0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/10/2019 19:46:09Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".It's "less clever than a teenager".No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance. Kindly; they will suffice to note objections or new syntheses.
Ignoring experimentally determined fact is not "more clever than Einstein".It's "less clever than a teenager".
No matter what the forum gods say, please (you; naked scientists) trust your own mental cognitive performance.
Only if A is the one accelerating.
I trust the experimental evidence.
In universe, there is not any inert/immobile thing except outer space or LCS
So, in space environment any one of actors can be choice for the role of reference frame
SR prediction is wrong.
I guess you will find a defect for experimental evidences; as if your aim is not to arrive reality.
But the external observer (we; if we are on LCS) knows all different T'i values represent a unique T time.
Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.
Here is an experiment: The budget of this experiment is minimal and it is very easy; everybody can repeat.Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction
Quote from: xersanozgen on 02/10/2019 09:39:51Egocentric or earthcentric inference is wrong; SR prediction is wrong.SR isn't egocentric or earth centric.And it is experimentally shown to be right.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 03/10/2019 10:26:47Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning. This is a first perception/education step for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?Stock answer: Neither is the correct description since motion is relative, as you point out. Hence the term 'proper motion' not being more meaningful than 'the moon spins'. But (proper) acceleration is absolute, as Kryptid pointed out in post 132, so the acceleration of the moon is the same in both those frames.Time dilation depends not on acceleration, but on moment-of-acceleration. There's a difference.QuotePlease read this argument carefully before your stock answer.We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.Acceleration is absolute, so selection of a different, or larger context, has no effect on the idea in this case.
Example: The orbit of the Moon is like circle.In primary schools, the event is learned at this meaning. This is a first perception/education step for natural events. Whereas, we know that the Earth turns around the Sun; thus, if we consider the Sun as reference role in this case, the orbit of the Moon is like spiral according to Sun. which is correct?
Please read this argument carefully before your stock answer.We human, especially scientists have to improve our mindfulness about management of mental references. As first, İt is possible that an idea can be confuted/collapsed by another idea which if its reference frame is larger / more inclusive.
Besides, SR is based uniform motion (fixed speed and linear path). Acceleration = 0
Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?
Where is causality?
I attached this article.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 11:28:30Now, are we simultaneously exposed to different tempos of time dilation and different ratios of Fitzgerald contraction in accordance with SR mentality?Yes, each observer in a different frame will measure a different value for train's time dilation. So what?Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 11:28:30Where is causality?What does causality have to do with it? None of this violates causality.
Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.
This understanding neglects/violates the causality.
If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformations
That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.
Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real.
Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03 Much academician and articles have opinion that SR deformations are real. Do you understand that someone did the experiment, and found that time dilation is real?It's not "opinion", it's fact
Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03Even, some of them works to explain as an example the lifetime of a simple candela.A candela is a unit of measurement, so what do you mean when you say "lifetime" of a candela?Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03This understanding neglects/violates the causality.Again, how do you come to that conclusion?Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03If you say that a person in K' frame does not feel/detect the deformations; in this case, it means, the observers of other sequential frames visually measure or visually perceive SR's deformationsAll frames measure deformations depending on the relative velocities involved.Quote from: xersanozgen on 04/10/2019 20:29:03 That, this time this deformations became exactly an illusion.You keep coming to conclusions without providing adequate reasoning about how you arrived at those conclusions. How do you figure that each observer seeing different time dilation rates has anything to do with an illusion?
You had refused requirement of a comparing material (LAB. muon) about the experiment of lifetime of muon. You said we can measure time dilation/life time. Yes, but a conclusion/interpretation cannot be generated without comparison. This was a serious defect for science.
This result is opposite of causality; and common attitude: this result is already called as aparadox.
On the other hand, the others think that the deformations are visual detections. I guess this case is like yours opinion.
In my opinion this is illusion
I don't want to discuss physics at level of polemics.