In various places (Smashwords reviews, Amazon reviews, etc), I’ve been accused of attacking a simplified version of relativity, an 8th grade-level theory that is used to introduce beginners or laypeople to relativity, and that if I destroy such a simplified version, I’m not really destroying the “true” theory of relativity, because the “higher” version of relativity, the one that beginners eventually move on to and attempt to master, the one that requires a university major in relativity to comprehend, is not simple.
I always counter this by saying that no, relativity really is absurdly simple, and the so-called simplified, introductory version is the true meat and bones of the theory, and that the “higher” version is built upon the shaky, faulty foundations of this absurdly simple “introductory” theory. The “higher” version is where the mathematical acrobatics are introduced to mask the faults in the theory. Relativity is a house that should be condemned because it is unsafe to enter.
But when relativists object to my saying that relativity is a simple theory, what are they actually saying? They’re basically saying that relativity is not simple. But if relativity is not simple, then it must not be “elegant” (which is the scientist’s way of saying something is so simple it’s beautiful). Elegance, or synonymously, simplicity, is often presented by scientists as evidence of a theory’s truth (an elegant theory is more likely true than a similar, less elegant or inelegant one). So if relativity is not simple, not elegant, then by objecting to my statement that relativity is a simple theory, relativists are implicitly admitting that relativity has a strike against it.
Basically, imply the relativists, I’m attacking the beautiful, elegant version of relativity, but the true, ugly, inelegant version safely survives my assault.
Either that, or they’re trying to say that the “higher” version is the elegant version. So what does that make the so-called beginner’s version? A simpler than simple version, in which case, wouldn’t it be doubly elegant? Or does it make it an inelegant version that only becomes simple, or elegant, once you delve into the higher, mathematical version, which sort of streamlines that beginner’s inelegant version? In which case, why is the relativist accusing me of attacking a simplified version of relativity?
Or are they really saying that the beginner’s version is a “dumbed down” version of relativity, especially designed for idiots like me?
Whatever the case, it seems to me the objections that I’m attacking a “beginner’s version” of relativity, whether it’s characterized as an inelegant version, a dumbed-down version, or whatever, implicitly acknowledge that my attacks are succeeding in destroying the “beginner’s” version. It's like, "Ha! You destroyed that one, but guess what? It was only a decoy!"
The question then remains: is there actually a “beginner’s” version and a “higher” version of relativity, as implied by the objection, or are they one and the same, differing only in the depth and mathematical detail to which the subject is studied? (That's a rhetorical/sarcastic question).
There are many perhaps hundreds of versions of relativity that are competitors if you like to General relativity. Galilean relativity for example dates back to 1632, so be specific are you attacking Relativity or General Relativity?
ReplyDeleteThere are simplifications of every physics teaching when you did basic physics at school you most likely ignored friction and air pressure and the like in every problem you did.
The common problem that happens with GR is the same as with any relativity theory layman use one reference frame and impose it on another, without justification. For example when I stand here and look at the event horizon of a black hole I see time stop and they assume that is real at that location and time is really stopping and someone there must see the same as them.
You can bring the problem back down to earth all you like and give a common example, like hey when you corner a car fast you feel a sideways centripetal force, yet for me standing here I don't. So what am I supposed to do say I can feel your force every time I see you corner.
Why don't you try giving us an example of "you destroying relativity" which I find really amusing.
"There are many perhaps hundreds of versions of relativity that are competitors if you like to General relativity. Galilean relativity for example dates back to 1632, so be specific are you attacking Relativity or General Relativity?"
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about Einstein's Relativity, both the special and general theories.
"There are simplifications of every physics teaching when you did basic physics at school you most likely ignored friction and air pressure and the like in every problem you did."
Yes, I was told to ignore those things that were not components of the concept being taught. For example, friction and drag are not components of a gravitational theory, whether it's Newton's or Einstein's. Friction and drag are outside elements that need to be taken into account when talking about how things behave gravitationally in a real world situation. But they are not components of how gravity itself works, not in the same way that length contraction and time dilation are components of Einstein's Relativity. And thus you cannot teach Relativity at a conceptual level if you ignore them.
So sure you can simplify physics by ignoring those concepts that are irrelevant to the concept under discussion. You can continue eliminating outside elements that will affect the concept under discussion but that are not integral parts of the concept. But there is a bare-bones point beyond which you cannot simplify for basic physics. And if someone disproves any of those most basic concepts bare-bones concepts, then no matter how much you study those same concepts at a higher educational level, the disproof you gave at that basic level will not disappear.
"The common problem that happens with GR is the same as with any relativity theory layman use one reference frame and impose it on another, without justification. For example when I stand here and look at the event horizon of a black hole I see time stop and they assume that is real at that location and time is really stopping and someone there must see the same as them."
Yes, that is a common problem other people have when thinking about relativity.
"You can bring the problem back down to earth all you like and give a common example, like hey when you corner a car fast you feel a sideways centripetal force, yet for me standing here I don't. So what am I supposed to do say I can feel your force every time I see you corner."
No, what you say is that the observer in the car is stationary, and when he turns his steering wheel, a momentary gravitational field is generated that acts upon the entire universe so that the universe "corners" around the car. The 'sideways centripetal force' you mentioned is fictitious for the observer in the car, who says that he is experiencing the gravitational field generated by his turning of the steering wheel.
"Why don't you try giving us an example of "you destroying relativity" which I find really amusing."
I've given plenty of examples. This particular blog entry does not exist in a vacuum. I've written a book outlining the destruction(https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/360662), and I've made a hundred or more videos on YouTube giving examples. You can actually find some of the videos posted in my other blog entries. So I don't think it's necessary for me to repeat any examples here. A couple of clicks will lead you to them.