Going back to
an earlier post in which I said that the proper way to resolve the Twins Paradox
is to follow it into general relativity where it belongs, which leads to the
foolish nonsense of saying that the pressing of the brakes on Einstein’s train
generates a gravitational field that causes the entire universe to lurch to a
halt — today I’ve been heartened to discover that Einstein himself has already
responded to my objections, in a short paper titled Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity. I came up
with the ideas in my earlier post all on my own, and it pleases me to find that I’m treading in
the footsteps of great minds.
And what do Einstein
and his sock-puppet critic have to say about my criticism? (I say this facetiously. I actually do
have great respect for Einstein. You can’t argue with the greatness of the
theory he came up with, and that it took a brilliant mind to do it. I can
acknowledge that, even as I acknowledge that the theory is complete bunk).
He agrees with
me that the Twins Paradox can be resolved in terms of general relativity. And
it’s basically resolved exactly how I said: the gravity field generated by the
pressing of the train brakes, or the turning of the rocket’s steering wheel, affects
the clocks of both frames, thereby resolving the supposed paradox.
Einstein’s
hypothetical critic then asks what I basically asked: isn’t this gravity field
merely fictitious?
To which
Einstein responds: “..the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful.” He says
that it’s a real gravitational field as far as the observer in question is
concerned, so let’s not quibble over unimportant things like real or unreal,
gravity or pseudo-gravity.
And my answer
to that? What a lame answer, Einstein! Bollocks! I call bull**** on this! I demand that we quibble over such terms!
He also talks
about “just how little merit there is in calling upon the so-called ‘common
sense…’”
So: Einstein’s
considered response is basically that where relativity is concerned, we
shouldn’t worry about concepts like real or unreal, and we shouldn’t appeal to
common sense.
He further says
that the main difficulty most people have when studying relativity is that
“…the connection between the quantities that occur in the equations and the
measurable quantities is much more indirect than in terms of the usual
theories.” Read: relativity is mainly a theory of mathematical abstractions
that has little obvious bearing on actual physical reality. Just as I’ve been
saying all along.
In this paper
Einstein also has some interesting things to say about the universe revolving
around the Earth: “For example,
strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the
Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is
at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the
Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves…Nobody
will use a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the planet Earth,
because that would be impractical. However as a matter of principle such a theory of relativity is equally
valid as any other…For the decision which representation to choose only reasons
of efficiency are decisive, not arguments of a principle kind.”
In other words, if I choose to say that
the Earth is in an absolute frame at the center of the universe, there is little
the relativist can muster in the way of scientific principle or empirical
evidence to refute me. The best relativity can do is to say, “Hey! Relativity
demands that all reference frames are equal, so you can’t say there’s an
absolute frame.” Yeah, well, since I don’t subscribe to relativity, then I’ll
say it, and you can’t disprove me. It reminds me of an old Robin Williams joke
about cops in England
In reality, rather than the idiot being
the one who proclaims that the Earth is at the center of the universe, the
idiot is actually the one who proclaims that no way, no how can the Earth be at
the center of the universe.
“But come on,” the relativist objects.
“You can’t possibly believe that the Earth is really at the center of the universe, can you?”
What? So now the relativist wants to quibble over concepts like real or
unreal? Again, in the words of Einstein himself, ““..the distinction
real - unreal is hardly helpful.”
So as to
whether we’re really at the center of
the universe — why are we arguing about such trivial concepts as the reality or
unreality of our position in the universe? Surely it can’t bother the
relativist if one chooses to believe that we absolutely are at the center of
the universe.
Gravity or
pseudo-gravity, Earth-centered or non-Earth-centered, real or unreal, up or
down, left or right, man or woman…these distinctions are hardly helpful,
people.
A Relativist would have plenty to refute you claim of an ABSOLUTE frame of reference being in the earth. For one thing, the equations of motion for the planets would become very complex.
ReplyDeleteFell free to use earth as a relative frame. It is a valid choice. But it really is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of your claim of absolute coordinates. Where is YOUR evidence??
By relativity, I am free to use a reference frame appropriate to the problem to solve. The idiot is the one that refuses to accept the world as it really exists. THAT is what Einstein referred to when he says the question of whether the gravitational field is "real" or not is irrelevant. If you are within that ship you cannot tell whether it is gravity that you feel or acceleration from rocket engines.
Awaiting your evidence.
ed
Thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know the relativist has plenty of ways to attempt to refute me. I am aware of all these ways. And surprise, surprise: NONE of them refute me! In the example you mentioned, the complexity of the equations of motion is not a refutation of geocentricity. There is no physical law governing the universe which disbars complexity as an explanation for anything.
Let’s be clear here. You have no problem with the geocentric reference frame as one frame among countless others. And since you acknowledge this, you must also acknowledge that all observational and experimental evidence fits a geocentric frame. You only object to the claim that the geocentric frame is the absolute frame, since relativity requires that all reference frames are equal, with no frame being absolute.
So where is relativity’s evidence that all reference frames are equal? It is incumbent upon the relativist to prove this assertion. Every single experiment that allegedly supports relativity has been performed from within an Earth-based reference frame. Thus, all empirical evidence currently available to relativity only supports a geocentric frame. Relativity has not yet proven its assertion that all reference frames are equal, and that burden of proof is upon the relativist, not, as you say, upon the Geocentrist (capital-G being absolute).
The relativist must offer physical evidence for the assertion that all reference frames are equally valid. Put GPS satellites around Mars or another planet besides Earth. Put particle accelerators on another planet. On other planets, repeat every single experiment which has been performed on Earth that allegedly supports relativity. Put observatories on other planets and gather detailed and reliable astronomical observations. Go to other star systems as well, and do all these things again, to make sure that proximity to Earth does not somehow affect your evidence.
Has the relativist done any of these things? When you have done all these things and the experimental results are the same as those obtained on Earth, THEN come back and tell me that I'm incorrect, and I'll be more likely to accept your chastisement.
Thus, at present, geocentrism as an absolute reference frame is the only scientifically honest stance one can take. There is no empirical evidence at present to support the assertion that all reference frames are equal.
You may say, “Oh, relativity explains the precession of Mercury. Relativity correctly predicts the bending of star light in a gravitational field.” Granted. But the Geocentrist can allow that portions of relativity are correct. The Geocentrist claims that special relativity’s assertion that all physical laws are the same in all reference frames is incorrect. And right now, there is no empirical evidence available to the relativist to refute the Geocentrist’s claim. Hence, relativity in its current form is not supported by any empirical evidence.
In response to your statement about what Einstein meant in his paper: "By relativity, I am free to use a reference frame appropriate to the problem to solve. The idiot is the one that refuses to accept the world as it really exists. THAT is what Einstein referred to when he says the question of whether the gravitational field is "real" or not is irrelevant. If you are within that ship you cannot tell whether it is gravity that you feel or acceleration from rocket engines."
ReplyDeleteThe gist of the entire paper I referred to is, to quote Einstein at the end of said paper, "that the concept of absolute motion, to which kinematically no meaning can be attributed, does not have to enter physics." The actual reason he thinks making a distinction between real and unreal is hardly helpful is because it allows absolute motion to enter physics, which relativity does not want.
But Einstein's entire argument rests on his belief that no kinematic meaning can be attributed to absolute motion. And such belief stems from his refusal to consider the alternative explanation of all astronomical observational evidence, as well as the Michelson-Morley experiment and other earlier experiments that he refers to in his book Relativity. And that alternative explanation is that we are at the center of the universe, and thus Earth is at rest in the absolute frame.
At the end of chapter 5 of Relativity, and at various other points in that book, he alludes to the fact that no observations have ever revealed Earth's motion through space. He says that "this is a very powerful argument in favor of the principle of relativity." Yes, but it's also a very powerful argument in favor of Earth being motionless in space, exactly as the empirical evidence suggests.
At the end of the 19th century, only one path was available to us based on physical evidence: Geocentricity. Then Einstein came along and gave us two paths: an absolute frame, or a multitude of equal frames. Mainstream science chose to go down the second path, yet still has no evidence that that choice was correct.
"If you are within that ship you cannot tell whether it is gravity that you feel or acceleration from rocket engines."
ReplyDeleteOh, I could tell whether it is gravity or acceleration, because I know that there's a rocket engine attached to the rocket that is propelling me and the rocket forward. I know that I'm in control of the rocket's thrust as well. I'm not one of Einstein's retarded hypothetical observers who wouldn't know his own *** from a hole in the ground, pardon my French.