Motor Daddy:
I can use force, acceleration, RPM, and torque, along with work, and power to prove my point about the absolute nature of distance and time.
No you can't, because you don't have a clue how force, acceleration, torque, work etc. transform from one frame to another in Einstein's universe.
All you have is a transformation equation that can do none of that.
No. I can do all of that if required.
In the real world, when I turn on the ceiling fan, the earth doesn't rotate and the fan stay at rest. Get a grip on yourself, James.
If you're sitting on top of the fan, you observe the room rotating around you. That's called the reference frame of the fan. See?
You are living in a fantasy world where you think there is no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is in motion.
No. It's the real world. Note, however, that "motion" comes in different flavours. Sticking to special relativity, we can't distinguish constant relative motion. We can distinguish accelerations.
In the real world, when I turn on the fan, the fan is in motion.
With respect to what? The room? I have no argument with that? The floor? I have no argument with that. Absolute space? Such a thing does not exist.
In the real world, the engine in a car is doing work, with torque on the drive shaft as the car goes down the street. Stop pretending the car is at rest just because you are in the car and can't tell reality from an illusion!
It's interesting that you bring this up. You do realise that even concepts such as energy are relative, do you not? And that applies in the Motor Daddy universe as much as it does in Einstein's.
Again, my world knows the motion of each object, it doesn't assume a train is at rest just because there is a relative motion between a train and an embankment, and that I'm in the train with no relative motion to the train.
Yes, in your world.
You are living in a fantasy world where you believe there is no way to tell which is in motion, the train or the embankment. I can tell, you can't!
Correct. So what? If that's the way the world works, that's the way it works. No point tilting at windmills. Get used to reality.
But in the real world, there is not two durations of time, there is one.
No. Durations of time are frame-dependent in the real world.
Stop pretending your object never has motion. That's absurd, James.
I've never pretended that objects don't have motion. Motion is frame-dependent, that's all. It's even frame-dependent in the Motor Daddy universe - never mind Einstein.
Yes, and I am fully aware what the black dot is. It is Einstein that doesn't know what a black dot is. He thinks the light sphere always travels with the source in the train frame. He thinks that because he pretends the train is at rest, that the light sphere expands in the train as if the train was really at rest.
No. The light expands in a sphere because in Einstein's universe the speed of light is the same in all directions in all inertial reference frames. There's no "pretend" about it.
You don't believe in my space? Space is volume.
I didn't say I don't believe in space. I said I don't believe in
your "space", by which I mean your fantasy absolute-zero-speed reference frame.
See the difference?
In the real world there is one duration of time, not more. Why do you believe there are two durations of time in the universe?
Because all the experimental evidence supports that conclusion.
What have you got? Nothing.
Humor me. I want to see SR's numbers of the scenario in which the train and the embankment are each in motion. There is no object at absolute rest in the scenario. Unless of course you agree with those numbers using SR?
Very well. Give me enough information that I can work the problem. Either give me light travel times in a specified frame, or velocities of frames, or however you want to set it up. But if I have to keep asking you to make your scenario clear, I think I'll be far too bored to carry through with this additional pointless task.
I've already done that, James. I showed you that if a ruler is perpendicular to the line of motion, the speed of light can't be measured to be c along the ruler. There is no length contraction to the perpendicular ruler, and you say there is time dilation, so how do you explain the fact that it takes more time for light to travel the length of the ruler than it should if the speed of light was actually measured to be c?
You have it wrong. Light will always take time L/c to travel along the ruler of length L, provided the length and time are both measured in the same reference frame.
No, you need to come to grips with the fact that there is absolute velocity, and that just because you are confused and bewildered about which is actually in motion, the train or the embankment, doesn't mean the universe doesn't know which is which. You have an illusion and then you proclaim the universe doesn't know? Get a grip on yourself, James.
These repetitive exhortations to me to "get a grip on yourself" are becoming tiresome. You won't bully me into accepting your point of view. You'll need to provide some kind of evidence or argument, I'm afraid. I won't accept that you're right on the basis that your imagination is better than mine, or on the basis that you think I have an "illusion", but you can't prove it.
Unless you have something better to offer than bluff and bluster about how relativity just can't be correct because you say it can't, you may as well stop at this point.
Dead wrong, James. The light sphere doesn't travel along in space with the source. Drop the, "I can't tell which one is in motion and which one isn't, so I'm just gonna pretend that I am at rest" act now.
There's no "pretend" about it.
Do you agree that every object is at rest in its own reference frame? Yes or no?
If you say "no", then you don't know what a reference frame is. Simple.
Reference frames apply as much to the Motor Daddy universe as they do to Einstein's. In it's own frame, the cube in the Motor Daddy universe is at rest as surely as it is at rest in Einstein's universe. Otherwise, the term "reference frame of the cube" becomes meaningless.
I also note that you have avoided addressing this point many times.
Again, I have discovered the absolute reference frame, so you can sleep well now.
Really? How fast is the Earth travelling in your absolute reference frame?
Tell me. It's obviously important knowledge that everybody needs to know so that we can recalibrate all our rulers correctly. We can write to NIST to change the standards once we have your answer.
James, BTW, In my scenario of the embankment and the train in motion, BOTH observers agree that the strikes occurred at A and B at t=0, simultaneously.
Fine, so in the MD universe they are simultaneous in every frame. Not so in Einstein's universe.
There is no relativity of simultaneity in the scenario. My observers are smart enough to know their own velocity, and they use that in their calculations to arrive at the CORRECT conclusion that the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously at t=0, even though each light impacted each observer at different times.
Yes.
Einstein's observers aren't smart enough to come to the correct conclusion. They think the strikes occurred at different times at A and B. They get it wrong because they assume they are at rest.
No. In Einstein's universe the strikes really do occur at different times in any other frame. That follows directly from Einstein's postulates. It's an unavoidable conclusion that doesn't depend on how smart anybody is.
I'm really looking forward to your numbers and analyses of that scenario, James. It should be a real hoot!
It should be even a bigger laugh when you show me the acceleration numbers according to SR! I can't wait!!
If you want to discuss yet another scenario with acceleration of some kind, you'll need to give me enough information to know what you're talking about, again. Generally I find it takes days to get from your initial description of a vague scenario to something that is firm enough that we can start calculating numbers. Then, usually half way through, you change the scenario or add extra features or whatever. And you're never truly interested in the analysis from Einstein's point of view anyway, so it's mostly a complete waste of time.
To tell you the truth, I don't think you're capable of doing the maths for special relativity. You've never once demonstrated that you can solve even the simplest problem in Einstein's relativity. In fact, I challenge you to solve a simple problem using Einstein's relativity. Will you take me up on this, just so I know you know what you're talking about?
If I'm going to tackle your two new scenarios using bothg Einstein and MD universes, the the least you can do is to solve one short problem using Einstein. Agreed?
How about we start the train at a station, at rest with the tracks and measure the length and sync the clocks with the station observer so everything is on the same sheet of music and everyone agrees. Then, we will accelerate the train to a constant velocity and have lightening strike the A and B point at the next train station as the train passes by.
You realise that the train clocks and embankment clocks will lose synchronisation during the acceleration, do you not?
Yeah, that's what I thought. You aren't interested in the truth, you're only interested in defending Einstein's BS!
There's nothing to defend, because no substantive attacks have been made.
Einstein's "BS" is as secure as it has ever been. No uneducated Motor Daddy is going to upset that apple cart after 100 years of qualified physicists doing their darndest, I can assure you.
In the real world, trains are at rest with the tracks at the station.
Why do you keep talking about the "real world"? All you have is the fantasy Motor Daddy world, which has no connection to any "real world".
Please drop this nonsense about the "real world". You wouldn't know the real world if it hit you in the face.
Then the train accelerates according to HP=torque*RPM/5252. In the real world, the train's wheels have a circumference which means the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel times the RPM of the wheel.
When wheels rotate, the circumference changes due to length contraction.
The wheel accelerates according to the torque of the engine at the specific RPM of the crankshaft. The torque is multiplied by the gear ratio at a cost of RPM directly proportion to the gear ratio.
Gear ratios remain the same in different frames. RPMs do not, due to time dilation.
See, in the real world, the train is not at rest, the engine is doing work, and power=work/time.
Work and time and power are all relative - different in different reference frames.
In the real world, the wheels rotate and the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel every rotation of the wheel.
Yes. True in every frame.
We can find the torque of the engine at every RPM by placing the engine on a dyno and measuring the torque at RPM.
Get a clue, Ned!
In which frame is the dyno?
