Could there be an absolute 'state of reference?'

[Layman]

It was just a few hours ago:


So, our Earth defines the absolute frame?

A.T. that is out of context, and you are misreading the intent. I was responding to a specific question, and, in each post, the word "absolute" was put in quote marks, indicating that this frame was being TREATED AS absolute, without regard for the factual question of whether is was in fact absolute.

 

[A.T.]

Ignoring the distorted time effects created by gravity...

You cannot ignore that, because in curved space-time the inertial frames that SRT talks about exist only locally. You cannot apply SRT over a large area like the orbit of satellite.

 

[ZapperZ]

Let's cut to the chase. There is no absolute reference frame based on all the physics that we know.

Now, if you have a specific paper or physics that can contradict that, please use it and make the exact citation. Otherwise, this thread is meandering in the misuse and misinterpretation of Special Relativity.

Zz.

 

[A.T.]

the word "absolute" was put in quote marks, indicating that this frame was being TREATED AS absolute, without regard for the factual question of whether is was in fact absolute.

So by "obviously absolute" you actually mean "without regard for the factual question of whether is was in fact absolute"?

 

[Layman]

...one clock accelerates whereas the other is inertial. This doesn't affect the kinematical time dilation which only depends on relative velocity.

I agree with this, and it is my understanding that experiments at CERN, Fermilab, etc. have conclusively established this (i.e., that acceleration has no effect on time dilataion). Yet I still run into many who assert otherwise.

As for the part of your quote that I omitted, Wannabe, I don't understand why you say my comment makes no sense. Moving clocks run slow (per the LT). You can arbitrarily SAY (without any justification whatsoever) that this or that clock is moving, and the other isn't, but that doesn't make it so.

Same with the Keating experiment. Have you seen the youtube video with them actually on a plane? They are predicting, at every stage, just how much slower their clock will be than the Earth clock when they land. And their predictions are correct. Their clock showed less time elapsed, not the Earth clock. Of course they did NOT assume they were stationary when in the air. In that sense, they were violating the dictates of SRT.

 

[Layman]

So by "obviously absolute" you actually mean "without regard for the factual question of whether is was in fact absolute"?

Yes, as I recall. The question was about which rest frame was being treated as absolute.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Moving clocks run slow (per the LT). You can arbitrarily SAY (without any justification whatsoever) that this or that clock is moving, and the other isn't, but that doesn't make it so.

Doesn't make what so? The point is "moving clock" requires a frame of reference for it to move relative to. The time dilation is with respect to that frame.

They are predicting, at every stage, just how much slower their clock will be than the Earth clock when they land. And their predictions are correct. Their clock showed less time elapsed, not the Earth clock. Of course they did NOT assume they were stationary when in the air. In that sense, they were violating the dictates of SRT.

Nono, this is a different concept. See Peter's previous reply.

 

[A.T.]

The question was about which rest frame was being treated as absolute.

If you can choose which frame is "treated as absolute", then there is no absolute frame.

 

[Layman]

Doesn't make what so? The point is "moving clock" requires a frame of reference for it to move relative to. The time dilation is with respect to that frame.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Isn't is universally agreed, in twin paradox discussions, that the traveling twin will be absolutely (not "relatively") younger than the stay at home twin? The contention is NOT that each twin will be younger than the other. Here again, the difference CANNOT be ascribed to acceleration because, as you yourself noted, this does not affect time dilation (only speed does)>

 

[Dale]

Well, Dale, from my point of view, that is not an "explanation," it is an assertion. Can you actually "explain" it?

Sure. The first postulate states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Therefore, any observer can use any inertial frame and be assured that the same laws of physics will work. That inertial frame may be the one where he is at rest, but it doesn't have to be.

I commented that IF both the person on the train and the person on the embankment assumed that the train was moving, and not the earth, then they would not calculate the speed of light to be isotropic, would agree on simultaneity, etc. Why is this wrong?

It is wrong because they would both calculate the speed of light to be isotropic. That is the second postulate.

 

[Dale]

But, either way, one clock will be slower than the other. If the guy on the train is moving, his clock will be slower. If the guy on the embankment is moving, then, per the LT, his clock will be slower.

I wouldn't say I'm an LET "proponent."

I would, for all practical purposes here anyway.

 

[Layman]

Layman: "I commented that IF both the person on the train and the person on the embankment assumed that the train was moving, and not the earth, then they would not calculate the speed of light to be isotropic, would agree on simultaneity, etc. Why is this wrong?"

Dale: "It is wrong because they would both calculate the speed of light to be isotropic. That is the second postulate."

I disagree Dale. Under the circumstances I set forth, they would agree on simultaneity. The "second postulate" only works for two different observers if each assume that he is at rest and the other party is not. But I changed that assumption. That changes the conclusions about simultaneity. Without saying one or the other is "correct," I am simply noting that the conclusions will be different, based on what is (or is not) assumed.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Isn't is universally agreed, in twin paradox discussions, that the traveling twin will be absolutely (not "relatively") younger than the stay at home twin? The contention is NOT that each twin will be younger than the other. Here again, the difference CANNOT be ascribed to acceleration because, as you yourself noted, this does not affect time dilation (only speed does)>

But that isn't an example of time dilation. Let's go back to your first example. We have an inertial observer in free space and another observer in circular orbit starting and ending at the inertial observer. Now imagine a cylinder with symmetry axis aligned with the rotation axis of the circular orbit. The world-line of the inertial observer is simply a straight line striation on the cylinder parallel to the symmetry axis. On the other hand the world-line of the circulating observer is a helical striation that wraps around the symmetry axis. Initially the helix and straight line intersect at some point on the cylinder and after one period of the orbit they intersect again. Measuring the Lorentzian lengths of the helix and straight line between these two endpoints corresponds to measuring the proper time read by a clock carried by the circulating observer (Lorentzian length of helix) and that read by a clock carried by the inertial observer (Lorentzian length of straight line). This is indeed absolute because it refers only to the world-lines of the respective observers and world-lines are absolute objects embedded in space-time.

However this is not the same thing as kinematical time dilation which is a statement about coordinate time. If I boost to the rigid extended frame of the circulating observer then the inertial observer will, in this frame, be moving in a retrograde circular orbit and will have a time dilation factor attached to his clock. If I stay in the global inertial frame of the inertial observer then the circulating observer will instead have (the exact same) time dilation factor attached to his clock. This is entirely relative and symmetrical as it applies between the global inertial frame of the inertial observer and the instantaneously comoving inertial frames of the circulating observer. You can verify this through a simple calculation.

 

[Layman]

I would, for all practical purposes here anyway.

Dale, discussing other theories (like discussing differing religions, for example) and noting the differences in theories and how they arise does not mean you are "propounding" one or the other. But such exercises do, I think, help one see what theoretic possibilities are available.

 

[A.T.]

Under the circumstances I set forth, they would agree on simultaneity.

If both use the same reference frame they will agree on frame dependent quantities.

The "second postulate" only works for two different observers...

It always works, but is rather moot if everyone uses the same reference frame.

 

[Layman]

But that isn't an example of time dilation.

Why isn't it? Without getting overly technical, I would just say that, in the SRT context, time dilation (and it's converse, contraction) is merely a function of differing relative speeds. Two clock which are not in the same inertial frame will record time differently (with the faster moving clock running slower, time-wise).

 

[ChrisVer]

Can I make a similar question to what is being discussed in the main thread?
In principle we can always define a reference frame (equivalent to the rest), but isn't that frame defined only locally? For example, a big enough/extended object will be subject to tidal forces of a gravitational field, so in that case the body can really "feel" the gravitation.
In that sense, if we define a reference frame at a small region U in spacetime, how can we be sure it can be connected (or related) to some other region U', if the one is subject to those forces while the other is not?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Why isn't it?

I've already explained why above.

 

[A.T.]

Two clock which are not in the same inertial frame will record time differently

Not true in general. There are frames where both will run at the same rate.

 

[WannabeNewton]

In principle we can always define a reference frame (equivalent to the rest), but isn't that frame defined only locally? For example, a big enough/extended object will be subject to tidal forces of a gravitational field, so in that case the body can really "feel" the gravitation.

When talking about extended bodies we have to in general talk about frame fields as opposed to frames. If the extended body is undergoing Born rigid motion (e.g. Born rigid rotation) then we can define a frame field for the body using Lie transport so that the spatial axes of the local Lorentz frames constituting the frame field rigidly lock onto one another and form an extended (global) reference frame. If the motion isn't Born rigid then the best we can do is refer to the individual local Lorentz frames making up the frame field.

 

[Layman]

I've already explained why above.

Well, I'm sorry. I missed your point, I guess. If the difference in aging that is expected to occur in the twin paradox is NOT a case of time dilation to you, then obviously you and I have different notions (definitions) of what "time dilation" is.

 

[Layman]

Here are two of the rules that I was referring to:

•Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
•Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory)

Going way back to respond to this, G.H. It is my understanding that theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity produce predictions which are 100% in accord with the predictions of the SRT. I don't think you can call such theories "discredited." Perhaps "superseded" in the sense that such theories are not as "popular" as SRT, I don't know.

But, subjective attributes like "popularity" aside, all experimental evidence that I am aware of shows these to be currently viable theories of relative motion. Every experiment which "confirms" SRT also "confirms these theories. Kinda like the Copernican and ptolemic theories, in some respects.

 

[PAllen]

Going way back to respond to this, G.H. It is my understanding that theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity produce predictions which are 100% in accord with the predictions of the SRT. I don't think you can call such theories "discredited." Perhaps "superseded" in the sense that such theories are not as "popular" as SRT, I don't know.

But, subjective attributes like "popularity" aside, all experimental evidence that I am aware of shows these to be currently viable theories of relative motion. Every experiment which "confirms" SRT also "confirms these theories. Kinda like the Copernican and ptolemic theories, in some respects.

Such theories are LET, and are banned from this forum per rules you agreed to. George quoted the exact text of the rule you agreed to. Yes, LET is just like Ptolemaic theories - completely discredited in modern scientific discourse.

Also, note that the absolute simultaneity in theories that match observations is, in principle unobservable. Thus, such theories are equivalent to the statement like: "the standard model of particle physics is true because unicorns exist in a parallel universe". That is, they are outside of science - their core concept is inherently unverifiable.

 

[Nugatory]

Well, I'm sorry. I missed your point, I guess. If the difference in aging that is expected to occur in the twin paradox is NOT a case of time dilation to you, then obviously you and I have different notions (definitions) of what "time dilation" is.

Differential aging, as in the twin paradox, and time dilation are different phenomena (although they are are obviously related).

The paradox in the twin paradox is what happens if you try to interpret the differential aging as time dilation. The problem is that at all times during the journey, traveler's time dilation calculation correctly says that time is passing more slowly for stay-at-home; and stay-at-home's time dilation equally correctly says that time is passing more slowly for traveler. That's not a very promising start for deciding which twin in fact ages more during the journey.

 

[Layman]

Differential aging, as in the twin paradox, and time dilation are different phenomena (although they are are obviously related).

The paradox in the twin paradox is what happens if you try to interpret the differential aging as time dilation. The problem is that at all times during the journey, traveler's time dilation calculation correctly says that time is passing more slowly for stay-at-home; and stay-at-home's time dilation equally correctly says that time is passing more slowly for traveler. That's not a very promising start for deciding which twin in fact ages more during the journey.

I wouldn't say they are merely "related," myself. They are the same thing. What started out as the "clock paradox" later became (due to Lagvin, I believe) the "twin paradox," because he personalized the question. But in each case, the issue is identical, i.e., the differing rates at which time passes for moving objects (clocks) or observers.

I agree that's it's not a promising start. At the end of the day, when you remove all the subterfuge and attempts to obscure what's happening, I believe the "solution" is simply that the rocket is indeed the one moving, not the earth. Of course, that's exactly what the LT predicts, as Al pointed out very early.

The problem arises, as I see it, from the issue I raised in my (now closed) thread. You really can't logically say that each clock is slower than the other, and it is (in many cases) hostile to common sense, experience, and physical "laws" (such as the conservation of momentum) to claim that an object (e.g. a train) or an observer (e.g. a passenger) is NOT moving with respect to the earth. That claim is what generates the "paradox"

 

[Layman]

Such theories are LET, and are banned from this forum per rules you agreed to. George quoted the exact text of the rule you agreed to. Yes, LET is just like Ptolemaic theories - completely discredited in modern scientific discourse.

1. Banned from the forum? Does that mean it is an inutterable subject that cannot even be mentioned? I certainly didn't read it that way, but maybe I read it wrong.

2. My assumption is that "LET" is an acronym for "Lorentizan Ether Theory." I am not referring to that. In truth, I couldn't say I even understand what all that particular theory entails. I am simply referring to various theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity. One need not hypothesize an "ether" to do that. Even so, aren't there still a number of theoretical physicists (particularly in the particle physics area) that suggest that an ether is a viable, and perhaps necessary, hypothesis?

 

[PeterDonis]

If the difference in aging that is expected to occur in the twin paradox is NOT a case of time dilation to you, then obviously you and I have different notions (definitions) of what "time dilation" is.

This is a question about words, not about physics. If we can't agree on a meaning for the term "time dilation", then let's eliminate it from the discussion, and replace it with what it's labeling in each case. In the twin paradox, we have two observers who start out together, are apart for a while, then meet up again; when they meet up, the elapsed times on their clocks are different. In the "clock paradox" (the train and embankment scenario), we have two observers who pass each other once, but never meet again. That makes a difference; see below.

What started out as the "clock paradox" later became (due to Lagvin, I believe) the "twin paradox," because he personalized the question. But in each case, the issue is identical, i.e., the differing rates at which time passes for moving objects (clocks) or observers.

No, the cases are *not* identical. I explained why many posts back: in the twin paradox, the two observers meet up twice, so they can compare their elapsed times directly between the two meetings. That gives an invariant answer to whose clock runs slower. In the "clock paradox", the two observers only meet up once; so there is no invariant way to say whose clock runs slower, since we don't have a pair of meeting events at which the clocks can be directly compared.

it is (in many cases) hostile to common sense, experience, and physical "laws" (such as the conservation of momentum) to claim that an object (e.g. a train) or an observer (e.g. a passenger) is NOT moving with respect to the earth.

But nobody here has tried to make such a claim. Look at the phrase I bolded. Everybody agrees that GPS satellites move with respect to the Earth, that the train moves with respect to the embankment, and that the traveling twin moves with respect to the stay-at-home twin. That has never been in dispute.

What we have *also* said is that the Earth moves with respect to the GPS satellites, that the embankment moves with respect to the train, and that the stay-at-home twin moves with respect to the traveling twin. I can't tell for sure whether you are disputing that or not; but if you are, I strongly advise you to think it over, and to read what I just wrote carefully when you do, noting particularly the fact that that key phrase is still present.

What we have *not* said, and what we are telling you SR does not say, is that the GPS satellites, or the train, or the traveling twin, "move" without qualification. "Motion" has no meaning in SR unless you specify what the motion is with respect to--which I did in all the cases above. If you are disputing *that*--i.e., if you are saying there is some well-defined concept of "motion" without having to specify what it is with respect to--then that is LET, as others have pointed out, and can't be discussed here per the forum rules. But the fact that, whenever you actually describe a specific case of motion, that key phrase always sneaks in, as it did in what I quoted above, strongly suggests that you don't really believe there is such a thing as "motion" unqualified; you're just confused about what "relative motion" really entails.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am simply referring to various theories of relative motion which posit absolute simultaneity.

I don't think there are any of these that are mainstream today; there may have been a century ago, but that's not the standard we use for discussions here.

aren't there still a number of theoretical physicists (particularly in the particle physics area) that suggest that an ether is a viable, and perhaps necessary, hypothesis?

Not that I'm aware of; at least, not the way you are using the term. Some pop science descriptions of quantum field theory, which talk about assigning nonzero energy to the vacuum, might refer to vacuum energy as an "ether"; and Einstein actually used the term to refer to the geometry of spacetime in a talk sometime around 1920, which has been quoted a lot on the Internet as supposedly saying Einstein supported LET (which he didn't). But those senses of the word "ether" are irrelevant to the way you're using the term, since they don't pick out any absolute simultaneity.

 

[Layman]

Everybody agrees that GPS satellites move with respect to the Earth, that the train moves with respect to the embankment, and that the traveling twin moves with respect to the stay-at-home twin. That has never been in dispute.

What we have *also* said is that the Earth moves with respect to the GPS satellites, that the embankment moves with respect to the train, and that the stay-at-home twin moves with respect to the traveling twin. I can't tell for sure whether you are disputing that or not

You said a lot in that post, Peter, and I won't try to address it all at once. Let me start with the excerpt I have quoted here.

Suppose I pull the trigger on a rifle and a bullet emerges from it's barrel at a high rate of speed. Now what? The distance between the rifle and the bullet rapidly increases. Is that what you mean by "relative?." I.e., just as the distance between it and the rifle is increasing for the bullet, likewise the distance between the bullet and the rifle is increasing for the rifle?

That is a mere tautology which says and adds nothing of substance to the discussion that I can see. Yes, all motion is reciprocal and relative in that sense. The same could be said about virtually every claim made by anybody in any subject (history, English, civics, whatever). It is not an observation that is by any means unique to physics. Every statement we make is "relative" to some reference point.

That's not what I'm talking about. You could take two viewpoints here:

1. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet remains motionless and everything else (the rifle, the guy holding it, every tree and stop sign affixed to the surface of the earth, etc.) begins moving rapidly away from the bullet.

2. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet moves away from all those things.

In each case, two things (or sets of things) are separating from each other, I'm certainly not questioning that. But it would defy all logic, experience, knowledge, and physical principles to state that 1. is the case and 2. is NOT the case.

Of course I would readily grant that you can calculate the relative speed between the two, whichever viewpoint you took. That is a function of math. But in the real, physical world, at least one of the two has to be actually moving for them to separate.

 

[PAllen]

You said a lot in that post, Peter, and I won't try to address it all at once. Let me start with the excerpt I have quoted here.

Suppose I pull the trigger on a rifle and a bullet emerges from it's barrel at a high rate of speed. Now what? The distance between the rifle and the bullet rapidly increases. Is that what you mean by "relative." I.e., just as the distance between it and the rifle is increasing for the bullet, likewise the distance between the bullet and the rifle is increasing for the rifle?

That is a mere tautology which says and adds nothing of substance to the discussion that I can see. Yes, all motion is reciprocal and relative in that sense. The same could be said about virtually every claim made by anybody in any subject (history, English, civics, whatever). It is not an observation that is by any means unique to physics. Every statement we make is "relative" to some reference point.

That's not what I'm talking about. You could take two viewpoints here:

1. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet remains motionless and everything else (the rifle, the guy holding it, every tree and stop sign affixed to the surface of the earth, etc.) begins moving rapidly away from the bullet.

2. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet moves away from all those things.

In each case, two things (or sets of things) are separating from each other, I'm certainly not questioning that. But it would defy all logic, experience, knowledge, and physical principles to state that 1. is the case and 2. is NOT the case.

Then your dispute is not with Einstein, but with Galileo and the last 500 years of physics - which say both points of view are equivalent. I'll ask you:

Why talk about earth? The sun is so much bigger than the earth. Shouldn't it be required to say the sun determines what is moving? But wait, the galaxy is much bigger than the sun, so the sun is moving as well. But all galaxies are moving, but all observations suggest there is no possible center to define true motion. CMBR picks out a trillion different standards of motion (every galaxy such that CMBR is nearly isotropic; each is a different standard of motion). Thus by the rule of 'biggest' we are lead back to Galileo's 500 year old insight that there is no meaning to the statement of who is moving - only moving relative to something else that is specified.

 

[Layman]

Then your dispute is not with Einstein, but with Galileo and the last 500 years of physics - which say both points of view are equivalent.

"Equivalent" in what sense, and for what purposes? Gallileo is perhaps most famous for his advocacy of the Copernican theory of motion in the solar system (as opposed to the prevailing aristotlean/ptolemic view which claimed the Earth was motionless.) Legend has it that on his way out of the inquisition chambers where he was forced to to recant, he uttered (to himself) "And yet it moves." What did he mean by that, you think? Did he mean you can't say it's moving?

The Copernican and ptolemic theories are "equivalent" for prediction purposes. But did Galileo think they were "equivalent" for purposes of physical theory? No, he didn't.

 

[PAllen]

"Equivalent" in what sense, and for what purposes? Gallileo is perhaps most famous for his advocacy of the Copernican theory of motion in the solar system (as opposed to the prevailing aristotlean/ptolemic view which claimed the Earth was motionless.) Legend has it that on his way out of the inquisition chambers where he was forced to to recant, he uttered (to himself) "And yet it moves." What did he mean by that, you think? Did he mean you can't say it's moving?

The Copernican and ptolemic theories are "equivalent" for prediction purposes. But did Galileo think they were "equivalent" for purposes of physical theory? No. he didn't.

He meant that you can't say the Earth is definition of stationary. By implication of all he wrote, you cannot say the sun is stationary either. Galilean relativity is the principle that physics does not distinguish any state of inertial motion, or say who is moving in an absolute sense. Just as Galileo rejected Ptolemeic theories as having inherently unverifiable elements and excess complexity, modern physics rejects absolute simultaneity 'theories' as having an unverifiable element (the absolute simultaneity), and having unnecessary complexity.

[You conveniently ignored all my other questions, because you clearly have little interest in honest discourse.]

 

[PeterDonis]

Suppose I pull the trigger on a rifle and a bullet emerges from it's barrel at a high rate of speed. Now what? The distance between the rifle and the bullet rapidly increases. Is that what you mean by "relative?."

I would say that "relative" means that the "high rate of speed" you have specified here is implicitly "speed with respect to the rifle". That's what makes the distance between the rifle and the bullet rapidly increase, yes.

I.e., just as the distance between it and the rifle is increasing for the bullet, likewise the distance between the bullet and the rifle is increasing for the rifle?

Yes. More precisely, if we set up a reference frame in which the rifle is at rest, the bullet-rifle distance is increasing in that frame. If we set up a reference frame in which the bullet is at rest, the bullet-rifle distance is increasing in that frame.

That is a mere tautology which says and adds nothing of substance to the discussion that I can see.

Well, it's at least good to know that you agree with it, so we can focus on other points.

Every statement we make is "relative" to some reference point.

Wrong. There are plenty of quantities in physics (and in other disciplines too) that are not relative in this sense. For example, the rest mass of the bullet is an invariant; it's the same no matter which frame we choose. So it isn't "relative" in this sense.

You could take two viewpoints here:

1. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet remains motionless and everything else (the rifle, the guy holding it, every tree and stop sign affixed to the surface of the earth, etc.) begins moving rapidly away from the bullet.

Yes, and this is a valid viewpoint according to relativity. It will be a lot harder to calculate using it, but that doesn't make it invalid; it just makes it inconvenient.

(Note that this viewpoint does *not* define an inertial frame. However, neither does the other viewpoint you describe. See below.)

2. When the trigger is pulled, the bullet moves away from all those things.

Yes, this is a valid viewpoint too; and it also has the advantage of being much easier to calculate with.

But is it "privileged" over the first viewpoint? Relativity says, no. Even if we grant inertial frames a special status (because they do have certain special properties that non-inertial frames don't have), that doesn't help, because this viewpoint does *not* define an inertial frame, any more than the first one does. Why not? Because when the bullet is fired, not only does the bullet accelerate, but the rifle does too (and the person holding it, and the Earth along with everything affixed to it). True, since the rifle is braced against the Earth (via the person holding it), its acceleration is a lot smaller (because the total mass being accelerated is so much bigger); but that doesn't change the principle involved.

it would defy all logic, experience, knowledge, and physical principles to state that 1. is the case and 2. is NOT the case.

You have not justified this claim, and I have just given good arguments against it.

in the real, physical world, at least one of the two has to be actually moving for them to separate.

You have not justified this claim either, because you have not given any well-defined meaning to "actually moving" as opposed to "moving with respect to something". Once again, nobody is disputing that the bullet moves with respect to the rifle, or that the rifle moves with respect to the bullet, or that the bullet moves with respect to the Earth, but the rifle does not. But none of these equate to "actually moving" in any absolute sense, and you have given no good reason why anyone must adopt your viewpoint that there is any meaning to "actually moving" as opposed to "moving with respect to something". The latter concept is sufficient to capture all the physics.

 

[pervect]

I would like to see less in the way of personal arguments by Layman, and more quotes from textbooks and/or the literature that would support the notion that his ideas

discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

by demonstraing that they are

traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

quotes are from the PF guidelines, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

 

[Layman]

But is it "privileged" over the first viewpoint? Relativity says, no. Even if we grant inertial frames a special status (because they do have certain special properties that non-inertial frames don't have), that doesn't help, because this viewpoint does *not* define an inertial frame, any more than the first one does.

Well, Peter, let me respond with this. As I'm sure you know, Ernst Mach was a hard-core positivist who Einstein greatly admired in his early years. Later, he thoroughly rejected Mach's positivism, long before that whole branch of theoretical philosophy was completely discredited. For many decades, the philosophical precepts of positivism absolutely ruled in the world of theoretical physics.

But, that's not my point. Mach said, as you say (more or less), that the Copernican and ptolemic theories of motion were "equally valid." And yet, he felt compelled to immediately add "But the world is only given once." His point was that the Earth could not be BOTH motionless and in motion, even if either view would allow accurate predictions. So, even the king of positivism did NOT claim that "equally valid" (for computational purposes) meant equally likely or equally "true" for objective, physical purposes.