Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Comprehension of Relativity.

  1. Jun 8, 2004 #1
    Just a post for all the severely uneducated scholars who wish to contribute to the understanding of mankind. I would suggest that you carefully read the following reference.

    http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html [Broken]

    For anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity, please, from whatever your perspective is, diagram exactly what the algorithms must be to make the GPS satellite system yield the correct calculation for the position my vehicle on my vacation this summer.

    If you can not do that, do not waste my time (or anyone else's for that matter). Learn what the requirements of that calculation are and accomplish them by a means which does not include the present interpretation of relativity, and I will take your complaints against relativity seriously. If you cannot do that, you are wasting everyone's time!!

    Have fun – Dick
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 9, 2004 #2
    that article leaves out way too many variables to calculate proper relativity from.

    do they take into account the acceleration launching the clock into orbit?

    besides that i highly doubt all the clocks are running stable, i bet they recalibrate them frequently
  4. Jun 9, 2004 #3
    Hi doc, I guess I understand about as much of Relativity as I wish to know. And I must say, it is the work of a genius. Without this theory, no telling where we would be today. I do think that enhancements will eventually add to the scope of his theories. I've always considered GR to be on much firmer ground than QM. By that, I imply that GR is closer to reality and QM is more of an analogy. Of course, this is just my opinion.

    Anyway, it's nice to have people with your formal background here to remind everyone that if you don't jump though all the right hoops, you're not going to end up where you wish to be relative to your goals.

    I hope you have the time to stay involved. Thanks.
  5. Jun 9, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Acceleration is irrelevant because the clocks are resynchronized periodically (daily, if not more frequently). All that matters is the difference between the two reference frames (earth vs orbit).

    The clocks are quite stable enough to measure the effects of Relativity on them.

    Good article - probably been posted before, but worth repeating.
  6. Jun 9, 2004 #5
    See the opening post in the new thread: "SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand." Beat it if you can, by specificity, other than use of the one obvious true constant: Doctordick: the smartest one in the room. That must be some burden to bear. Try a physics argument on this one. http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/ [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Jun 9, 2004 #6
    Someone who has no grasp of SR can surely come up with apparent paradoxes. But instead of searching for SR's answer to the paradox, some prefer to simply post the paradox on forums and expect to be spoon-fed the answer. Then, some will even refuse to listen to the answers and waste everyone's time. Those people are not only ignorant but also arrogant. They will think no one in the past century considered the paradox, only he is clever enough to do that, or there's dishonesty, cover up, conspiracy etc. All this because they don't do their homework. I was one of them in the past and I'm sorry. So, people, before you post paradoxes and start arguing, please try to find out what SR would say about it.

    Here is an interesting site with graphics:
  8. Jun 9, 2004 #7
    Wespe's Windmills are Creaking Again

    As far as I am able to determine Wespe, you were never able to come to grips with the mere possibility that postulates of SR are faulty, hence you were never able to follow your own thread to its natural conclusion. You became confused , frustrated, apologetic and defeated.

    You are following your habitual patterns by assuming the validity of SR and therefore the postulates of SR. Your thinking ability is self-restricted, you avoid upsetting applecarts, impolte, you avoid disturbing beliefs, denying precious mental equilibrium, you avoid straight talk, they wont like you,. You know something is wrong but you just wont let yourself be exposed tot he truth, as desparately as you esire the truth.

    have you looked at the attitude of the author of this thread, his technique, understanding, objectivity, flexibility, wilingness to stretch? This is a professional with 40 plus years in the theoretical physics business, with all the answers to all the questions packed solidly into one hard nut.

    Your link is interesting. It shows one physical sphere being generated ino as many spheres as you can fit moving obervers into, yet says SR this is exactly what occurs. SR does more than adjust perceptions, SR adjusts the reality of physical events occuring before observers ever appear, by creating alteration to events by the mere fact of being present and observing, like that stupid link you refer to as "interesting". What did you like about it? Did it explain physical truth? It seems you used the reference as a means of infering that SR is as physically viable, true, real as asserted by SR theorists. The link is a bunch of crap. The only paradoxes are constructed by special relativitistic insanity and you bought into it long before you started posting in science forums.

    Do you know Wespe what simultaneity is within the context of SR? It says, events that are simultaneous in a stationary frame are not (in general) simultaneous in a moving frame. In the Einstein train problem you worked on, the event was the instant the photons were emitted from A and B, remember? OK.? All the stuff after that is used by SR theorists to prove that what happened at A and B before, didn't happen, and this is "proved" by the mere fact that an observer can come along, virtually at any time, make some observations and work backward into the past to change the physical reality of the past. I couldn't budge you off your insistance that you had to make some calculation, or measure the speed of light or whatever you were doing, and I assume that you are doing here and now.

    Try another approach: assume that SR will conclude the lights emitted from A and B in the stationary frame were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Start here, don't end here.

    Then : See if you can use some rational means to find a contradiction: Hint: start with the physical fact that the photons emitted from A nad B in the stationary frame were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. I bet you a dollar, you don't understand this.

    I see another weakness of yours: You start out with the intention of blasting SR from the mental dynamics of the world's theoretical industry, but failing, you grovel in abject and embarrassing apologetic nonsense, begging readmittance into the fold. Now nicely shamed and convincingly pacified, now with your newfound inner strength you charge into the fold ready to do waste to your once faithful comrades whom you once led into battle against the devil SR. Blinded as you are with steely eyed conviction, and lying as you are with strong jawed conviction you go among the populace seeking the windmills of dissident; for those who dare challenge SR postulates also dare to challenge the invariant furrow browed truth of wespe, Protector Knight of SR . [shudder!].

    Your sincerity is leaking from every pore in your soul, mind and body, as if sounding, seeming and appearing serious and restrained is sufficient rational data substitutable for measurable weight to the implicit expression that what you say is the truth. Your insane Wespe, totally.
  9. Jun 9, 2004 #8
    Geist, actually my opinion is that either you are suffering from a mental illness or you are an immature seeking attention. Not name calling, just letting you know my opinion. I respect your opinion about me too (that me being insane), but it has little value to me (which is probably mutual). Anyways,

    So you checked the link. My guess is that you were not able to guess SR's solution of the paradox. You had to look at the solution page, but you didn't like it. You concluded that the solution does not reflect reality and you dismissed it. And how would you know what reality really is? Do you see yourself like God? (not in a religious context, likewise I don't take your mention of devil and soul as such). Don't tell me if my guess is true or false, just admit it to yourself, that you don't understand how SR works. Only thing you understand here is the end results of SR, and that's the only thing you are able to object to, but unable to argue.

    Your mistake is to assume absoulte time in the first place. Suppose the train is at rest and the two lightenings strike simultaneously, and then the train starts to move. You don't understand that the events will gradually skew in time according to the train (like shown in the graphics in that link). You won't accept that events can have temporal coordinates relative to an observer, just like spatial corrdinates. Admit it, you already assume absolute time. You assume you can know what reality is really like, which is why I think you are arrogant and/or mentall ill.

    You're right about me now being overly humbled. That's not because I realized I was wrong, but because I feel guilty for the time I stole from people which I can't return. Any why I bother to write all this is because you are doing the same misktake you can't reverse. Maybe someday you will understand how SR works, but your way of learning is highly inefficient.
  10. Jun 9, 2004 #9
    I didn't say the solution of the problem was there! What I said was that "anyone who complains about the rationality of relativity" should have the capability to solve that problem from his perspective. If he can't, he doesn't understand the problem relativity solves. Why should I listen to someone claiming to have a solution to a problem he does not understand?
    It really isn't an issue to be left to opinion, either learn how to do the calculations or leave the calculation to others. The impact on your life is zero unless you are in the business of using it. My only point was, don't tell the people who's income depends on getting the right answer that you have a better way.
    You should put that as a heading on all your work!

    Have fun -- Dick
  11. Jun 9, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The physical reality of QM has been debated since it was first conceived. QM is just so "weird" that people (even the physicists and mathematicians who derived it) just couldn't accept that what the equations said to them could be physically real. But as technology has improved, more and more of these bizarre predictions have been tested and all have been verified to be correct. Thus, the debate is largely over.
  12. Jun 9, 2004 #11
    Now now, is this really reasonable? Just because a person can't give you the algorithms to get correct calculations from GPS it doesn't mean they don't understand their theory. I see your point that you should be able to use any new theory to explain all the existing observations but immediately insisting on one this complex is not very reasonable.

    How many people do you think can even derive the equations using GR?

  13. Jun 9, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, but with good taste in music... :wink:
  14. Jun 9, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Wespe, I just want to thank you for that site. I never understood relativity until I saw the picture where the persons "reality" (so to speak) was actualy tilted on the time axis! It makes a lot more sense now than before (when it just seemed to me like people would travel slower through time).
  15. Jun 9, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Welcome to my ignore list. You remind me of schoolyard bullies who upon discovering someone who really knew how to learn, compensated for feelings of inadequacy by beating him to a pulp.
  16. Jun 9, 2004 #15
    Dear Doc, In my "opinion", If I choose to review the work of others and wish to express my "opinion", I will do so in what ever manner I prefer. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but, many subjects can be discussed (at some level) without a detail mathematical justification. I know you may take exception to the fact that most original ideas have very little to do with math. Unless, of course, you are developing a new math or a new mathematical tool.

    Russ, I think the key word here is "physical". I have no problem with QM as a very effective descriptive "analogy" of some aspects of this "physical" world we live in. Just as I had no problem with Newtons work 150 years ago, when I was a little boy.

    Have patiences with us poor neanderthals.
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2004
  17. Jun 9, 2004 #16
    Don't think I am unsympathetic!

    You are asking me if it is reasonable to expect people who contradict relativity to be able to duplicate the achievements before I take them seriously? I don't know about you, but I have better things to do with my time! I look at the number of posts you seem to have the time to make and I suspect you are neglecting your education!
    Dammed few! But before they can consider themselves educated enough to put forth alternate theories, they had better at least understand the extent of the problems which the current theory has solved. I am sorry, but even among professional physicists that understanding is rare. That is exactly why Diracs, Maxwells and Einsteins are so rare!
    Good move. However, I am relatively slow to make to make the move because it is exactly these people who sway the ignorant to thoughtless conclusions. Take for example baffledMatt's "good retort" response to confutatis – see:


    I put confutatis on my ignore list long ago but he still influences people I might otherwise have respect for.
    I am sorry I apparently upset you. I had no intention to do so. My tirade was against people who put forward ideas which have utterly no logical thought behind them as if they are rational and well thought out. And don't worry, it is very difficult to hurt my feelings. I am an old man and have endured ridicule for most of my life. I am pretty well immune to its effect. My father used ridicule as a mechanism to control those around him. As a child, I thought his ridicule was well thought out. As an adult I know it arose from a feeling of inferiority but he had already made a very strong individual of me long before I knew that.

    And please, don't ever think of yourself as a "poor Neanderthal". Everyone has a mind and, if they use it, they have as good a chance of discovering truth as anyone else. Put it another way, authority is as apt to be wrong as anyone; if what they say doesn't make sense, think about it. Just don't depend on "squirrel decisions" as a source of truth! They may be great for day to day decisions but for truth, they are worthless.

    To put it another way, for getting along in life, intuition is great and logic is worthless; but don't be drawn into the trap that intuition is the "correct" answer.

    Have fun -- Dick
  18. Jun 10, 2004 #17
    Classical Newtonian reality, is a low energy approximation of Einsteinian, and quantum realities.

    Einsteinian reality, and quantum reality are possibly low energy approximations of a more "unifying" perspective.

    Dr. D has the right idea in the above quote, IMHO.
  19. Jun 10, 2004 #18
    But wait. To be able to reproduce the calculations you need to know much more than GR! This is the problem I have with your example, you are asking for knowledge of something much more complex than the theory in question.

    Thank you for your concern, but I think I am the better judge of this.

    I would ask if you can do the calculation yourself, but unfortunately I would have no way of determining if you were telling the truth.

    Yeah, he's a real rapscallion! I mean, imagine actually trying to point out the nonsense you talk sometimes. My only regret is that I was not the first to say it.

  20. Jun 14, 2004 #19
    Well, now that I know DoctorDick is not seeing my posts, I can tell you guys a bit of information about him: he is autistic. His obsession with meaningless ideas, his proficiency in mathematics, his lack of proficiency in absolutely anything else, and his completely antisocial behaviour are not flaws of character, they are just a neurological problem. So take it easy on the guy, he can't be blamed for being himself.

    I used to be his friend, by the way, long before I told him to join this forum. Or better, I should say I thought I was his friend, until I realized autistic people don't make friends.
  21. Jun 14, 2004 #20
    A very minor point, but there is substantial hisotrical record indicating Neanderthals were not mentally inferior to any other human like beings. Their story is strange from their relatively short history of existence -- Rapid appearance, rapid disappearance, relativelty speaking.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook