t and clock B at rest in x’,t’, it implies that dtauA/dt’ < dtauB/dt’ and dtauB/dt < dtauA/dt. This is not contradictory.
Post by Odd Bodkin
An electric field exists in the vacuum between charged objects. There is no
other matter needed in the space between those objects.
Be careful. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, which exist *in* spacetime, they are not part *of* spacetime (in quantum electrodynamics). Einstein and others began to talk about spacetime itself having properties with the advent of general relativity, in which the spacetime at any event is considered to have properties such as curvature, and the metric of spacetime is subject to dynamical laws. However, even in this sense you have to be careful, because some physicists (with a quantum field perspective) have developed representations of general relativity in terms of “gravitons” to mediate the gravitational field in a flat background spacetime, analogous to photons for the electromagnetic field. And if you confine yourself to classical (non-quantum) field theories, you have the viable distant-action theories of Weber and Wheeler/Feynman. There are obviously difficulties with quantizing the distant-action theories, and with the “field theoretic” approach to gravity, but the point is that you shouldn’t be dogmatic about how spacetime figures (if at all) into the current classical general relativity, let alone into a putative unified theory of quantum gravity.

For purposes of explaining special relativity correctly, none of this is needed. We simply express things in well-defined operational terms, e.g., systems of rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame.
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 23:30:12 UTC
Be careful. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, which exist *in* spacetime, they are not part *of* spacetime (in quantum electrodynamics).
For purposes of explaining special relativity correctly, none of this is needed. We simply express things in well-defined operational terms, e.g., systems of rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame.
Some good points in your comment.
But really, the statement "Be careful. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons" is NOT a FACT, its a current BELIEF based on someones hypothesis. "
The Photon as a particle has never been produced for inspection, its part of an hypothesis on how things work, same for the Electron.... and all other sub atomic "particles", all ASSUMED to exist. Demonstrating that some claimed thing exists by inference alone is not proof. All you are demonstration is that SOMETHING is going on, but to claim you can see that its your "photon" and not something else entirely is not possible.
If no one has ever seen an apple ( or any other fruit) ever, no evidence of apples anywhere, but someone finds a tree with stalks that seems to have had something attached to it at some point, then you cant claim that its your apple that was the fruit. It can be any of the other fruits that we have not seen,, or even might not be a fruit stem at all. Thats not a great way to illustrate what I'm saying, but really, we only have conjecture that observed phenomena is caused by some specific otherwise undetectable "particle". Magnetic force is all particles too I suppose?
Next, your statement, " For purposes of explaining special relativity correctly, none of this is needed. We simply express things in well-defined operational terms, e.g., systems of rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame." ,
sounds nice, however, in point of actual fact, you still can't rationally explain STR regardless of which way you try, because STR is inherently self contradictory and nonsensical.
rotchm
2022-01-08 23:44:23 UTC
... STR is inherently self contradictory and nonsensical.
Say it is. Yet, it predicts correctly the outcomes of exps. It correctly predicts the values we will obtain on our measuring devices.
Do you agree with this?
Townes Olson
2022-01-09 00:28:12 UTC
Be careful. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, which exist *in*
spacetime, they are not part *of* spacetime (in quantum electrodynamics).
[That] is NOT a FACT, its a current BELIEF based on someone's hypothesis.
I said "in quantum electrodynamics", and the person I was addressing does not deny quantum electrodynamics, so this explained *to him* why his statement that "the electric field is a property of space" is wrong *according to his own beliefs*, and then I went on to explain the sense in which gravitation (i.e., curvature) is sometimes regarded as a property of space, but that even this is problematic. Then, lastly, I pointed out that
For purposes of explaining special relativity correctly, none of this is needed.
We simply express things in well-defined operational terms, e.g., systems of
rulers and clocks at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame.
You still can't rationally explain STR regardless of which way you try, because
STR is inherently self contradictory and nonsensical.
Not true. See, for example, the part of my previous post that you snipped and ignored (where I explained the fallacy of your a>b and b>a). Again, I wasn't addressing you in that message, but you (too) could have learned something from reading it.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 00:35:22 UTC
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:28:13 AM UTC+11, Townes Olson wrote:
You seem sensible, I would like to discuss STR with you sans personal insults, and examine Einsteins claims to see if he made any error,
You up for it?
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 00:52:45 UTC
Not true. See, for example, the part of my previous post that you snipped and ignored (where I explained the fallacy of your a>b and b>a).
You said this, but that doesn't mean you are correct.

Your explanation of the fallacy of my argument is itself a fallacy.

Ill elaborate later, things to do here.

"Equivalently, we can have two rows of ideal clocks, each row being inertially synchronized, moving past each other in opposite directions, and note that the elapsed time on each clock between passing two consecutive clocks in the other row is less than the difference between the times on those other clocks as it passes them. This is perfectly reciprocal, but it does not imply the existence of two numbers a,b such that a>b and b>a. Rather, if clock A is at rest in x,t and clock B at rest in x’,t’, it implies that dtauA/dt’ < dtauB/dt’ and dtauB/dt < dtauA/dt. This is not contradictory."

Ill pull this apart and show you where you are wrong, in my next sitting.
Dono.
2022-01-09 01:05:16 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
The Photon as a particle has never been produced for inspection, its part of an hypothesis on how things work, same for the Electron.... and all other sub atomic "particles", all ASSUMED to exist.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 02:59:55 UTC
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
The Photon as a particle has never been produced for inspection, its part of an hypothesis on how things work, same for the Electron.... and all other sub atomic "particles", all ASSUMED to exist.
Send me a Photon in the Mail then, and an Electron, (not a battery, an electron)
No one ever has proof the either of these things exist, they are assumed to exist based on deduction only.
However there can easily be other explanations that can be deduced that don't need a photon or an electron.

And stop with the personal insults if you expect others to take you seriously. You come off as being a 14 yo guy who is in between video games.
Dono.
2022-01-09 04:29:21 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
The Photon as a particle has never been produced for inspection, its part of an hypothesis on how things work, same for the Electron.... and all other sub atomic "particles", all ASSUMED to exist.
Send me a Photon in the Mail then, and an Electron, (not a battery, an electron)
Better, I'll send you back to the loony bin you escaped from.
Michael Moroney
2022-01-09 04:53:07 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Send me a Photon in the Mail then, and an Electron, (not a battery, an electron)
No one ever has proof the either of these things exist, they are assumed to exist based on deduction only.
What do you mean by "assumed to exist based on deduction only"? Do
ultraviolet rays exist? We can't see them. How about infrared, or radio
waves? Do bacteria exist? Do molecules exist? Atoms? Does the planet
Neptune exist? How about galaxies a billion light years away?
Michael Moroney
2022-01-09 04:58:24 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
And stop with the personal insults if you expect others to take you seriously. You come off as being a 14 yo guy who is in between video games.
Dono sure can be crude, but he calls 'em as he sees 'em. He's rarely wrong.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 21:10:36 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists,
I guess it's official, as if there was ever doubt. While "everything
isalllies" showed up appearing to be a babe in the woods, unable to
figure out Giggle Groups, it looks like s/he was a crackpot all along.
Or has deteriorated very rapidly. Using the word "relativist" is a dead
giveaway of a crank. Let's see how many other crank dogwhistle words
show up in future posts.
And attacking me with personal insults is the tactic of fanatics who have
no valid statement to make.
Lets see if his later comments are valid...
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them
is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no
way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists
only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is
By seeing whether Newton’s first law holds. There are features of being at
rest in an accelerated frame called “inertial forces” or “fictitious
forces” or “pseudo-forces”. The Coriolis effect is a good example of an
inertial force. In turn, there are specific attributes of inertial forces
that let you know they are in play.

You can look this up on your own, if you like. I’ll remind you this is a
standard feature of Newtonian mechanics which you say you understand (and
obviously do not), and it is covered in the first few weeks of a first
semester course in physics. Had you bothered to dive into even a first-year
textbook on the subject, you would already know this.

Why are you harping on relativity making no sense to you, when you don’t
basics first?
Post by everything isalllies
Post by everything isalllies
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim
would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition
of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
The one (if not both) accelerating cannot claim to be stationary, except
momentarily.
Again a lack of clear thinking... we cant tell who is the one doing the
acceleration. You have not provided a way of deciding.
Post by everything isalllies
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has
relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or
the lack of it, requires another reference.
If both sense they are accelerating, neither can claim to be stationary.
If one is not accelerating, there is an inertial frame in which he is
stationary.
And finally he reiterates the same lack of knowledge.
No one ( neither of the two objects) is able to "sense" that he is
accelerating. The only can see that the distance between them is
increasing with acceleration.
This planet is accelerating all the time, not only due to its orbit, but
its velocity along the not quite circular trajectory is not constant.
But you can "sense" this in you bones right? The whole Solar System is
spiralling through the Universe, at some considerable (varying) speed,
and I guess you can "sense" this as well?
Actually, you CAN sense some of these inertial forces. The rotation of
storms in the northern hemisphere is directly attributable to the “Coriolis
force”. If you weighed yourself at both the pole and the equator, you’d
find a difference on the scale of about half a percent (that’s a pound if
you weigh 200). When an elevator starts to descend, you “feel” lighter,
though your weight (the force of gravity pulling down on you) is completely
unchanged. There are actually hundreds of examples of you being able to
sense when you are fixed in an accelerating reference frame, and perhaps a
dozen or so are common taught in first-year textbooks.

You really don’t know much about physics at all. Why are you trying to
hammer on relativity?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
2022-01-07 21:20:39 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by everything isalllies
Yep, here is the first invalid comment... in the scenario there exists
only two objects, nothing else, so how can either determine who is
By seeing whether Newton’s first law holds. There are features of being
at rest in an accelerated frame called “inertial forces” or “fictitious
forces” or “pseudo-forces”. The Coriolis effect is a good example of an
inertial force. In turn, there are specific attributes of inertial
forces that let you know they are in play.
unbelievable you can be this wrong. It's only about choosing one of he
references. Acceleration is not about knowing (of feeling), but observing
alone.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 23:26:53 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
You really don’t know much about physics at all. Why are you trying to
hammer on relativity?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ive already admitted elsewhere that I was wrong to try to use acceleration which can reveal if someone is moving.

But as Einsteins STR has zero to do with acceleration, and STR is what I was attempting to debunk, I would like to stay on track and discuss STR as Einsteins presents his hypothesis, without acceleration.

I'm hammering Relativity because I don't think anyone has a rational case to make for Time Dilation etc.
Einstein certainly does not.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 17:52:27 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Odd Bodkin
You really don’t know much about physics at all. Why are you trying to
hammer on relativity?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ive already admitted elsewhere that I was wrong to try to use
acceleration which can reveal if someone is moving.
But as Einsteins STR has zero to do with acceleration, and STR is what I
was attempting to debunk, I would like to stay on track and discuss STR
as Einsteins presents his hypothesis, without acceleration.
That’s fine, but let’s just keep in mind what needs to be measured to test
these.
Post by everything isalllies
I'm hammering Relativity because I don't think anyone has a rational case
to make for Time Dilation etc.
Einstein certainly does not.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 20:16:26 UTC
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists,
I guess it's official, as if there was ever doubt. While "everything
isalllies" showed up appearing to be a babe in the woods, unable to
figure out Giggle Groups, it looks like s/he was a crackpot all along.
Or has deteriorated very rapidly. Using the word "relativist" is a dead
giveaway of a crank. Let's see how many other crank dogwhistle words
show up in future posts.
Post by everything isalllies
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is
increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no
way to tell as it could be either)
That is wrong. Acceleration is not relative. Someone accelerating can
always tell that they are accelerating.
So much of what this guy is going to say is based on crap, cartoon comments
show just the barest contact with the material. Statements like what he
just made — it’s like he can’t get four footfalls without falling on his
face.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by everything isalllies
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim
would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition
of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
The one (if not both) accelerating cannot claim to be stationary, except
momentarily.
Post by everything isalllies
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has
relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or
the lack of it, requires another reference.
If both sense they are accelerating, neither can claim to be stationary.
If one is not accelerating, there is an inertial frame in which he is
stationary.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2022-01-07 00:10:55 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm recently made a claim on another Conversation, then deleted my response like a coward who has been caught out lying.
...
Post by everything isalllies
Any replies that do not stay with this topic, and that sidetrack will be deleted.
Any replies that insinuate that another contributor is unable to understand, will be deleted. If someone does not understand, its because YOU have failed to make a coherent case.
You still don't know where you are, "everything isalllllies"? You cannot
delete messages (*), Rochm didn't delete any message btw.
Post by everything isalllies
Any comments from shills working for Chinese or Israel communists will be deleted. (FACT: both China and Israel employ thousands of profession shills that scour the forums for content they don't like, and try to influence the arguments by inserting propaganda.)
You really think that China and Israel are interested by the rant a
crank of your kind is posting on Usenet? You are definitely DEMENTED.

(*) well technically there is a way, but it's not much working across
all NNTP servers these days, and definitely not Google Groups.
rotchm
2022-01-07 00:16:28 UTC
Post by Python
You still don't know where you are, "everything isalllllies"? You cannot
delete messages (*), Rochm didn't delete any message btw.
[ Ssshhh... don't tell him this... I want to see if he is as delusional and gullible as idiot ken :) ]
Post by Python
(*) well technically there is a way, but it's not much working across
all NNTP servers these days, and definitely not Google Groups.
:)
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 00:50:10 UTC
Post by Python
You still don't know where you are, "everything isalllllies"? You cannot
delete messages (*), Rochm didn't delete any message btw.
TO Rotchm..
Did you delete my rebuttal of this statement of yours about how SR can address non inertial if used inside an inertial frame?
Rotchm: I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.

I might have inadvertently deleted your post while I was deleting spammers.
Or to make it clearer, in its own thread with an appropriate title.

So, seems that SOME elites can delete what they want.
And yes, Israel and China ARE monitoring usenet discourses, and are influencing, also NSA. Do a little research before you poo poo something.
Python
2022-01-07 01:13:16 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
You still don't know where you are, "everything isalllllies"? You cannot
delete messages (*), Rochm didn't delete any message btw.
TO Rotchm..
Did you delete my rebuttal of this statement of yours about how SR can address non inertial if used inside an inertial frame?
Rotchm: I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
Oh dear... you are confusing "not quoting" and "deleting another post".

Amongst other crank down here you're doing very well, you are almost as
dense as Thomas Heger. That's something!
Post by everything isalllies
So, seems that SOME elites can delete what they want.
And yes, Israel and China ARE monitoring usenet discourses, and are influencing, also NSA. Do a little research before you poo poo something.
Ah. ahah.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 01:20:51 UTC
Post by Python
Oh dear... you are confusing "not quoting" and "deleting another post".
look, shit for brains... (using your language style)
My original comment is gone, Im not talking about what Rotchm has chosen to include in his replies.
Which part of his statement, "I may have deleted your comment while deleting spam? dont you understand?
Python
2022-01-07 01:28:06 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Python
Oh dear... you are confusing "not quoting" and "deleting another post".
look, shit for brains... (using your language style)
My original comment is gone, Im not talking about what Rotchm has chosen to include in his replies.
Which part of his statement, "I may have deleted your comment while deleting spam? dont you understand?
You are dense... Rotch didn't delete your post, moreover he couldn't
have done so. Sigh...
rotchm
2022-01-07 03:41:27 UTC
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
Which part of his statement, "I may have deleted your comment while deleting spam? dont you understand?
You are dense... Rotch didn't delete your post, moreover he couldn't
have done so. Sigh...
Well, idiot Ken thinks I can.
He even thinks I can mettle into his computer and play with his sounds, microphone and display.
I never did that and I don't even know who this ken seto is that you speak of...

;)
Python
2022-01-07 03:58:20 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by Python
Post by everything isalllies
Which part of his statement, "I may have deleted your comment while deleting spam? dont you understand?
You are dense... Rotch didn't delete your post, moreover he couldn't
have done so. Sigh...
Well, idiot Ken thinks I can.
He even thinks I can mettle into his computer and play with his sounds, microphone and display.
I never did that and I don't even know who this ken seto is that you speak of...
;)
It's my fault, I draw a d*ck on his board in a middle of a presentation
he did online (hosted by some cranky society he was a member of at that
time) in 2009 or even before I'd say... Back in the day online meetings
were quite a thing.
rotchm
2022-01-07 04:10:14 UTC
Post by Python
It's my fault, I draw a d*ck on his board in a middle of a presentation
he did online (hosted by some cranky society he was a member of at that
time) in 2009 or even before I'd say... Back in the day online meetings
I believe that that was/still on youtube!
rotchm
2022-01-07 02:08:43 UTC
Post by Python
Rotchm: I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
Oh dear... you are confusing "not quoting" and "deleting another post".
I am ROTFL literally.
These cranks fail on every level... it's astounding, sad really, but funny!
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 09:20:26 UTC
Post by Python
You still don't know where you are, "everything isalllllies"? You cannot
delete messages (*), Rochm didn't delete any message btw.
TO Rotchm..
Did you delete my rebuttal of this statement of yours about how SR can address non inertial if used inside an inertial frame?
Rotchm: I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
I never said any such thing. So either you are lying, making things up, or you got suckered in by a nym shifting troll.
None of the last, can you quote me with reference?
I might have inadvertently deleted your post while I was deleting spammers.
That, I did say.
So, seems that SOME elites can delete what they want.
My plan is working...
No, I cant be bothered digging through the messages, but you did say exactly this word for word. (and with the typo)
"I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
I might have inadvertently deleted your post while I was deleting spammers.
But forget it, this is not discussing STR, its sidetracking.
2022-01-07 16:01:57 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
No, I cant be bothered digging through the messages, but you did say
exactly this word for word. (and with the typo)
"I showed why it is nonsense, that why its missing fro the comments now.
Nope, I never said any such thing.
You are very confused.
And the fact that you refused our can't support your claim, that you
refused to find the original post and it's link, shows that you are
dishonest.
stop spamming, idiot. Either come up with a theory, hypothesis or a
lemma, or also, shut the fuck up.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 01:17:14 UTC
That is not true. Now you are lying to try to defend your point.
And, are you claiming that I can delete posts from others not far on the usenet?
Yes, you admitted to me that you have deleted things, as I explained to Python.
That is a lie. You and I never had such discussions. We had discussions on other topics but not on how Einstein did his stuff.
Ok, that's quite possible, I run several parallel similar conversations at the same time, and due to the weird way this group thing is set up, its hard to keep track of stuff, but as you represent the mainstream approved narrative on all things Einstein, my comments are applicable to you anyway.
Post by everything isalllies
Modern Mathematicians claim to have modified STR equations to account for acceleration,
If they modified it then it is no longer STR; It's a new or different model.
No, its still based on STR but with allowances for Acceleration.
Post by everything isalllies
so there really is no reason to have another theory of GR especially when GR and SR are incomparable.
(One requires absoluteness, the other forbids it)
Nope. You are very confused.
"Nope" and then a insult is not a very good explanation.

(I admit that the conservation on this specific aspect of STR was with another user, not Rotchm.)
Carry on...
Post by everything isalllies
Well because he claims that we have two observers here, one has been placed in an inertial frame and
the other is supposed to be "in" that inertial frame, but NOT moving inertially
Here we only have two observers, with imaginary frames attached to their big toe,
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm: Special relativity requires at least one inertial frame. Calling it imaginary won't change that requirement.
.
So they both have set up a frame. And within their respective frame, the other is accelerating away. Here, 'accelerating away' refers to the 'coordinate acceleration', not the proper acceleration. You need to be clear in your description and with the words you use.
Post by everything isalllies
To assign the condition of Stationary or accelerating
Stationary implies you have defined a coordinate system. You were not clear with this.
And your word accelerating above is ambiguous. Are you talking about proper or coordinate accelerations?
Post by everything isalllies
to either of these observers
But we are not a signing these conditions since your setup is too ambiguous.
Post by everything isalllies
is to exclude this scenario from the possibility that it can be classed under the terms defined in the STR.
Correct.
Do try to write more clearly, shorter, and to the point.
OK, Rotchm.
You claim that my setup is invalid in STR because I have not set up the frames the "right way".
But I submit there is no other way to do it.
If obs1 sets up a frame where he is not moving on it, assigning acceleration to the other, then this is not science now is it? Because both are at liberty to do this and I claim that both have done it, and therefore we still end up with an impossible situation where each observer claims that he is stationary and they both cant be correct.
Now as the upshot of this is supposed to be Time dilation and length contraction and Mass increase, then we still get the relationships expressed as a>b AND b>a.
And that is irrational and not physics or math.

Please explain how you can overcome this problem.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 09:52:59 UTC
On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:56:40 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:

If you want to use special relativity, Define clearly an inertial frame.
If you don't, or cannot, then we cannot use special relativity.
... If obs1 sets up a frame where he is not moving on it,
OK. So he stays at x=0. Now, is his frame an inertial one or not, or unknown? This is important to answer.
....... assigning acceleration to the other,
Proper acceleration, or coordinate acceleration? <<>>>

Well Rotchm, you seem stuck at page one with the definition of an inertial frame.

The wikipedia article reiterates Einsteins and Classical Physics descriptions of what an inertial frame of reference is, I'm happy what that definition. But first we need to define what a :Frame of Reference is, THEN what an Inertial frame is.

Wikipedia (repeating what Physics has defined) says:
"In physics and astronomy, a frame of reference (or reference frame) is an abstract coordinate system with an origin, orientation, and scale specified by a set of reference points―geometric points whose position is identified both mathematically (with numerical coordinate values) and physically (signalled by conventional markers)
In practical use a frame is arbitrarily assigned according to the requirements of the individual. It has no existence outside the intended use of the individual that declares its properties. (location, origin and directions, where Location is associated with some identifiable Object, or calculated with reference to some physical object, and specifies exactly the Origin of the frame with regard to that object, and also the directions of the coordinates, usually x, y and z when using Cartesian coordinates.

Now an INERTIAL frame of reference is all of the above but with the added stipulation that the Object to which the frame is associated, is itself in an inertial state. (which includes not moving) and thus the Laws of kinematics of moving objects of Galileo and Newton are applicable.

From Wikipedia. "In classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration. In an inertial frame of reference, a physical object with zero net force acting on it moves with a constant velocity (which might be zero)—or, equivalently, it is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion holds.[1][2] An inertial frame of reference can be defined in analytical terms as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner.[3] Conceptually, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system.

You will note that one definition includes the condition where the system of Physics (Galilean relativity) is not influenced by any forces that are not from within that same condition of motion, (i.e. inertial motion or not moving at all.)

So Obs1 sets up his frame, and considers that its inertial because he is not moving. The frame is associated with him, to his big toe and he's not walking about, so his frame is stationary and so is he.
You got a problem with that?

And then he assigns acceleration to the other guy, on the basis of measurements taken from his frame.

There is no meaning to your labels, "Proper" acceleration, or "coordinate" acceleration.

Obs2 is accelerating according to Obs1 .
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 23:49:30 UTC
You do not need to quote me on the definitions. I am well aware of them all. You also need to understand the meaning on those definitions.
For instance, in part of the above quote, nope. They say it's an abstract system yet they say it's physically and in Practical use. How can something be physical and practical use if it's abstract?
Sorry Rotchm, You blew it here.
Whilst claiming intellectual superiority and the possessor of scientific TRUTH, then specifically claiming to be "well aware of the definitions" you fail when you dont understand the different uses of the word "abstract".
Here you think that its abstract as in modern Art.

Or maybe Abstract as in a sampling of content from a larger composition...

But you cant comprehend this simple and correct definition from Wikipedia, which is just mirroring what mainstream Science has to say on this topic.

So now we know that you are ignorant. No wonder you cant find where Einsteins errors are, you are an incapable of comprehension of simple statements and the use of common language
rotchm
2022-01-08 00:03:20 UTC
For instance, in part of the above quote, nope. They say it's an abstract system yet
they say it's physically and in Practical use. How can something be physical and practical use if it's abstract?
Sorry Rotchm, You blew it here.
Nope. You once again misunderstood what you read.
you fail when you dont understand the different uses of the word "abstract".
I understood it very well.
Here you think that its abstract as in modern Art.
Nope not at all. See how confused you are!
I was asking you or inciting you to think about the meaning of the words in that definition. I was asking you how do you understand the word "abstract". If something is abstract, in the sense they are using, how can that something be physical? I'm not asking you cuz I don't know, I do know. I'm inquiring to see if you understand it.

This, we can take up in it's on red.in own thread, Because it's not part of this thread.
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 00:34:31 UTC
An inertial frame is a reference frame (coordinate system) in which Newton's Laws hold good.
In very simple terms, if in your frame you place a small object at a location and you let it go & if it stays there, if this is true for every location of your frame, then your frame is an inertial inertial frame.
Rotchm, your problem here is failing to come to grips with frames of reference totally.

1. Any and all "Reference Frames" are ABSTRACT creations , they don't exist, and cant be responsible for anything at all in Physics. Their use is ONLY for comparison, serving as a common point to which all measurements and observations can have a shared origin and direction. Any frame MUST be mathematically located to some identifiable point and alignment on a Physical Object. Your problem is that you have Reified an ABSTRACT concept.
2. Saying that an object is "IN" a particular frame or in some other imaginary frame is simply an error based on your lack of understanding about the use of Frames in general.

For instance, if I create a frame located on my big toe, or on the corner of this house, (matters not), and stipulate its orientation, I have established a frame. Whats included in my frame? Every fucking thing in the whole universe! Anything and everything.. moving, stationary, accelerating or in inertial state.

If then I chose to hop in my car and accelerate, or choose to stay put, I'm STILL in my imaginary frame, and the FRAME can not become "Inertial or accelerating" no matter what.
As far as I am concerned, as I am the observer recording things relative to my frames setup, there can only be motion or the lack of motion, both constant acceleration and not.
So if is note that a race car has just gone from zero to 100 mph, I don't need to assign another frame and attach it to that car, and thus create a new frame that I say is NOT and Inertial Frame. I just say that from my reference that car is accelerating but the rock nearby is not.
So to do Physics I never need to create any more than the one frame. Every motion i observe can be measured and calculated back to my frames declared origin and orientation.
Now as an Engineer, I use CAD to make designing easy. Very often I create additional frames of reference within my 3D model environment to make part creation simple. But I also DON'T NEED to do that. with a little bit of thought, I can draw the whole part referenced to just the one origin and orientation. I can also do an analysis of an assembly of parts making up a machine that has moving parts. I am at liberty to swap my POINT of VIEW, my "frame of reference" from the global origin, to any location on any part in any orientation I see fit.
BUT NOTHING I change regrading the reference frames make a scrap of difference to the machine function!

BUT your hero Einstein thinks that swapping from one imaginary frame to another will mess up his whole theory of Physics!
But I hate to tell you this home truth, but Physics works REGARDLESS of any imaginary frames you allow or deny.

If STR is valid in reality, then it will have its measurable effects taken from any object, (and thus any frame) regardless of if its inertial or not. If his theory of Physics only works in "inertial conditions", then its not a theory of Practical or Applied Physics, but only a hypothetical case.
And because he limits his theory only to Inertial conditions, then it MUST agree with Galilean Inertial frames because Galileo has that aspect of Physics fully accounted for.

But you will claim that Galileo missed something... that Einsteins discovered, thus requiring Time to warp.

However on close critical inspection, we can easily discover that Einstein was wrong to say there is a problem with classical Physics concerning inertial motion.

But you don't care to examine what that error of Einstein actually is.
You just keep circling around in an endless loop of flawed logic.
Dono.
2022-01-08 00:54:16 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
An inertial frame is a reference frame (coordinate system) in which Newton's Laws hold good.
In very simple terms, if in your frame you place a small object at a location and you let it go & if it stays there, if this is true for every location of your frame, then your frame is an inertial inertial frame.
Rotchm, your problem here is failing to come to grips with frames of reference totally.
Two posers discussing things they do not understand
rotchm
2022-01-08 01:48:37 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm, your problem here is failing to come to grips with frames of reference totally.
That is your claim. But who should we believe?
Should we believe the person who can't solve simple math/physics problems, or the person who can?

Put trust in those who can solve simple and known problems.
When you will be able to do that, to solve simple problems, then you can start trusting your beliefs.
Post by everything isalllies
1. Any and all "Reference Frames" are ABSTRACT creations , they don't exist,
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?
Post by everything isalllies
and cant be responsible for anything at all in Physics.
It will not dictate how nature is to work.
But nature will do what it does to the physical devices. And the physical devices will keep a log of what has occurred to it.
Post by everything isalllies
you have Reified an ABSTRACT concept.
In physics, a reference frame (abusive language called sometimes coordinate system) Are not abstract. They are real physical things. They have operational definitions.
Post by everything isalllies
2. Saying that an object is "IN" a particular frame or in some other imaginary frame is simply an error
Correct, as I told you. It is somewhat sloppy to say it but acceptable for those who understand it.
An object exists. It has coordinates in a specified coordinates system (reference frame).
Post by everything isalllies
based on your lack of understanding about the use of Frames in general.
I have told you that you do not understand the concept of frames. Many others here to have told you that.
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...?
Post by everything isalllies
For instance, if I create a frame located on my big toe,
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.
Post by everything isalllies
Whats included in my frame? Every fucking thing in the whole universe!
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.
Post by everything isalllies
If then I chose to hop in my car and accelerate, or choose to stay put, I'm STILL in my imaginary frame,
Your toe is still there. DOT physical frame is still there. You are still located at the value x=0 of your frame.
Post by everything isalllies
and the FRAME can not become "Inertial or accelerating" no matter what.
An inertial frame, is defined as one such that Newton's Laws holds good. That's the definition.
So, choose a certain region of space and an interval of time. If within that Newton's Laws hold good, then. Frame for that time is an inertial one.

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?
Post by everything isalllies
As far as I am concerned, as I am the observer recording things relative to my frames setup,
Be careful. The word 'Observer' has, unfortunately, a few different definitions.
You can call you yourself a person. A device a logging device at a given location, as an observer.
However, often in relativity texts, 'observer' or 'observers' just means the coordinate system, the events themselves.
In other words, it means the set of all logging devices at all positions in a given frame.

I suggest you read the section "observers" in "Special Relativity", by A.P. French.
I believe that you can even find the pages on the net.
Post by everything isalllies
As far as I am concerned, as I am the observer recording things relative to my frames setup,
Yes, I doubled it. And this in relativity basically means,
Events are occurring and they have coordinates in your frame.
The word Observer is unnecessary.
Post by everything isalllies
there can only be motion or the lack of motion, both constant acceleration and not.
An 'Event' does not have motion. The point (x,t) does not have motion.
Post by everything isalllies
So if is note that a race car has just gone from zero to 100 mph, I don't need to assign
another frame
It depends of your purpose. You don't always need to assign another frame.
Post by everything isalllies
and attach it to that car,
One can Define the car has its own frame. In that frame, the driver is always at the same position.
In your frame, as a spectator, the driver is changing positions.
Post by everything isalllies
and thus create a new frame that I say is NOT and Inertial Frame.
To say it is an inertial frame or not, you just verify the (operational) definition of inertial frame.
Post by everything isalllies
I just say that from my reference that car is accelerating but the rock nearby is not.
Correct.
Post by everything isalllies
So to do Physics I never need to create any more than the one frame.
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...
Post by everything isalllies
Every motion i observe can be measured and calculated back to my frames
Above, haven't you been peddling that you never need to have more than one frame?

In your frame, objects may have motion. You can measure them and calculate them, depending on the info you have.
That is, you can obtain the space-time coordinates of the events you seek.
Post by everything isalllies
I am at liberty to swap my POINT of VIEW, my "frame of reference"
Correct. You are free to use whichever frame you want.
Post by everything isalllies
BUT NOTHING I change regrading the reference frames make a scrap of difference to the machine function!
Exactly what we have been telling you, what special relativity says. No matter which friend 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.
In the Racing Car example, for you the position is changing. For the driver, his position is not changing.
Post by everything isalllies
BUT your hero Einstein thinks that swapping from one imaginary frame to another will mess up his whole theory of Physics!
Nope. He is basically saying depending on the frame we choose, we might see things differently. The driver says that he is always at x=0, whereas you say he is always changing position.
Post by everything isalllies
But I hate to tell you this home truth, but Physics works REGARDLESS of any imaginary frames you allow or deny.
And this is what we have been telling you. It's good that you are starting to agree in to understand.
Post by everything isalllies
If STR is valid in reality, then it will have its measurable effects taken from any object, (and thus any frame)
regardless of if its inertial or not.
Special relativity says if you have the coordinates of one event in a given inertial frame, we can find the coordinates of that event in another inertial frame. Do not go beyond this for now. Do not invoke accelerations, gravitation, Etc. One step at a time.
Post by everything isalllies
If his theory of Physics only works in "inertial conditions", then its not a theory of
Practical or Applied Physics, but only a hypothetical case.
It is very practical and applied. Many things have been invented based on it.
Since inertial frames do exist, then special relativity may be used...
Post by everything isalllies
And because he limits his theory only to Inertial conditions, then it MUST agree with
Galilean Inertial frames because Galileo has that aspect of Physics fully accounted for.
Inertial frames exist in both of these models.
However, these two theories have different "formulas"; they have a different transformation equations.
If we have the space-time coordinates of an event, we can calculate the space-time coordinates of that event in another inertial frame.
Special relativity and gallery and relativity predicts different results here.
An experiment is done to verify which is correct.
Which one do you think is correct and which one gave the wrong prediction?
Post by everything isalllies
You just keep circling around in an endless loop of flawed logic.
That is your claim. And all we others are saying that it is you that has flawed logic.
But that's okay. I say you're wrong and you say I am wrong. So how can we find out who was the right one?
We can give simple tests. The person who can solve them knows how to think. We can rely on him.
The person who can't solve the 'test', well...
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 06:56:06 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
BUT NOTHING I change regrading the reference frames make a scrap of difference to the machine function!
Exactly what we have been telling you, what special relativity says. No matter which friend you used, nature will do what it does, Independent of your choice of frames.
And forbidden by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
everything isalllies
2022-01-08 08:06:03 UTC
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.
AND
“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.
rotchm
2022-01-08 15:22:55 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
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?
Acknowledge the results of experiments. You can re-enact some of them on your own and verify the results.
These results are in accordance with relativity. Relativity has predicted them beforehand.

So are you to consider a theory that works are to not consider it?
Post by everything isalllies
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.
And my reply is yes you can use it as a reference frame. A reference frame is something by which you can reference something else.
Here, the ruler references positions along it.
Post by everything isalllies
It has no fixed location, no origin
Yes it does. It's origin is its "0".
Post by everything isalllies
plus it’s a solid object so it cant be a Abstrace creation
As I was pointing out to you (Making you realize that the Wiki's definition is somewhat week ).
Post by everything isalllies
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.
So once more you are showing me that you do not understand definitions nor the words you use.
Post by everything isalllies
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.
Well in that sense, I agree. "it" does not have a coordinate system. We are observers produce a coordinate system so we may reference the "it". When we say an object has a coordinate system, we mean that we have assigned a coordinate system to it.
Looks like we are falling onto a semantics or understanding the meaning of the expressions used.
Post by everything isalllies
Nothing real has occurred, its an abstract conceptual matter.
If a coordinate system says that the object is located at x equals 3, then we really got. Value of 3. The measurement procedure really gave a result of three.
Post by everything isalllies
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.
Yet, that 'majority' you are alluding too, can solve the simple math problems. They all have that in common.
All the Cranks can't solve simple math problems. They all have that in common.

So which group is more trustworthy?
Post by everything isalllies
And I listen to people who speak rationally, using sound logic and display an ability to reason and think critically.
Really dumb people do not know that they are not thinking rationally, but they believe they do.
Really dumb people can't solve simple math problems.

Smart people know they are thinking rationally, and they believe they do.
Smart people can solve simple math problems.

Therefore everyone believes that they are thinking rationally. How can we filter out the ones who really do and who really don't?
Post by everything isalllies
I said: For instance, if I create a frame located on my big toe,
Rotchm said: Create? ... Here, your big toe is not abstract. It is a real thing...
I created a CONCEPT, an ABSTRACT coordinate system, not a physical object.
We are falling into semantics (and even philosophy). The physical object 'toe' can be used as a device to measure something
(lengts, say). We may therefore call this 'toe' as a reference frame. But the words we use here will not change what relativity says nor its equations. We are just arguing semantics. So let's stop arguing semantics it's getting us nowhere. But I do repeat though: if you want to discuss physics, use *their* language, the meanings of *their* words.
Post by everything isalllies
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.
So you claim.
Post by everything isalllies
But to answer anyway, the space station is not in any frame, I decided not to assign it one.
I did not ask if the space station is in a frame. I am asking you is it an inertial frame (in the sense as used in physics)?
I do not ask if you are a sign in your frame to it or not. I am asking you is it an inertial frame (in this sense as used in physics)?
Post by everything isalllies
The race car is a frame, you as a spectator have a frame...”
I reply: Nope, no I don’t have any frames anywhere,
Hearing this news group, discussing physics and relativity, We have a General meaning of the word frame. It is in that sense that I am using it since I am in this NG. Since you are to discussing in this news group, You are to use 'frame' as they use it.
Post by everything isalllies
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.
Semantics at this point.
Post by everything isalllies
I always find that every motion conceivable can be fully recorded and related back to whatever
I want to use as my “home origin”
And this recording of those values is what we call coordinates. A selection of a coordinate, as in (2,3) say, is what we call an event or a 'point'.
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm said: “Exactly what we have been telling you, what special relativity says. No matter which friend (Rotchm means Frame)
:) yes, I use voice typing... it's much quicker. But sometimes it does not write what I intended.
Post by everything isalllies
you used, nature will do what it does, Independent of your choice of frames. But depending on the frame (observer),
the volume obtained can differ from one frame to another.
In the above, the voice typing did it again. The word 'volume' should have been 'value'.
Post by everything isalllies
I reply: NOPE nah and no.
Yes.
In the Racing Car example, the driver always remains at x equals 0 in his car. That is, he wrote zero on his seat and
He remains seated at the word 0 as he's driving. In this Frame,x=0.

However on the ground, he does not remain fixed at the same value. Flag x' = 1, flag x'=2, etc...

So depending which frame is used, the value is different. In the car frame the value remains at zero. On the ground frame the value changes. In other words, their values differ depending on which train one uses. But again your semantics does not adhere to this. We are speaking one language; you are, another.
Post by everything isalllies
Regardless of the choice or even use fo any frame, there can be no changes in “volume” ( I think Rotchm means “Value”)
Well I am happy for you. You've shown to have a glimmer of brains since you can deduce what I meant by the errors of my voice typing.
The Kranks here you have not understood that, Or just 'jumped' on it.
Post by everything isalllies
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.
See my above example.
Post by everything isalllies
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,
Exactly. Both observers agree that x=0 in the car and that x' varies on the ground.

This is what relativity says and predicts all those values.
However, classical physics get those values wrong.
Post by everything isalllies
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?
We are free to choose whatever coordinate system we want. We are free to describe systems the way we want. To each person his own.
You did this to: you did say that the driver remain seated in his car and you did say that the driver is moving on the ground.
So you are allowed to say that, and I am not? Isn't that hypocritical of you?

You are using words to say that the driver remain seated.
I choose the words " x= 0 ".

You use the words "is moving on the ground".
I choose the words " x' = changes" or " x' = 2t" or just " x' ".

Since I am discussing physics and in particular relativity, I am using their words. Their symbols.
Post by everything isalllies
Question: When attaching it [reference frame] to something, do I need to use bolts? Sticky tape or welding?
No. We are free to use any definition we want our reference frame. Typically it's a prescribed procedure.
A procedure may involve sticky tape and Welding. Another procedure may involve sending out a light signal and receiving it back.
Some other procedure may be just rolling the dice and picking up that value.
Post by everything isalllies
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,
?? But earlier you alluded that it was taken from "Galilean physics".
Does not "x=0" part of a Galilean relativity? The ball droped from the mast of the ship falls at x=0 on the ship.
The ball has a vertical trajectory on the ship (in the ship's frame). The ball has a parabolic trajectory on the ground frame.

All this is way before Einstein... So don't blame Einstein or relativity or me for saying x=0 in one frame frame and has different values in other frames .
Post by everything isalllies
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.
I just left that there so others may read it and make their own conclusions.
Buddy Good
2022-01-08 15:27:32 UTC
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:06:05 AM UTC-5,
Post by everything isalllies
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?
Acknowledge the results of experiments. You can re-enact some of them on
your own and verify the results.
These results are in accordance with relativity. Relativity has predicted them beforehand.
this coming from a stupid uneducated cretin, trying to refute relativity
in his crackpot "papers".
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 16:20:39 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by everything isalllies
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?
Acknowledge the results of experiments. You can re-enact some of them on your own and verify the results.
These results are in accordance with relativity.
In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden by your
moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.
Post by rotchm
Smart people know they are thinking rationally, and they believe they do.
Smart people can solve simple math problems.
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
Python
2022-01-08 16:28:21 UTC
Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics. Why should anyone take seriously the uninformed opinion
of a demented old crank, wannabe "information engineer" who never
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 16:45:36 UTC
Post by Python
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics.
Well, Poincare has said it can't have any use in physics. Quite
a smart guy, as for an amateur.
Python
2022-01-08 16:49:05 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics.
Well, Poincare has said it can't have any use in physics.
He didn't say that. You misunderstand almost everything you've
Python
2022-01-08 17:19:54 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Python
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics.
Well, Poincare has said it can't have any use in physics.
He didn't say that.
Yes, [snip profanity] he did. Shortening "Now, Euclidean geometry is, and
will remain, the  most convenient: 1st, because it is the simplest,
and it
is not so only  because of our mental habits or because of the kind of
direct intuition that  we have of Euclidean space; it is the simplest in
itself, just as a polynomial  of the first degree is simpler than a
polynomial
of the second degree; "
Moreover, you wrote this sentence not him, and you do no understand
the meaning of the words you are using.

Poincaré, as all mathematicians of his times, knew that the most
simplest of geometries, and the most pertinent when it comes to
foundation of Geometry, is projective geometry. You may want (you
won't, I know you) to look at Erlangen Program from Felix Klein
in 1872. Guess what? Projective Geometry subsumes all Euclidean
and non-Euclidean geometries. It is simpler than ALL of them.

Also, Poincaré published A LOT of papers about Non-Euclidean
Geometries, especially hyperbolic ones and Topology, both fields
where generalisations of Euclidean Geometry and metric spaces
are central. Stop making a fool of yourself by talking about
things you know nothing about Maciej.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_disk_model
https://www.britannica.com/science/projective-geometry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlangen_program
This is absolutely not meaning that Riemann's geometries cannot be
used in physics, as you claimed.
didn't realize nobody EVER took your words seriously?
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 17:32:46 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Python
Post by Python
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics.
Well, Poincare has said it can't have any use in physics.
He didn't say that.
Yes, [snip profanity] he did. Shortening "Now, Euclidean geometry is, and
will remain, the most convenient: 1st, because it is the simplest,
and it
is not so only because of our mental habits or because of the kind of
direct intuition that we have of Euclidean space; it is the simplest in
itself, just as a polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a
polynomial
of the second degree; "
Moreover, you wrote this sentence not him,
Keep enchanting the reality, poor stinker; and it
would be really great if you learned what sqrt
function is before trying to teach others your
Post by Python
Also, Poincaré published A LOT of papers about Non-Euclidean
Geometries, especially hyperbolic ones and Topology, both fields
where generalisations of Euclidean Geometry and metric spaces
are central.
So, before concluding they are useless he has studied the
subject well.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 17:25:31 UTC
Post by Python
Post by Python
...
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And dumb computers can too; but speaking of math, it's always good
to remind that your bunch of idiots had to announce its oldest, very
important part false, as it didn't want to fit your insane visions.
This is not what real mathematicians would say about using Riemann's
work in physics.
Well, Poincare has said it can't have any use in physics.
He didn't say that.
Yes, [snip profanity] he did. Shortening "Now, Euclidean geometry is, and
will remain, the most convenient: 1st, because it is the simplest, and it
is not so only because of our mental habits or because of the kind of
direct intuition that we have of Euclidean space; it is the simplest in
itself, just as a polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a polynomial
of the second degree; "
There are other fragments too.
This is absolutely not meaning that Riemann's geometries cannot be
used in physics, as you claimed.
But this is absolutly meaning that Poincare thought so;
of course, he mistakenly took physics for a serious science.
As what it really is some insane shamanism - Riemann's
fartings have found a place in it.
Python
2022-01-08 17:30:56 UTC
Riemann's fartings have found a place in it.
You are a pathetic idiot, Maciej. Learn some math.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 17:34:20 UTC
Post by Python
Riemann's fartings have found a place in it.
You are a pathetic idiot, Maciej. Learn some math.
Speaking of math, poor stinker, there is a significant
differance between sqrt(7) and a square roort of 7.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 19:01:03 UTC
Post by Python
Riemann's fartings have found a place in it.
You are a pathetic idiot, Maciej. Learn some math.
Speaking of math, [snip profanity] there is a significant
differance between sqrt(7) and a square roort of 7.
You'll keep fighting with finite rings and polynomials until your death,
right?
I'm not fighting with any finite rings
You've heard about them a few month ago,
Nope. You're fabricating and lying, like always.
So, is Euclidean geometry a valid geometry of our
universe, poor stinker? According to you and your idiot
gurus, od course.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 16:55:24 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rotchm
Smart people can solve simple math problems.
And dumb computers can too;
So if those dumb computers can solve it, and that you can't, that means that you are dumber than a dumb computer.
No, poor halfbrain; it means that no special smartness is
required and dumb obeying commands is enough.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 17:43:54 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So if those dumb computers can solve it, and that you can't, that means that you are dumber than a dumb computer.
No, poor halfbrain; it means that no special smartness is
required
So you are claiming that you personally have no special smartness, because you can't solve the problem.
So you're fabricating and lying, as expected from a relativistic
stinker in general, and from you especially.
rotchm
2022-01-08 18:01:41 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So you're fabricating and lying, as expected from a relativistic
Nope. You are the one who is fabricating and lying.
You are the one who failed that simple math problem I gave.
In fact, you are so dumb that you didn't even read it.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 18:20:33 UTC
Post by rotchm
Post by Maciej Wozniak
So you're fabricating and lying, as expected from a relativistic
Nope. You are the one who is fabricating and lying.
" So you are claiming that you personally have no special smartness,
because you can't solve the problem."
No, I'am not. You're fabricating and lying. As expected from a relativistic
stinker in general, and from you especially.
rotchm
2022-01-08 18:32:53 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
No, I'am not.
Paparios
2022-01-08 13:38:11 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
An inertial frame is a reference frame (coordinate system) in which Newton's Laws hold good.
In very simple terms, if in your frame you place a small object at a location and you let it go & if it stays there, if this is true for every location of your frame, then your frame is an inertial inertial frame.
Rotchm, your problem here is failing to come to grips with frames of reference totally.
1. Any and all "Reference Frames" are ABSTRACT creations , they don't exist, and cant be responsible for anything at all in Physics. Their use is ONLY for comparison, serving as a common point to which all measurements and observations can have a shared origin and direction. Any frame MUST be mathematically located to some identifiable point and alignment on a Physical Object. Your problem is that you have Reified an ABSTRACT concept.
Reference frames have been used for thousands of years. Even the old greeks used geometry and algebra to measure, buy and sell land.

You should carefully read the first few pages of the following books:

Taylor and Wheeler "Spacetime Physics", chapter 1, sections 1.1 and 1.2.
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler "Gravitation", chapter 1, sections 1.1 and 1.2.
Landau and Lifshitz "The Classical Theory of Fields", chapter 1, sections 1 and 2
Post by everything isalllies
2. Saying that an object is "IN" a particular frame or in some other imaginary frame is simply an error based on your lack of understanding about the use of Frames in general.
A frame of reference is just a system of coordinates to locate events. "From my home, the movie theater is 1 km north, 0.3 km west".
Post by everything isalllies
For instance, if I create a frame located on my big toe, or on the corner of this house, (matters not), and stipulate its orientation, I have established a frame. Whats included in my frame? Every fucking thing in the whole universe! Anything and everything.. moving, stationary, accelerating or in inertial state.
Sure, every system of coordinates includes the whole universe. That is not a problem at all.
Post by everything isalllies
If then I chose to hop in my car and accelerate, or choose to stay put, I'm STILL in my imaginary frame, and the FRAME can not become "Inertial or accelerating" no matter what.
You are using there a system of coordinates in which you are at rest. That system of coordinates has your butt as coordinates (0,0,0).
If you are not feeling an acceleration or gravity then you can assert correctly that your butt system of coordinates is inertial.
Post by everything isalllies
As far as I am concerned, as I am the observer recording things relative to my frames setup, there can only be motion or the lack of motion, both constant acceleration and not.
You, as an observer, can not determine if it is you who is moving or the rest of the universe is moving. Regarding acceleration and gravity, astronauts at the International Space Station are in free fall. They do not experience weight and they do not feel any acceleration, even if the spaceship is moving at 7.66 km/sec and circling the Earth every 92.7 minutes.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 14:13:25 UTC
Post by Paparios
You, as an observer, can not determine if it is you who is moving or the rest of the universe is moving.
Oh, sane people manage that with ease.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 00:14:36 UTC
"Itsalllies" wrote: 1. Any and all "Reference Frames" are ABSTRACT creations , they don't
exist, and cant be responsible for anything at all in Physics.
Bodkin wrote: I’m sorry, but this just isn’t correct, and I’ve already addressed it with
you. Kinetic energy is very real, even in the Newtonian approximation
(1/2)mv^2, and that v is always with respect to a reference frame. Kinetic
energy has absolutely no meaning aside from a chosen reference frame. And
kinetic energy is key to one of the most fundamental laws in physics,
conservation of total energy.
Yes, there are physical objects, but there are also physical properties
associated with those objects, and a ton of those physical properties are
always — always — defined relative to some reference frame. And the laws
governing those properties DO have consequences on the behaviors of those
objects.
This is yet another place where your deep unfamiliarity with first-year
physics is biting you on the ass, unfortunately.
"itsalllies" maintains that: Their use is ONLY for comparison, serving as a common point to which all
measurements and observations can have a shared origin and direction. Any
frame MUST be mathematically located to some identifiable point and
alignment on a Physical Object. Your problem is that you have Reified
an ABSTRACT concept.
Itsalllies continues:
Now in Einsteins simplistic mind, and in his 1905 paper he mentions "a frame of reference in which the Laws of Newton holds good". Now this is Newtons Laws of Kinematics, which address motion, both inertial AND acceleration. Newtons Laws do NOT including the Laws of Optics, or Laws of Biology or Geology. JUST the LAWS pertaining to the motion of OBJECTS.

Yet Einstein will later claim that LIGHT must also obey the Laws that actually ONLY apply only to physical bodies. But it doesn't take much thinking to see that Light NEVER EVER behaves anything like solid objects in motion do.
So immediately we should not be assuming that Einsteins hypotheses is valid from this point, as he has already made an unrecoverable error. You cannot claim that Light "must" arrive at some destination because it MUST obey Newtons Laws of OBJECTS movement. Light does no such thing, therefore Einsteins theory is CRAP.

And a fuller more detailed definition for "Reference Frames" that conforms to the actual study of Physics can be this:

"In Physics, when assessing the relative motions occurring between two or more physical objects, a virtual coordinate system is necessary. (a FACT)

This imaginary abstract system can be called a "Frame of Reference". (FoR) (FACT)

This FoR must be assigned a connection to ONE of the physical objects, but the origin of the FoR can be offset from said Object, but must then be mathematically described. (23m from this face,... with x axis aligned what that face...) (FACT)

Thus EVERY physical object under observation can be described by measurements referring back to the FoR and the associated object. (FACT)

Further, in Physics, should it be noted that IF every objects motion (that is under consideration) relative to all other objects that are subject to observation, is purely Inertial, then we can say that our FoR is an "Inertial FoR" This is handy because now all calculations can dispense with the need to include equations that address accelerations or non linear motions. (FACT)

Therefore in any analysis of motions pertaining to two or more physical objects, if any of those objects motion is NON Inertial, then we do not have an "Inertial FoR," (FACT)

Even if we claim that our object to which the FoR is attached, is "stationary" or we claim this IT is Inertial, the fact that the other object or objects are NOT Inertial means that we must use equations that allow for Accelerations and curvature of trajectories. (FACT)

Therefore we do NOT in fact, have an INERTIAL condition anywhere in this "experiment" that is assessing the relative motions of two or more physics bodies. (FACT)

Furthermore, in any experiment, real or imagined, the use of any more than the ONE FoR is not a necessity, or even desirable, because the relationships between the bodies in motion can be easiest understood when viewed from only the one FoR. (FACT)
Sylvia Else
2022-01-09 01:08:34 UTC
"Itsalllies" wrote: 1. Any and all "Reference Frames" are
ABSTRACT creations , they don't exist, and cant be responsible
for anything at all in Physics.
Bodkin wrote: I’m sorry, but this just isn’t correct, and I’ve
already addressed it with you. Kinetic energy is very real, even in
the Newtonian approximation (1/2)mv^2, and that v is always with
respect to a reference frame. Kinetic energy has absolutely no
meaning aside from a chosen reference frame. And kinetic energy is
key to one of the most fundamental laws in physics, conservation of
total energy.
Yes, there are physical objects, but there are also physical
properties associated with those objects, and a ton of those
physical properties are always — always — defined relative to some
reference frame. And the laws governing those properties DO have
consequences on the behaviors of those objects.
This is yet another place where your deep unfamiliarity with
first-year physics is biting you on the ass, unfortunately.
"itsalllies" maintains that: Their use is ONLY for comparison,
serving as a common point to which all measurements and
observations can have a shared origin and direction. Any frame
MUST be mathematically located to some identifiable point and
alignment on a Physical Object. Your problem is that you have
Reified an ABSTRACT concept.
Itsalllies continues: Now in Einsteins simplistic mind, and in his
1905 paper he mentions "a frame of reference in which the Laws of
Newton holds good". Now this is Newtons Laws of Kinematics, which
address motion, both inertial AND acceleration. Newtons Laws do NOT
including the Laws of Optics, or Laws of Biology or Geology. JUST the
LAWS pertaining to the motion of OBJECTS.
Yet Einstein will later claim that LIGHT must also obey the Laws that
actually ONLY apply only to physical bodies. But it doesn't take
much thinking to see that Light NEVER EVER behaves anything like
solid objects in motion do. So immediately we should not be assuming
that Einsteins hypotheses is valid from this point, as he has already
made an unrecoverable error. You cannot claim that Light "must"
arrive at some destination because it MUST obey Newtons Laws of
OBJECTS movement. Light does no such thing, therefore Einsteins
theory is CRAP.
It is difficult to see how to explain things to someone when they
clearly have such a gross misunderstanding of what is going on. But I'll
try.

In the introduction, Einstein says (when translated into English)

"They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

So these postulates are stated assumptions. The rest of the paper
explores the consequences of these assumptions. When Einstein says "Let
us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian
mechanics hold good" he's not ignoring other laws. He is not discussing
them here because he doesn't need to for the purpose of exploring the
consequences of the stated assumptions.

The bulk of the paper then shows that *if* the stated assumptions are
correct, then certain consequences are inevitable.

Short of an actual mistake in the math, the only way to attack special
relativity is to show that the assumptions are not correct, or,
equivalently, that a predicted consequence does not occur. The latter
would mean that one of the assumptions is not correct.

Worrying about things like law of biology is completely missing the point.

Sylvia.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 03:56:45 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
It is difficult to see how to explain things to someone when they
clearly have such a gross misunderstanding of what is going on. But I'll
try. .....
(insert the usual stuff here,,,)
Worrying about things like law of biology is completely missing the point.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Nice try at an excuse for Einstein, but its actually you who miss the point.

Are there not totally specialised, separate, distinct Math equations and Laws for every main branch of Physics?
(Electricity, Optics, Kinetics, acoustics, thermodynamics..... ) YES or NO?
I'll give you a hint, the answer is YES.

So how can Einstein explain why he mixes the distinctly specialised properties of Optics, in with the totally separate mathematics that is designed specifically for the interactions between physical bodies in relative motion, Kinematics?
Sure you are free to reference physical objects speed to the speed of Light, but not free to claim that Light is going to behave in the same way as a flying pig that about to hit a lamp post. And you are not free to use an assumed Origin for Light in your Thought Experiment, because on one hand you are claiming that light speed has zero to do with its origins state, (motionless or in motion) and on the other hand, you set its origins condition as a requirement of the Thought Experiment. Because you cant relate the speed of Light to the motion state of its source, (postulate 2) even if that motion state is claimed to be stationary. (and any inertial observer can claim to be stationary)

Simply put Light demonstrably does not behave anything like a flying pig. (Kinematics.)

So other than using Light velocity as a reference speed, (not its reference ORIGIN) then it can play no other part in Kinematics. Light's properties are not some new property of objects in Kinematics.

But the way Einstein twists these two totally incompatible physical systems together is just simply ERROR.
It true that Light velocity is independent to the source, but in this statement he also slips in part of his deception.
Because not only is Light independent to the motion of the source, in terms of velocity, its independent in terms of velocity in along ANY vector. And because that additional property is a fact, then if you include that information into his hypothesis, then you can never end up with the claimed discrepancy where Einstein insists that Obs1 and Obs2 will end up with differing measures, (but light wont allow that, so Time and distance must shrink...

The simple truth is the the way Einstein arranges all of his "though experiments", Obs1 and Obs2 will always and logically get different measurements, because in reality the are NOT measuring the same thing. (even though they are watching the same "event". ) So the differing results are fully expected an in accord with classical Physics, and the reason given by Einstein is bogus. The is no actual discrepancy between the two observers that requires a magic solution by Einstein.

All you need to do is note that the two observers should ensure that they both know what they are measuring, and relative to what. As it is in Einsteins hypothesis, they are both measuring to the same "event" but from different locations and different times. Hence the "discrepancy". No mystery here when you review whats going on.
Einsteins trick of deception is in the claim that he can justifiably postulate that "light can be always measured by anyone, regardless of their relative velocities, but all still end up with the value "c".
Anyone who claims that this is a rational or logical conclusion is really a bit "out there" in their thinking.

And Einstein's REASON for being bold enough to make such an irrational statement in his postulates, is based on his claim that light is always measured at c, and that we as humans have found that this is true.

Yes, we have reasonable cause to say that everyone that has some calculated or derived speed for Light its always "c", (they declared its speed now, no more measuring, its fixed by committee vote)

But this is NOT the same as claiming the we have found it to be c when we measured it when the relative velocity of the one measuring was changing. Everyone that has a measure for light speed, has been at the same relative speed as everyone else. No one ever has measured light when they were moving at various speed differentials.
And its impossible anyway, as to do a correct reading, you must do a one way speed test, and that's impossible for Light.
Those Laws of Physics of Newton that Einstein leans on to come up with SRT, have something to say about relative velocities, and that is that the correct equations MUST be c+v and c-v.

Nothing Einstein claims in this hypothesis gives sound, rational, reason to depart form Newtons Laws of relative motion. So its always been and always must remain c + and - v.
The M& M experiment does not test the speed of light in "all frames of reference".
It shines diffraction patterns on a viewing screen, that attached to a block of marble, that also contains the light source, and the mirrors. Turning the block of marble around in a circle whist in your mum basement, demonstrates what I could but spinning a torch in the same basement, and noting that the torch illuminated all 4 walls consecutively.

Interferometers are useless for testing anything about light velocity. The demonstrate wave interference only.
Dono.
2022-01-09 04:31:47 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Those Laws of Physics of Newton that Einstein leans on to come up with SRT, have something to say about relative velocities, and that is that the correct equations MUST be c+v and c-v.
You definitely need to restart taking your meds.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 05:39:17 UTC
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
Those Laws of Physics of Newton that Einstein leans on to come up with SRT, have something to say about relative velocities, and that is that the correct equations MUST be c+v and c-v.
You definitely need to restart taking your meds.
OK, explain where the insanity lies in the text you quoted.
Lets hear it.
Dono.
2022-01-09 06:19:40 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
Those Laws of Physics of Newton that Einstein leans on to come up with SRT, have something to say about relative velocities, and that is that the correct equations MUST be c+v and c-v.
You definitely need to restart taking your meds.
OK, explain where the insanity lies in the text you quoted.
Lets hear it.
Imbecile,

The galilean speed addition is invalid. There is no "c+v". There is no "c-v". You are not only an idiot, you are insane as well.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 08:01:42 UTC
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
The galilean speed addition is invalid. There is no "c+v". There is no "c-v". You are not only an idiot, you are insane as well.
Ok Moron,
So you ignorantly believe the common popular error that claims that Light is the only FINITE moving thing in the whole universe that has some magic unique ability to do exactly the opposite to every other finitely moving object? And its the only finitely moving thing that gets to disobey all the Laws of Physics?

And this we must have a unique exclusive new Physic Law that ONLY applies to Light and nothing else?

And further you believe this without anyone being able to explain how this might possibly be able to work?
Lorentz shrinkage does not explain how light might be always measured at c regardless of the motion of any observer, it only provides the way to fudge his results to match what you are claiming in the first place.

So fuck-knuckle, explain ...
Sylvia Else
2022-01-09 05:03:44 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
It is difficult to see how to explain things to someone when they
clearly have such a gross misunderstanding of what is going on. But I'll
try. .....
(insert the usual stuff here,,,)
Worrying about things like law of biology is completely missing the point.
Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia.
Nice try at an excuse for Einstein, but its actually you who miss the point.
Are there not totally specialised, separate, distinct Math equations and Laws for every main branch of Physics?
(Electricity, Optics, Kinetics, acoustics, thermodynamics..... ) YES or NO?
I'll give you a hint, the answer is YES.
So how can Einstein explain why he mixes the distinctly specialised properties of Optics, in with the totally separate mathematics that is designed specifically for the interactions between physical bodies in relative motion, Kinematics?
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?

Sylvia.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 06:10:47 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?
Sylvia.
Sure I can.
Einstein starts setting up for a deception in his opening preamble, the first couple of Paragraphs in his paper, "The electrodynamics of moving bodies"

Actually, that Paper Title is a lie straight up. Because the contents are not about Electrodynamics at all.
Every part of the hypothesis relies on his claims that Time shrinks etc, is totally deduced from his examples in the form of "Thought Experiments" that deal exclusively with KINEMATICS, and have zero to do with Electrodynamics.

He then applies his equations that were incorrectly derived from kinematic Part, and plugs it straight into the Electrodynamics part of the hypothesis. ONLY if we totally accept his Kinematic part, is anything in the electrodynamics part possible.

But in the opening Paragraphs the deception is starting to form already.

Einstein falsely claims that there is some issues for classical Physics because of two examples he claims are a problem.
"It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the
present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena."

Well those asymmetries are supposed to be that when moving a magnet through a coil, we get some result, which we explain using language such as, "move the magnet through a stationary coil- a magnetic field creates a charge in the coil".......... But, Einstein claims, if we instead keep the Magnet stationary, then we cant say that "a coil field creates a charge in a magnet"....

That's pretty much what he is getting at, the idea being that we cant decide if we moved coil or we moved magnet,
and Maxwell's explanation picks one but doesn't work as an explanation if you directly swap which is being "moved".

Now this is not a "problem" in Physics, but it is a failure to understand whats going on. More its a deceptive word play that leads one to draw a false conclusion.

Even if Maxwell's explanation only works if we call the Coil a stationary object, that just means that Maxwell's explanation is not defining what he means by "stationary".

The actual real experiments (not thought experiments) all prove that electricity is generated when coil is "stationary, or when Magnet is stationary, or when both are moving. The only important factor is that there exists relative motion between the coil and magnet. not any kinematic relationship between coil and Edison or Faraday or Maxwell. (Einstein thinks that there should be?)

Next and only other proffered "example" of his imaginary problem for Physics is that he thinks that the M&M interferometer really was a capable piece of equipment that could really detect the motion of the Earth through space, through the Ether or the motion of the earth at all period. It's not. Bang goes his second example.

So far his two examples of "the problem" he want to solve for us are duds.

So before he even start into his hypothesis proper, he has not even established that a problem of Physics exists.

But wait because he will conjure up one for you, in his mind, and in his mind, run experiments, and in his mind fix everything. And the only thing he asks in return is that we throw out all of Physics and replace it with his.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all of Einsteins problems and his solutions are mental ones.
Sylvia Else
2022-01-09 07:40:01 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?
Sylvia.
Sure I can.
But then you don't do it.

Point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you consider to be
in error.

Sylvia.
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 08:04:54 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?
Sylvia.
Sure I can.
But then you don't do it.
Point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you consider to be
in error.
Sylvia.
Sylvia, you disappoint me. I was giving you more credit for intelligence than was warranted it seems.

Are you really as stupid as you make out?

Hidden in my words was a detailed explanation of the first errors in his paper, now try reading what I said, and provide a decent reply, as pretending that I said nothing is the tactic if one who has already lost the argument.
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-09 07:13:22 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?
What unit of time did he refer in his paper? How was
it defined?
everything isalllies
2022-01-09 08:09:58 UTC
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Sylvia Else
Can you point to the first statement in Einstein's paper that you
consider to be in error?
What unit of time did he refer in his paper? How was
it defined?
Could you expand on this thought a little?
Or are we supposed to guess what you are getting at?

rotchm
2022-01-09 01:57:30 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
"In Physics, when assessing the relative motions occurring between two or more physical objects, a virtual
coordinate system is necessary. (a FACT)
To do physics, meaning to do observations in our universe, is synonym to using a coordinate system.
Coordinate system, or reference frames, are physically created so that we may do observations. So that we may log events. So that we may measure properties. We use actual physical devices to measure/log our results. How are coordinate systems have operational definitions.
Post by everything isalllies
This imaginary abstract system can be called a "Frame of Reference". (FoR) (FACT)
You are very confused on the meaning of the words used in physics.
We have been telling you this for many days now.

I won't read the rest of your posts since undoubtably it will be gibberish like the past few days.
You are just too confused.
Sylvia Else
2022-01-07 01:39:19 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm recently made a claim on another Conversation, then deleted my response like a coward who has been caught out lying.
The discussion was regarding the question of why Einstein failed to simply include the mathematics that accommodate acceleration, (includes Gravity) into his already published Theory of STR? Why drop that theory totally to develop a totally new theory just to account for acceleration called GR?
General relativity includes gravity. Gravity and acceleration are not
the same thing.

Sylvia.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 01:53:33 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
General relativity includes gravity. Gravity and acceleration are not
the same thing.
Sylvia.
If you are a Relativist you need to wash your mouth out with soap.
According to Einstein, in his Principal of Simultaneity, he claims that its not possible to differentiate between gravity and acceleration. If we accept that, then there is no way to tell if we are talking about gravity or we are talking about acceleration. so the two being absolutely identical is to define that they are the one. Two instances of the same thing.
Einstein relies on this principal to claim that gravity not real, but is actually the curvature of nothing at all. (well the curvature of Riemann Mathematics) He does not bother to explain how a maths equation can make the Moon go around the earth. To avoid having to say that his theory of Physics is actually only a 100% math construct, (and nothing to do with Physics) he pretends that there exists a real structure in empty space he called SPACETIME, and its this Star trek concept that gets to curve..... year, right.....
Sylvia Else
2022-01-07 02:05:14 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
General relativity includes gravity. Gravity and acceleration are
not the same thing.
Sylvia.
If you are a Relativist you need to wash your mouth out with soap.
According to Einstein, in his Principal of Simultaneity, he claims
that its not possible to differentiate between gravity and
acceleration. If we accept that, then there is no way to tell if we
the two being absolutely identical is to define that they are the
one. Two instances of the same thing.
It is not possible to distinguish between the two over a small region of
space. Over larger regions, involving distances that are not negligible
compared with the distance to the gravitating body, it's quite trivial
to do. So they are not the same thing.

That they must look the same in a small region of space provides
guidance as to what form the general theory must take.

Sylvia.
Python
2022-01-07 02:09:09 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
General relativity includes gravity. Gravity and acceleration are not
the same thing.
Sylvia.
If you are a Relativist you need to wash your mouth out with soap.
According to Einstein, in his Principal of Simultaneity, he claims that its not possible to differentiate between gravity and acceleration.
Nope. What equivalence principle states is not that. It states that
locally you cannot make a difference between uniform gravitational
field and uniform acceleration.

All words there have precise meaning in term of the maths, of
course you don't know anything about it, so it is quite pointless
to argue with you.

But maybe I'm wrong, you're a genius and China will use Jewish space
lasers to remove your original post, right?
Sylvia Else
2022-01-07 23:57:32 UTC
This makes no difference to what I said to Sylvia.
Of course not - what you said is now an unmodifiable historical event.
It makes a considerable different to whether what you said is correct -
which it's not.
Sylvia.
What Python said was: " It states that
locally you cannot make a difference between uniform gravitational
field and uniform acceleration."
What I said was " you cant tell the difference between gravitational force and acceleration. (assuming everyone here already knows the way Einstein explained this simultaneity principal)
So please explain how this difference is going to change the outcome or meaning of what I said to you.
You persist in ignoring the "locally" constraint, no doubt because it

Sylvia.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 14:57:04 UTC
This makes no difference to what I said to Sylvia.
Of course not - what you said is now an unmodifiable historical event.
It makes a considerable different to whether what you said is correct -
which it's not.
Sylvia.
What Python said was: " It states that
locally you cannot make a difference between uniform gravitational
field and uniform acceleration."
What I said was " you cant tell the difference between gravitational
force and acceleration. (assuming everyone here already knows the way
Einstein explained this simultaneity principal)
You mean equivalence principle. And as answered in a separate post, there
is a difference for non-uniform gravity.
So please explain how this difference is going to change the outcome or
meaning of what I said to you.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-07 21:10:37 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Sylvia Else
General relativity includes gravity. Gravity and acceleration are not
the same thing.
Sylvia.
If you are a Relativist you need to wash your mouth out with soap.
According to Einstein, in his Principal of Simultaneity, he claims that
its not possible to differentiate between gravity and acceleration.
Nope. I’ve already pointed out this mistake to you. It is not possible to
distinguish UNIFORM acceleration from UNIFORM gravity. Any environment with
non-uniform gravity is clearly distinguishable from an accelerated frame.
Post by everything isalllies
If we accept that, then there is no way to tell if we are talking about
gravity or we are talking about acceleration. so the two being absolutely
identical is to define that they are the one. Two instances of the same thing.
Einstein relies on this principal to claim that gravity not real, but is
actually the curvature of nothing at all.
Nope. I’ve already corrected you on this at all. Spacetime (and for that
matter, space) has physical properties. It is not “nothing”. Calling it
nothing or calling it just mathematics does not remove those physical
properties. Those physical properties are in fact DISCUSSED and PRESENTED
in a first year course in physics, which you are obviously lacking.

Do you see what happens when you try to figure out physics just with what
you know already and your reasoning power? You can’t even get the FIRST
MONTH of a physics course right.
Post by everything isalllies
(well the curvature of Riemann Mathematics) He does not bother to
explain how a maths equation can make the Moon go around the earth. To
avoid having to say that his theory of Physics is actually only a 100%
math construct, (and nothing to do with Physics) he pretends that there
exists a real structure in empty space he called SPACETIME, and its this
Star trek concept that gets to curve..... year, right.....
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 23:22:19 UTC
On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 8:10:39 AM UTC+11, ***@gmail.com wrote:

Any environment with
Post by Odd Bodkin
non-uniform gravity is clearly distinguishable from an accelerated frame.
Show me an instance where gravity is not uniform at a single location and a specific place in Time.
You are splitting hairs with this argument about whether or not I said "Uniform". As I was referring to Einsteins claims, its clear that the claims I mentioned were the claims that Einstein layed out, there was no need for me to repeat every last detail ad nauseam.

.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nope. I’ve already corrected you on this at all. Spacetime (and for that
matter, space) has physical properties. It is not “nothing”.
Nope, that claim is not a FACT of Physics. Its part of someones hypothesis that Space does not exist at all, but rather its a physical object called spacetime.
This is hypothesis not FACT. The definition of "space"in Physics can justifiably be, "The places between objects where there are no other objects".

Being able to record something on instruments in deep space is NOT MEASURING SPACE. (or SPACETIME)
What you are recording is energies emanating from some physical body nearby.

The concept called SpaceTime, was originally and still is ONLY an abstract Mathematical structure.
Post by Odd Bodkin
(well the curvature of Riemann Mathematics) He does not bother to
explain how a maths equation can make the Moon go around the earth. To
avoid having to say that his theory of Physics is actually only a 100%
math construct, (and nothing to do with Physics) he pretends that there
exists a real structure in empty space he called SPACETIME, and its this
Star trek concept that gets to curve..... year, right.....
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
"Yeah Right" is not a very convincing argument here Bodkin.
Try harder.
Please elaborate on how a Maths construct or your imaginary Spacetime structure (abstract geometry) is able to impart actual forces on physical objects, and the explain the source of the energy to do this.

Ill wait.
Dono.
2022-01-07 05:34:39 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm recently made a claim on another Conversation, then deleted my response like a coward who has been caught out lying.
The discussion was regarding the question of why Einstein failed to simply include the mathematics that accommodate acceleration, (includes Gravity) into his already published Theory of STR? Why drop that theory totally to develop a totally new theory just to account for acceleration called GR?
Imbecile,

SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic motion"). It also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Post by everything isalllies
Modern Mathematicians claim to have modified STR equations to account for acceleration, so there really is no reason to have another theory of GR especially when GR and SR are incomparable. (One requires absoluteness, the other forbids it)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration, imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
Post by everything isalllies
Rotchm made the claim that there was a difference centred around the notion that although STR was modified to account for acceleration, it was still a "special case" because there was still a requirement that the accelerating object was accelerating "in" an Inertial Frame of Reference that also housed the "stationary observer", so it was not like GR at all. It was only still possible WITHIN an inertial frame even though it was able to calculate time dilation etc for a NON Inertial object, INSIDE the "master" Inertial frame.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has no clue what he's talking about.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 11:20:03 UTC
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic motion"). It also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration, imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has no clue what he's talking about.
Anyone pretending to be highly educated and knowledgeable would never begin an argument with the word
" Imbecile", and end his comments with another personal attack, "Rotchm is a crank and is clueless.

Is everyone that does not agree with you an idiot and a crank?

But nevertheless, if STR handles non inertial motion, and uniform acceleration, then we really don't need GR, if Einstein is to be taken at his word. He said, 'Gravity in a specific location, say a location on Earth, is indistinguishable to a uniform acceleration, and that statement is the very cornerstone of his hypothesis on GR.
Its the Equivalence principal. "Local" gravity, whats that? Its just the gravity we find at any one location, and the local part is if we stay at that location, the gravity stays the same, and its effects are indistinguishable from the effects of uniform acceleration.

So as Einstein declared that there is no force called gravity, because he claims that his curved mathematics is responsible for the apparent force we experience, then on one hand we have a real force required to create uniform acceleration, but how to assign a Force to curving spacetime? Any Force that caused motion of a mass, always requires the expenditure of Energy, What is the source and energy type expended by Spacetime, to replicate the force applied during acceleration?
Sylvia Else
2022-01-07 11:27:48 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic
motion"). It also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory
of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration,
imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has
no clue what he's talking about.
Anyone pretending to be highly educated and knowledgeable would never
begin an argument with the word " Imbecile", and end his comments
with another personal attack, "Rotchm is a crank and is clueless.
Is everyone that does not agree with you an idiot and a crank?
But nevertheless, if STR handles non inertial motion, and uniform
acceleration, then we really don't need GR, if Einstein is to be
taken at his word. He said, 'Gravity in a specific location, say a
location on Earth, is indistinguishable to a uniform acceleration,
and that statement is the very cornerstone of his hypothesis on GR.
Its the Equivalence principal. "Local" gravity, whats that? Its
just the gravity we find at any one location, and the local part is
if we stay at that location, the gravity stays the same, and its
effects are indistinguishable from the effects of uniform
acceleration.
So as Einstein declared that there is no force called gravity,
because he claims that his curved mathematics is responsible for the
apparent force we experience, then on one hand we have a real force
required to create uniform acceleration, but how to assign a Force to
curving spacetime? Any Force that caused motion of a mass, always
requires the expenditure of Energy, What is the source and energy
type expended by Spacetime, to replicate the force applied during
acceleration?
So you're another person who'll continue to spout nonsense even when
it's been explained to you, more than once, why it's wrong.

Sylvia.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 11:48:53 UTC
Post by Sylvia Else
So you're another person who'll continue to spout nonsense even when
it's been explained to you, more than once, why it's wrong.
Sylvia.
But Sylvia, I also can just as easily say that its you and your mates that are spouting nonsense even when its been explained to you.

The only way to sort this out is to examine what Einstein actually said in his paper.

But no one wants to do that.
Dono.
2022-01-07 16:41:53 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic motion"). It also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration, imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has no clue what he's talking about.
Anyone pretending to be highly educated and knowledgeable would never begin an argument with the word
" Imbecile",
But this is exactly what you are. Live with it.
Post by everything isalllies
But nevertheless, if STR handles non inertial motion, and uniform acceleration, then we really don't need GR
Cretinoid

Gravitation is not the same thing as uniform acceleration, you have been told this repeatedly.

,

if Einstein is to be taken at his word. He said, 'Gravity in a specific location, say a location on Earth, is indistinguishable to a uniform acceleration, and that statement is the very cornerstone of his hypothesis on GR.
Post by everything isalllies
Its the Equivalence principal. "Local" gravity, whats that?
A UNIFORM gravitational field, this is what it is, utter imbecile.
everything isalllies
2022-01-07 23:32:21 UTC
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
" Imbecile",
But this is exactly what you are. Live with it.
Cretinoid
A UNIFORM gravitational field, this is what it is, utter imbecile.
Well its hard to take your comments as having any worth in a discussion of Physics , when most of your comments are just insults.
I'll ignore you totally.
Dono.
2022-01-08 00:03:06 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
" Imbecile",
But this is exactly what you are. Live with it.
Cretinoid
A UNIFORM gravitational field, this is what it is, utter imbecile.
Well its hard to take your comments as having any worth in a discussion of Physics , when most of your comments are just insults.
The shoe fits, crank. So wear it.
Odd Bodkin
2022-01-08 14:57:01 UTC
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic motion"). It
also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration,
imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has no
Anyone pretending to be highly educated and knowledgeable would never
begin an argument with the word
" Imbecile", and end his comments with another personal attack, "Rotchm
is a crank and is clueless.
Is everyone that does not agree with you an idiot and a crank?
Disagreeing doesn’t make you a crank. DIsagreeing when you don’t know the
first thing about the subject IS however a classic symptom of the crank.
Post by everything isalllies
But nevertheless, if STR handles non inertial motion, and uniform
acceleration, then we really don't need GR, if Einstein is to be taken at
his word. He said, 'Gravity in a specific location, say a location on
Earth, is indistinguishable to a uniform acceleration, and that statement
is the very cornerstone of his hypothesis on GR.
Its the Equivalence principal. "Local" gravity, whats that? Its just
the gravity we find at any one location, and the local part is if we stay
at that location, the gravity stays the same, and its effects are
indistinguishable from the effects of uniform acceleration.
No, that’s not what local gravity means.

Here, I’ll try to explain the difference for you. If you took two balls and
dropped them from a large height above the earth, some horizontal distance
apart, you’d notice that the two balls got closer together as they fell.
That’s because “down” is along lines toward the center of the earth, and
those lines intersect at the center of the earth. Just following the “down”
lines, the balls get closer to each other as they fall. On the other hand,
two balls released at the same time, one above the other, would recede from
each other. That’s because the lower one feels stronger gravity (gravity
gets weaker with distance from the center, remember) and so accelerates
faster than the one above.

Neither of these effects would be see with two balls in an accelerating
reference frame.

There’s a difference between acceleration and nonuniform gravity (like
around the earth), which becomes noticeable if the distances are large
enough. Being so close together that you can’t measure those differences —
that’s what local means.

Post by everything isalllies
So as Einstein declared that there is no force called gravity, because he
claims that his curved mathematics is responsible for the apparent force
we experience, then on one hand we have a real force required to create
uniform acceleration, but how to assign a Force to curving spacetime?
Any Force that caused motion of a mass, always requires the expenditure
of Energy, What is the source and energy type expended by Spacetime, to
replicate the force applied during acceleration?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2022-01-08 15:20:34 UTC
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by everything isalllies
Post by Dono.
Imbecile,
SR handles uniformly accelerated motion (google "hyperbolic motion"). It
also handles uniformly accelerated frames (see "Theory of Relativity" by C. Moller)
Gravitation is a lot more complicated than uniform acceleration,
imbecile.Hence, the need for GR.
rotchm (aka Stephane Baune) is a crank and a poser himself. He has no
Anyone pretending to be highly educated and knowledgeable would never
begin an argument with the word
" Imbecile", and end his comments with another personal attack, "Rotchm
is a crank and is clueless.
Is everyone that does not agree with you an idiot and a crank?
Disagreeing doesn’t make you a crank. DIsagreeing when you don’t know the
first thing about the subject IS however a classic symptom of the crank.
Sure, crank.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2022-01-08 19:33:04 UTC