Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467904

Re: SR NONSENSE

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: SR NONSENSE
Date	2018-08-15 13:20 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<pl19b8$6ea$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<Hy0aD.1852580$Xa4.1365522@fx29.am4> <e5FcD.23749$rG2.21778@fx12.am4> <OmJcD.35569$2v.13083@fx14.am4> <pkvpdv$5bk$1@gioia.aioe.org> <LDUcD.34074$T%2.568@fx06.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/08/2018 00:42, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Thus in SR the velocity rear to front
>>> is equal to the velocity front to rear,
>>> equal to c in all frames of reference.
>>> While in classical physics it is rather
>>> the TIME for the journey which is constant
>>> in all frames of reference.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Which is the more sensible   ????
>> 
>> Sensibility has NOTHING to do with it.
> 
> Sensible has EVERYTHING to do with it.

No sir. Experiment has everything to do it. And if the results fly in the
face of sensibility, then sensibility concedes. 

> 
>> As long as you keep talking about
>> gedankens, you will incorrectly err toward what seems intuitive.
> 
> Well i would have to agree that gedanken can be dangerous.
> Einstein used a gedanken to "prove" that t'= gamma * t, 

No he didn’t, and that’s precisely the point. Einstein did not claim to
prove anything with his gedankens. The only thing that gedankens were
useful for was to follow implications of certain assumptions. The ONLY test
of validity of any of Einstein’s claims was experimental test. As I said
before. 

> which
> he did by making the foolish assumption that the speed of light
> relative to an observer on the train was exactly the same as the
> speed of light relative to an observer on the platform. This is
> no more true for the speed of light than it could be for the
> speed of the guard.
> Had Einstein made the more sensible assumption that time was
> the same for an observer in the train as for an observer on the
> platform, then he would have "proved" that the speed of light
> can not be constant for all observers

Sensible assumptions count for nothing. Some of the best advances in
science came from starting with assumptions that flew directly in the face
of sensibility. This is done in science ON PURPOSE. Then the implications
of those crazy-sounding assumptions are followed out, and these in turn are
put to experimental test. If the test verifies, then this establishes that
sensibility must concede and the crazy assumptions are likely correct. 

> 
>> The only thing that can be reasonably discussed is actual experimental
>> results. Not PROPOSED experiments that would convince you. But actual
>> experiments already done, with the results of those experiments documented
>> in the literature.
> 
> 
> But you know very well that any real experiments using real
> clocks on a real train will show that it takes exactly the
> same TIME, as measured by those real clocks, to travel from
> the rear to the front of a train, as it takes to travel from
> the front to the rear.

You’re talking about a GEDANKEN again, a hypothetical situation on a train.
That is not an experiment. I am talking about ACTUAL experiments, with
published data and results, none of which as far as I know have been
performed on moving trains. Enough with gedankens. They are NOT
experiments. 

> 
>> It is this and ONLY this that would pry you from the grip of guessing
>> results based on sensibility and instead focus on the deep surprise of what
>> ACTUALLY happens.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Special Relativity or   CLASSICAL PHYSICS ?
>>> 
>>> Constant Speed    or    Constant Time  ?
>>> 
>>> ..    ..   Space-Time      or    Space and Time ?
>>> 
>>> Contrived Nonsense   or    COMMON SENSE ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> keith stein
>>> 
>>> 
>>> keith Stein
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

csiph-web