Relativity of Science

The only narcissism here is yours. You were not actually arguing with Doc Al or anyone else there; multiple people pointed out your basic mistakes in reasoning and you refused to listen to them.

No, I said that you could make up any bizarre scientific theory that you wanted, but that your peculiar theory would not be special relativity. I then directed you to a reference that demonstrated exactly what special relativity said and exactly how one derives the relativity of simultaneity. I provided references with simple explanations of the relativity of simultaneity because you haven;t read anything about it. It is clear that you have never actually read anything on the subject of the relativity of simultaneity because you are so amazingly ignorant of it in your writings.

It is narcissistic to argue against a theory that you have never read.

My argument was that people doing the same physical actions at different locations and times got their results at different locations and time. You could not even understand that.

I quoted you a section from a chapter he wrote demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity. That’s about as in-context as one can get! Did you read the chapter? I’m guessing no, since your writing continues to be absurd.

I know that “my version” would not be correct for your scenario because your scenario violates special relativity with its very assumptions. This is because you do not understand how to use the reasoning of special relativity and this is because you have never taken the time to learn it.

I think it’s quite clear now that you are simply slinging bizarre and obviously false accusations at me in order to deflect from your own failures in that thread. You should be the one actually presenting a detailed mathematical description of your own scenario. (You have claimed to have almost received a mathematics degree, but you have demonstrated no mathematical ability, even in the very basic mathematics required for your scenarios.) For me, and anyone who has ever read anything about special relativity, it is enough that you violate the relativity of simultaneity with the assumptions of your scenario.

If you have anything besides ignorance to offer in your original “stopped clock” thread, you would deliver on the details of your scenario. However, you have little but insults.

So I take it that it is your position that those who did such experiments actually experience delusions when they get their results? Or is it your position that the people who did these experiments actually lied about their results?

prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i2/e020401
Are these people liars?

You can probably do this experiment yourself for under 200 euros. Have you?

It isn’t true Caldrid. I’m sorry, but it really isn’t. Yes, James is mistaken about relativity, but he isn’t mistaken about the time travel and the parallel worlds and the parallels between religion and theoretical physics. It’s far worse than you think. What’s your field? Would you like to talk about something in particular? On say another thread? Then maybe I can demonstrate how bad it is.

You propose a hypothesis to answer a question as long as the question displays logic. Apparently my question displays logic else you would be using logic to answer it (assuming you can use any logic of course… I have yet to see the evidence).

But note that they were actually attempting reasoning. When you attempt reasoning, you still have to watch for conceptual details that they were missing. I over estimated their ability to see their own concept mistakes. HERE, you guys merely sling mud and claim your own superior education in Science. You are the religious fanatics of scientism, not even knowing what it is that you are worshiping.

You might want to lookup the word “narcissism” before you use it. Although by your history, it is clear that you use far too much imagination when you read anything technical.

No, your argument was entirely about simultaneity and that two events could never be in sync if they were separated by “spacetime”. That was the only issue on the table. Again, you skew the facts to protect EGO.

EXACTLY like a literalist quoting his misunderstanding of the Bible. And you might want to look up what “out of context” means too.

The point is for you to prove special relativity, not merely quote chapter and verse from the book being deposed (probably should look up that one too). SHOW YOUR Math/Logic.

Illusions from presumption, just exactly as they said of Michelson-Morley and all those before them.

Then take the challenge. Everyone is all willing to claim how I am wrong, yet none have the courage to actually prove it with anything other than “But our scriptures say you’re wrong. Witnesses SAW him walking on the water. They wouldn’t LIE”. Farsight, you are good at explanations. You should be able to explain the paradox.

I thought I did, James, with this post. We didn’t discuss it adequately because PhysBang employed the “hostile barrage” technique as a distraction and to turn off other contributors. If you do respond to the points everybody yawns, if you don’t you lay yourself open to accusations. You really must read that Robert Close paper, and relate it to “affectance”.

Hmm… why doesn’t anyone understand that you CANNOT presume as premise special relativity in order to prove it for the same reason everyone complains about the religious using the Bible to prove God.

Once again, the similarity between the arguments from public Science and religion are identical in EVERY way.

It’s no presumption James. You measure the local speed of light to be the same regardless of your motion. That’s the evidence, and the essence of special relativity. Mathematical expressions like 1/√(1-v²/c²) are correct, but not for any mysterious reason. The reason is simple, and it’s obvious, because the supporting evidence is there in pair production and annihilation. We are in essence “made of light”, much as Close says with his matter waves in The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. This is the telling point, on page 15:

“What has not been generally recognized is that special relativity is a consequence of the wave nature of matter and is entirely consistent with classical notions of absolute space and time”.

But what does any of that have to do with the paradox situation? The mechanics of the proposed paradox has to be examined so as to point out at what point something would not “be right”. Up til now, other than you, all have merely said, “oh but the flashers would not be simultaneous”. And their only excuse is, “Einstein said”. Just as you have pointed out with many other examples, Einstein didn’t really say what they are thinking. Simultaneity issues do not really apply and if someone thinks they do, they really need to prove why they would.

I 100% agree with that. Again, it is merely due to no one actually thinking, but rather just seeing an equation and plugging it in to every hole until they go blind.

No you didn’t you have yet to explain why time dilation appears to be born out in experiment and absolute time seems to be at odds with all experiment.

That’s not an answer to the experiment, that is merely an evasion, why then do aether theories fair so badly in experimental testing? No one saw Jesus walk on water, they are all dead but the Michelson-Morley experiment has been run hundreds of times and in all set ups it disputes your theories. This isn’t a matter of faith its a matter of scientific evidence. Yours is lacking, hence your suppositions are merely faith not the other way around.

I have and so have others, the fact you choose to ignore reality in favour of something that doesn’t fit it means your assumptions are logically flawed.

If only you would practice what you preach and actually refute the empirical evidence instead of saying the same thing over and over in the face of it as if what you are saying was actually born out by the real world.

The only conclusion I came to was that all things being equal two frames would experience simultaneity, I explained why in accordance with a rotational transform, apparently though although differences in frames produces a discrepancy this simple empiricism is beyond your grasp. Your problem is you are denying reality and all real world experiment without showing any experiment that could refute relativity. Your train experiment simply says nothing more than that all things being equal relativistic equations should produce a simultaneity, which they do. The only way you distinguish your ideas would be to set up an experiment where all things weren’t equal and then observe the results. Since doing this tends to lead to discrepancies in clocks as shown in the above experiments (which you claim to have never heard of despite them all being easy to find on almost any web page on the subject or in any magazine or journal you’d care to name). Thus your logic is flawed, your axioms are demonstrably false and worse don’t distinguish themselves at all in your set up.

We don’t we say that if our hypothesis is true then it should be born out in experiment. We then set out to create and experiment where we can test absolute time against relative time. In absolute time clocks should show no discrepancies regardless of experimental set up or frames of reference, in relativistic scenarios they should be out of synch. That’s it if one is true according to experiment the other must necessarily be false. All you have to do to overturn it is show one scenario where Einstein’s equations don’t relate to experiment, to my knowledge no one has done this, but I am all ears if you know of any. The same cannot be said for your own dearly held convictions, which apparently only require faulty axioms and arm waving. And we are supposed to believe you based on this? Why? because you say something must be how it is, even though it isn’t born out by actual experiment? Your asking us to trust not our senses and our measures but some logic that appears in experiment to be contradicted by what we see and measure. This is foolish and unscientific, it’s not logical or pragmatic either.

No amount of insult about me or anyone else is going to change the physical nature of reality, nor subsume the wealth of evidence there is that supports it. Science isn’t about talking the talk it’s about practical applications in real situations. You have provided none.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% … experiment

Do you dispute these experiments results? If so why and how are the experiments flawed? If you could gives us an analysis of the experiment and tell us why it does not constitute evidence I am all ears?

Note: relativity was never meant to dispute all ether theories just ones that explained the motion issues in terms of a medium that had a discernible drag effect on light. hence the use of the word ponderable medium which had an actual effect on lights speed of propagation e.g. Maxwell’s Luminiferous Aether.

Unfortunately this just says that relativity is a classical theory which indeed it is. It does not say anything more than that.

When someone says something crazy, no amount of logic can “answer it”. All one can do is point out that it’s crazy.

You claimed that the same physical laws could not lead to different timing for different events. I showed you that this happens all the time. I also provided you with three links that provided detailed arguments about exactly why SR leads to the relativity of simultaneity.

That is the craziest thing you have said yet.

You want me to prove SR? That’s the new craziest thing you’ve said.

Because, if you were trying to produce a paradox for special relativity, then you would have to start from the assumption that SR was true. To do otherwise is really, really stupid.

The paper says far more than that Calrid. You should read it: The Other Meaning of Special Relativity. All the mathematics is the same, and it still matches all the experiments, but this employs space with waves running through it. Setting gravity aside, some go straight (light), some follow closed paths (massive particles), and some are in between (neutrinos). Hard evidence like pair production and magnetic dipole moment back this up, and it logically explains why massive particles can never reach c and we always measure c to be the same locally. I’m thinking it’s fairly close to what James would advocate, but it’s still special relativity. It’s a different interpretation of special relativity employing wave/particle duality in absolute space. And since the universe is pretty absolute, and we can determine our motion through the universe from the CMBR, it all seems reasonable. I think Einstein would have liked it.

It removes it. What you think of as “the time” is merely your cumulative measure of wave motion, which is altered by your own motion. Irrespective of that, and irrespective of where and when they were emitted, two photons either meet at the same location at the same time according to the station clock, or they don’t. The motion of outside observers and what they deem to be simultaneous has nothing to do with it.

It’s something of a grey area. Einstein didn’t quite get his clock synchronisation right, and from 1911 was challenging his own postulate, but people who feel themselves to be knowledgeable in SR don’t seem to know about these things.

And it’s still SR. Same maths, same predictions, same experimental proof… but with a wave/particle duality interpretation. What’s not to like?

I’ll take a look later. What I meant was that James was probably reading something into it that was not implied. If he whole heartedly agrees with that statement there should be no problem with accepting relativity without some “paradox” therefore.

Special relativity has no trouble mixing it up with other classical theories such as optics or electromagnetism, it never really has, it doesn’t have any real problem mixing it up with non classical theories even like certain aspects of quantum field theory for example.

If one actually describes the scenario in the reference frame of the train, then what one frame takes to be simultaneous is absolutely required. Otherwise, the mathematical descriptions of the events to not match up.

Einstein thoroughly rejected his 1911 work, as those knowledgeable in General Relativity know.

And it’s still SR. Same maths, same predictions, same experimental proof… but with a wave/particle duality interpretation. What’s not to like?
[/quote]
SR is completely compatible with quantum mechanics and it always has been.

Robert Close is simply regurgitating mistakes about SR that are about 100 years old. Here’s his own words:
"Thus we see how Lorentz transformations can be obtained by using sonar or any other type of wave to measure time and distance. Lorentz invariance is not a property of time and space per se. Rather it results from the methods used to measure time and distance. If the above-mentioned sailors were to rendezvous to share their data and some vodka, they might conclude after a few drinks that absolute time and space in moving underwater reference frames are related by Lorentz transformations using the speed of sound in water. After sobering up, however, they would realize that sonar is not the only way to measure time and distance and that their measurements are not evidence of any non-Euclidean properties of underwater time and space. "

Robert Close wants us to forget that there is a big difference between the sonar case and SR: sonar is only one way to measure, whereas SR applies to all means of measuring. He wants us to neglect that we have no evidence for his preferred, absolute reference frame whereas we do have a preferred frame for our sonar applications.

In SR, we might excuse this by using some mathematical chicanery, as Close does, to suggest that something about physics hides the real absolute reference frame from us. he might also suggest that unicorns and fairies work to carry electrons from place to place and then remove all trace of their work. This might work for SR, but when we get to general relativity, we can no longer accept this. GR gives us absolute freedom in picking a system of coordinates and putting physics to work in that system. And we cannot accept the frame co-moving with the bulk of the background radiation as an absolute reference frame because we rely on GR to analyze that radiation and to analyze the anisotropies in that radiation. These anisotropies are the relics of places where there were changes in the density of the background radiation and thus they have a different co-moving reference frame (and different proper times) from the rest of the background radiation. Do present the background radiation as an absolute reference frame, one has to produce analysis on these anisotropies that recover all the information from these regions that we get from GR.

I’m hoping he’ll read it too, and then appreciate that special relativity ought not to be the target here.

Agreed. There’s a rather simple way to extend this to gravity too. For the life of me I don’t know why Einstein didn’t nail it. Take a look at iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014 sometime, and do read that Leyden Address.

He didn’t reject c varying with gravitational potential. He repeated it year after year. See the GR section of this article which says the modern interpretation rejects it, not Einstein.

So take note of the other interpretation.

He’s right. Apply wave/particle duality, and it’s obvious. Everything is made of waves.

There is no difference, and the CMBR dipole anisotropy is the evidence for the preferred frame.

Don’t bother me with garbage like chicanery and fairies. The paper is sound.

No problem. It’s an SR paper. And in a place where gravitational potential is lower the energy density is higher. In a place where the energy density is higher, the light goes slower. It’s as simple as that.

A) The actual science is the modern interpretation, so it doesn’t matter what Einstein thought. B) He did reject the variable speed of light. You always like to produce his 1911 speculative piece, but you have no other reference for Einstein ever entertaining a variable speed of light.

No, the anisotropy is evidence of a difference between a frame co-moving with the average of the solar system movements and a frame co-moving with the average of the CMBR. There is no one CMBR frame, there is only a frame that we can identify with the average. Additionally, we have no physical means of measurement that identifies any frame as special. All we have is one means that measures the difference between one average and another average.

It is only sound insofar as it is able to recapture the basics of SR, basics known for 100 years. It is not sound to use sonar as an analogy, since we do not have any physical means of measurement that violates SR, while we do have many that violate Close’s sonar.

If it’s no problem, then let’s see you model anything in physics with your theory. You have had what, six years to do this?