Spacetime Explained
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Incorrect about what? People love claiming me incorrect just because they say so without anything to show for it.
That is a they approach C. However, for the period of time that passes for the stationary observer as the moving observer is traveling at C, the moving observer doesn't experience any time flow.
This is certaintly a dilemma because this observer is only traveling at C relative to a staionary observer. Meanwhile the relative to him, he is stationary while the other observer is traveling at C.
So there is the idea is that time doesn't slow down or stop, but the clock does? I don't see how this can be. All movement is relative to whoever is 'labeled' the origin. If O1 is origin, then O2 is the one moving. However, if O2 is origin, then O1 must be the one moving.
The moving observer does experience time flow: according to him all clocks run normally.
Again.
If you're frozen in time, there is no observation of clocks. The next moment doesn't come until he slows down. From his perspective, there is no change in pace of time. He doesn't notice any difference because time itself is slowed down. Including his observation of it. All with respect to origin.
And?
It doesn't alter the fact that the moving observer experiences time as normal.
He is NOT "frozen in time".
The observations of the static origin don't affect him.
Everything about him can ONLY be described as it relates to origin. He doesn't experience time moving slow. Relative to origin, his time is slower. Relative to him, time is ALWAYS perfectly normal.
Accelerations are possible in SR, you just have to treat them very carefully. Certainly things like the motion of an electron which is being accelerated to close to the speed of light is something SR can handle, its known as electrodynamics.
Other than directly asking you questions. And I note you STILL didn't answer the question!
I asked if you accept SR is an accurate quantitative model of nature, in that it provides numerical predictions which are experimentally justified. If you don't think this is the case I requested you provide me with a reason why you don't think so, such as experimental data published in a reputable journal. I would not accept some hack just saying "I don't like SR!", I wanted you to qualify your response with decent evidence.
But rather than answer the question you evade it, misconstrue what I say and make a reference to drugs. Well done on illustrating you can't back up your claims or hold any kind of discussion.
Rubbish.
You can pick any reference frame you want.
That's why it's called relativity: it's all relative to the frame you choose to consider.
So why have you repeatedly claimed it did?
From the OP.lixluke said:
Which is NOT what you claimed at the outset.
See above.
Last edited:
State yourself clearly if you want a clear response. The fault entirely lies with you here.
Why should I present counter arguments? Am I the thread starter here?
And well done in proving yourself a clown again. What was that about links again??
Special relativity works just fine with acceleration.
Last edited:
I see you're evading the question. Is a yes or no too much to ask? If you don't accept SR as accurate, surely you can provide a documented example? Or is your view of SR based on nothing other than aesthetics?
I've asked you a direct question, several times, and you've evaded it each time. I answered yours and you won't answer mine. I'm hardly the one being a clown here. If you have nothing to hide and your views of SR are justified surely you can demonstrate as much?
You claimed Einstein stole Lorentz's transformation results. Turns out you're incorrect. You claimed they require a preferred frame. Turns out you're incorrect. You claim SR is inconsistent because of that. Turns out you're wrong. You make claims about SR with such vigour but you haven't even bothered to check your facts. So calling me a clown would seem to be you projecting onto other people.
Why should I answer you?
lolwut. Where did I say he stole them,you clown ? And whats this about frames?
Are you getting confused between Uno Hoo's and mine posts?? If so scroll up.
Yes, I have no problem admitting I got the two of you mixed up. I just thought "Crank hack with a bias against SR said Einstein stole Lorentz transforms" and I forgot you're not the only ignorant hack with an axe to grind against relativity in this thread. You hacks all blur together sometimes.
I'm sure if I'd used the reply with your question about accelerations in SR you'd have made a big song and dance about it. Are you so surprised someone asks you to justify yourself when you come to a physics discussion forum? :shrug:
If you don't want to answer questions get a blog.
Mommy! Mommy! Alph..whatever called me a bad name! Now all his weird snarkey friends will call me a bad name too! How can life go on?
Alph..whatever; in all the excitement, you lost count too and forgot to actually address my criticisms of Einstein's "borrowing" style of theory building, and my criticisms of Einstein's use of the Lorentz absolute reference frame transforms in Einstein's own totally relative Relativity theory.
A little less empty rhetoric conversation! A little more real explaining action, please!
Lawson's Criterion
Registered Senior Member
Dear Anuraganimax, Lixluke, and Uno Hoo:
You are utterly incorrect about Relativity, and I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Relativity education. If you can admit your errors, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate physicists are needed to change your mind?
LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
You are utterly incorrect about Relativity, and I hope this will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in Relativity education. If you can admit your errors, you will have contributed constructively towards the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate physicists are needed to change your mind?
LC, Ph.D., Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Los Alamos, New Mexico.
LOL. How can I be incorrect when I haven't asserted anything? Got some screws loose pal?
You tell me.
How many irate physicists screw in a light bulb?
How little are those irate little physicists , anyway? And, how big is your light bulb?
You and the rest of your herd are notoriously eager, hair-trigger, to start calling non-believers bad names. You are notoriously "slow as molasses" to ever give substantive logical argument when you are asked to explain how the Lorentz transform can be proved in a non-absolute reference frame.
You and your herd can start now. You or Alpo...whatever, or, any one of you who has one ounce of guts can post a logical explanation of how the Lorentz absolute reference frame transform can be legitimately used in an Einstein totally RELATIVE THEORY.
i'M NOT CALLING ANY OF YOU A BAD NAME. I am just saying to you (all) " You
have your shot right now. Prove to all of us bad-named crackpot idiots that you are right. Prove by simple basic and clearly understandable logic that the Lorentz absolute frame transform works in the Einstein totally relative coordinate theory.
Go, girl!
I see you're unwilling (because you're unable) to justify your point of view.
You don't seem to know how science works. Person A obtains Result 1. Person B obtains Result 2. Person C reads Results 1 and 2 and realises they lead to Result 3.
Every single paper in a reputable journal will have tens, dozens, even hundreds of references to other papers. Sometimes its just a passing comment, other times it is "I have taken their equation and will now use it". That isn't theft, that's the scientific method. I gave you the example of Newton. He was known as staggeringly arrogant but even he admitted he did what he did by building on the works of others.
The only people who do work which doesn't reference others are hacks. Look on vixra.org compared to arxiv.org and you'll see hacks reference very few people and often only previous work they have done.
You claimed Lorentz transformations require an absolute frame. This is demonstrated wrong in the very derivation of Lorentz transformations in any special relativity textbook. You have made a claim you didn't justify and is demonstrably false. The fact you don't read said books doesn't mean they aren't there.
I haven't seen you justify a single claim you've made so the empty rhetoric is yours.