Is Relativity Reality?

[ChildInAZoo]

Your friend immediatly conceded that available frames were limited by c, that the blue sphere was a valid representation, and that the two velocities were in the same frame. Totally unlike anything you have written.

It's unlike anything you have written because I stupidly decided to be charitable. All that seemed to do was turn you to insults. It certainly didn't turn your brain on. Because while I did note that we can have two or more particles in the same frame, I also noted that this has nothing to do with the strange Venn-diagram like way that you use your blue spheres. We can consider any particle (and any number of particles) moving in a vector constrained in a similar blue sphere somewhere else in that same reference frame. Considering multiple particles does not constrain the possible vectors for velocity that could be assigned to those particles.

He doesn't actually point out what is wrong with argument 1, he's saying '' I would do this''.

No, my post first says that there is only one way that what you had written could make sense within Special Relativity. Again, the problem here is that you attack relativity theory without knowing relativity theory. Secondly, my post says that your attempt to combine descriptions of multiple particles simply fails to match what happens in Special Relativity.

Anyway, I believe that I can see what's wrong with argument 1 myself now, and it's not been pointed out by anyone so far, so I'm rather pleased that I got there first.

Since you do not understand special relativity yet, your analysis is probably worthless.

[ChildInAZoo]

Colubridae, my motto is '' don't mock what you don't understand ''. You seem to do the opposite. Mock everything and understand very little. Perhaps you can clearly explain what's ludicrous? I doubt that you have the nerve to try. Perhaps you could get a teacher to do it for you.
.

That can't be your motto, since you seem to be mocking my posts and you clearly do not understand them.

[mistermack]

You set the tone, Childinazoo, I don't need to apologise for reacting to it. This is your very first post on this thread :

Argument 1 demonstrates that you don't understand special relativity, end of story. Go back and learn it. It doesn't work like your little intersecting circle example because adding velocities does not work like it does in Galilean relativity.

And thank you for the humor, Farsight. Robert Close is a real grade-A crackpot.

It's mocking, wooley and so generalised it contains no real argument, like all your subsequent posts bar one. And it's a bit rich, being told to go back and learn SR, by someone who also doesn't understand it. But actually your accusation that I was insulting, or mocking are not accurate, because you hadn't actually claimed to have written that passage when I wrote that I noticed it came from somone else. Since you now do, I'm saying no more.

Anyway, you can't give out the stick that you do as above, and then whinge if someone replies in kind. I'm more than happy to employ all the normal courtesies, if I receive the same. In fact I prefer that approach any day.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

It's mocking, wooley and so generalised it contains no real argument, like all your subsequent posts bar one. And it's a bit rich, being told to go back and learn SR, by someone who also doesn't understand it.

What is your evidence that I don't understand it? That Farsight claims this? Not only can he intuit physics without working out the maths, he can intuit university course results without looking at the course work. This should save some university a lot of time, having a psychic academic evaluator on the case. (Me, I think I'll trust the training I got and the marks I recieved from having my course work graded by a professional.)

Like I said before, there is nothing to correct in your argument because it is not about SR. You are adding velocities in an incorrect way. You need to understand how velocity addition works in SR.

But actually your accusation that I was insulting, or mocking are not accurate, because you hadn't actually claimed to have written that passage when I wrote that I noticed it came from somone else. Since you now do, I'm saying no more.

Riiiiiight.

Anyway, you can't give out the stick that you do as above, and then whinge if someone replies in kind. I'm more than happy to employ all the normal courtesies, if I receive the same. In fact I prefer that approach any day.

So you have lied about your motto. Good to know.

[mistermack]

What is your evidence that I don't understand it?

I earlier said that I realised that no-one commenting on this thread understands SR, and I include you and me in that. That's all. I think you're a bit too obsessed with farsight.
My evidence is that nobody, including you, has given a clear refutation of this claim, in spite of it going now for a full week.

Just throwing in bland vague phrases like the one below is not a refutation.

Like I said before, there is nothing to correct in your argument because it is not about SR. You are adding velocities in an incorrect way. You need to understand how velocity addition works in SR

That's just a vague denial. Any kid could write that. And as I said, I can now see at least one place where it's wrong, and nobody else has seen it yet, after a whole week.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

That's just a vague denial. Any kid could write that. And as I said, I can now see at least one place where it's wrong, and nobody else has seen it yet, after a whole week.

Given that you admit that you do not understand SR, how do you know that pointing out that you are not properly using the addition of velocities is "a vague denial". And if you realize that you do not understand SR, then why are you writing an argument against it? Shouldn't you be out there trying to learn it instead?

[mistermack]

Because it's a denial, and it's vague. The original posting was entirely specific, and explained point by point. There is every oportunity to make specific arguments, but you don't.
As far as understanding SR goes, I understand it more than I did, I don't see it as something to be dogmatic about, I've said many times now, that if anyone gave a good valid refutation, I would say 'thanks very much'.
When you see some of the things Einstein said, it's clear that he was flexible and ready to amend it at any time. If he FULLY understood all of it, he wouldn't have said some of the things that he did. Especially about it being not incompatible with an Ether of some kind.
I never denied SR worked, I just said 'is it reality?'.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

Your argument may be point-by-point, but it is a very specific reply to your argument to say that it doesn't add velocities correctly. Since your entire argument rests on adding velocities, this is a big problem for your argument.

[Twiglet]

I never denied SR worked, I just said 'is it reality?'.
.

Having a working theory is about as close as science gets to reality mistermack. The success of special relativity has been in explaining things Newtonian mechanics can't.

[mistermack]

Your argument may be point-by-point, but it is a very specific reply to your argument to say that it doesn't add velocities correctly. Since your entire argument rests on adding velocities, this is a big problem for your argument.

Well ok, you can call it specific, but it's not by my standards.
Otherwise my original post would have read '' consider particles moving in such-and-such manner, add velocities correctly, and the valid frames of reference reduce to one''. Not worth reading, but hard to challenge.

Having a working theory is about as close as science gets to reality mistermack. The success of special relativity has been in explaining things Newtonian mechanics can't.

Maybe you're right. But what bugs me about SR is that it's all about ''what an observer would see''. That's not good enough for us in real life. We don't think that our twin lives in the mirror, or little people entertain us inside tv screens. But with SR we are invited to accept 'what an observer would see' as reality. I agree it's the only reality we can interract with, but that's just for now. We used to think that earth, air, fire and water were all of reality.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

Well ok, you can call it specific, but it's not by my standards.
Otherwise my original post would have read '' consider particles moving in such-and-such manner, add velocities correctly, and the valid frames of reference reduce to one''. Not worth reading, but hard to challenge.

The stuff you write indicates that there is no point in offering a more specific challenge. You don't even understand that you are adding velocities in your argument. When you attempt to limit the range of acceptable particle velocities based on the speed of light, you are trying to add the velocities of two or more particles together to get a speed greater than the speed of light. But you do this incorrectly.

Maybe you're right. But what bugs me about SR is that it's all about ''what an observer would see''.

But it isn't about what an observer would see. Despite the sloppy language of even well-meaning defender's like Twiglet (and even some of Einstein's sloppy writing), relativity theory is not about observers. It lays down restrictions in principle on the relationships between events. Observers are free to use whatever system of coordinates they wish when taking measurements (within the limits of the instruments to which they have access), and relativity theory is an objective set of rules that anyone can use to figure out what those measurements would be in any other system of coordinates.

[PsychoSerenity]

Having a working theory is about as close as science gets to reality mistermack. The success of special relativity has been in explaining things Newtonian mechanics can't.

Maybe you're right. But what bugs me about SR is that it's all about ''what an observer would see''. That's not good enough for us in real life. We don't think that our twin lives in the mirror, or little people entertain us inside tv screens. But with SR we are invited to accept 'what an observer would see' as reality. I agree it's the only reality we can interract with, but that's just for now. We used to think that earth, air, fire and water were all of reality.
.

Well, if you want to discuss the possible views of reality that we might have in the future, take it to the philosophy forum. But relativity seems to be one of the best descriptions of reality we currently have, for the areas where it works. That's all science can say on the matter.

Trying to reinterpret relativity yourself, without fully understanding it first, probably won't get you far. By all means continue trying, but be aware that hundreds of very clever scientists who have been working on this all their lives, are also continually searching for a more accurate way to describe reality. So don't go around assuming you've got there first, without learning what's already understood - otherwise, even if you get it right, you might just be reinventing the wheel.

[mistermack]

Yes, childinazoo, but if you didn't say which velocity, of which particle, I couldn't possibly reply, could I? As I'm sure you know. Generalities are great, it's practically impossible to get it wrong.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue in support any more, having noticed one SPECIFIC problem.
As for the rest, I'm familiar with all that.
And Phychoserenity, I familiar with all that too.

I might repost this if the principle still applies after I rework it removing the problem I've noticed. Or not.

Meantime, I'm starting a thread, ( not a row, I hope ) on how we treat infinity, that recent conversation we had got me interested.
.

[newolder]

Yes, childinazoo, but if you didn't say which velocity, of which particle, I couldn't possibly reply, could I? As I'm sure you know. Generalities are great, it's practically impossible to get it wrong.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue in support any more, having noticed one SPECIFIC problem.
As for the rest, I'm familiar with all that.
And Phychoserenity, I familiar with all that too.

I might repost this if the principle still applies after I rework it removing the problem I've noticed. Or not.

Meantime, I'm starting a thread, ( not a row, I hope ) on how we treat infinity, that recent conversation we had got me interested.
.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/search. ... mit=Search

[ChildInAZoo]

Yes, childinazoo, but if you didn't say which velocity, of which particle, I couldn't possibly reply, could I? As I'm sure you know. Generalities are great, it's practically impossible to get it wrong.

What are you talking about? Your entire argument consists in putting in particle after particle. In each case, you are incorrectly adding velocities. There is no need to be more specific. This could, of course, all have been avoided if you had decided to learn something of SR before making claims about it.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue in support any more, having noticed one SPECIFIC problem.

Which is probably itself incorrect!

As for the rest, I'm familiar with all that.

So, despite being familiar with it, you ignore it?

And Phychoserenity, I familiar with all that too.

Yet you obviously ignored the part about learning about something before you critique it.