Who is a 'relativist'?
Patrick Reany
characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
A relativist is one who adopts the formal point of view
that, regardless of whether or not there "really" are
absolute spaces (classically conceived), theoretical physics
can be built without the explicit use of absolute spaces.
Einstein wrote:
Could we BUILD a relativistic physics valid in all CS
[coordinate system/s]; a physics in which there would be
no place for ABSOLUTE, but only for relative motion?
This is indeed possible!
We have at least one indication, though a very weak
one, of how to BUILD the NEW PHYSICS. Really relativistic
physics must apply to all CS and, therefore, also
to the special case of the inertial CS. The new GENERAL
LAWS valid for all CS must, in the special case of the
inertial system, reduce to the old, known laws.
The problem of formulating physical laws for every
CS was solved by the so-called general relativity theory;
the previous theory, applying only to inertial systems, is
called the special relativity theory. The two theories cannot,
of course, contradict each other, since we must always
include the old laws of the special relativity theory in the
general laws for an inertial system. But just as the inertial
CS was previously the only one for which physical
laws were formulated, so now it will form the special
limiting case, as all CS moving arbitrarily, relative to each
other, are permissible.
This is the PROGRAM for the general theory of relativity.
--- The Evolution of Physics, p. 212-213, emphasis mine.
Patrick
Bill Hobba
I have a somewhat different one. Depending on context either:
Someone who believes in SR and GR
or
Someone who has mad a significant contribution to the above.
Thanks
Bill
Constantine
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03082...@posting.google.com...
> In the context of physics, Who is a 'relativist'?
Someone who does research in relativity.
Kostas.
nightbat
nightbat
Be careful Bill least someone who further advances the knowledge
base then views you as old hat or purely multi gravity field non
"relativist" any longer. Remember SR was written before we knew the
Universe was expanding and that there were more galaxies then our own.
GR. was a brilliant patch work to further relativity to new CS over
previous SR theory applying only to inertial systems. As all discovered
CS moving arbitrarily, relative to each other, are permissible under GR.
Let us not infer that the fellow who advances the knowledge base and non
relative CS in separate frame or inertial gravity fields be considered
mad for such an advancing or defining contribution while including the
old laws of SP and Gr. in original relative inertial system. Under the
paradigm of old physics over mew Physics the new becomes many times the
subset of the old while itself always only a fleeting foothold to even
further enlightenment.
the nightbat
Dirk Van de moortel
> characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
>
> A relativist is one who adopts the formal point of view
> that, regardless of whether or not there "really" are
> absolute spaces (classically conceived), theoretical physics
> can be built without the explicit use of absolute spaces.
On this forums, apparently 'relativists' receive their
label from the etherists, just like 'evolutionists' receive
theirs from the creationists in biology.
In both cases it is of course an amusing but pathetic
attempt by a small minority of fanatics to create some
kind of symmetry between the confined worlds of
their religious values and what they also scare-quote
as 'established science'.
Dirk Vdm
Richard
Damn, I thought you had crawled under a rock.
Actually your argument is reversed. It's the SRists who are comparable
to the creationists.
You just can't get it through your head that at every turn you must
arbitrarily prefer one frame over the others in order to even begin with
your equations.
Two ships accelerate to v wrt their former common frame. Which clock
ticks faster? Will they not both have ticked exactly the same number of
times wrt a third observer who maintains a state of rest in the original
frame? I want to see your fucking math, no irrelevant BS, just the
fucking math.
Start with all three clocks synchronized and set at zero. Acceleration
begins at t_o rest frame, and is equal and opposite wrt rest frame, and
it is large and short-lived. Final velocities of the moving ships are
equal and opposite. Let the time of flight be very large compared to the
acceleration intervals. The ships then accelerate equally wrt rest frame
back toward their initial positions, and are now moving at the same but
opposite velocity as before wrt rest frame. They quickly accelerate to a
stop wrt rest frame when reaching their original positions.
Show, with the use of the Lorentz transform, why these clocks ticked the
same number of times during their leave, or if you disagree, then show
how one ticked more times than the other, now explain why one was
preferred over the other. When someday you learn that you cannot use the
transform to relate arbitrary frames, but rather only to relate some
frame to the medium frame, then you'll be something other than just
fucking dumb. I'm not at all convinced however, judging from the SRist's
persistence in general, that this will ever occur. Dumbass seems to be
incurable.
Richard Perry
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F43B5A6...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message news:844a1b64.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > > In the context of physics, Who is a 'relativist'? I adopt Einstein's
> > > characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
> > >
> > > A relativist is one who adopts the formal point of view
> > > that, regardless of whether or not there "really" are
> > > absolute spaces (classically conceived), theoretical physics
> > > can be built without the explicit use of absolute spaces.
> >
> > On this forums, apparently 'relativists' receive their
> > label from the etherists, just like 'evolutionists' receive
> > theirs from the creationists in biology.
> > In both cases it is of course an amusing but pathetic
> > attempt by a small minority of fanatics to create some
> > kind of symmetry between the confined worlds of
> > their religious values and what they also scare-quote
> > as 'established science'.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Damn, I thought you had crawled under a rock.
>
> Actually your argument is reversed. It's the SRists who are comparable
> to the creationists.
You took the bait.
A bit naive, but so sweet :-)
Dirk Vdm
Hayek
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message news:844a1b64.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
>>In the context of physics, Who is a 'relativist'? I adopt Einstein's
>>characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
>>
>> A relativist is one who adopts the formal point of view
>> that, regardless of whether or not there "really" are
>> absolute spaces (classically conceived), theoretical physics
>> can be built without the explicit use of absolute spaces.
>
>
> On this forums, apparently 'relativists' receive their
> label from the etherists, just like 'evolutionists' receive
> theirs from the creationists in biology.
It is more like the relativists against the
machanists and "Lucy" like a grandmother or an
aunt. But that subtility is anyway lost on you.
Hayek.
Jeff Krimmel
Haha! I thought the _exact_ same thing when I read it, but I didn't post a
reply. It really was priceless, though, to be able to read your original
post and then Richard's immediately following it. Great stuff.
Jeff
greywolf42
> characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
Patrick, don't try to fob your own, personal views off on Einstein. Just
say that you came up with this definition. Don't claim it is "Einstein's
characterization!" Even if you do employ the weasel-word 'implicit.'
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jeff Krimmel" <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.08.20....@hotmail.com...
Hehe, the real charm of these newsgroups: The Simple Minds,
much easier to deal with than The Smokescreen Mongers, as
you know ;-P
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
Isn't that the truth. I am finally starting to learn the utility of having
custom filters set up on my newsreader, because the noise can simply
become too much sometimes.
Jeff
Dirk Van de moortel
"Richard" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3F43B5A6...@yahoo.com...
[snip]
Okay, now let's have a look at the question:
> Two ships accelerate to v wrt their former common frame. Which clock
> ticks faster? Will they not both have ticked exactly the same number of
> times wrt a third observer who maintains a state of rest in the original
> frame? I want to see your fucking math, no irrelevant BS, just the
> fucking math.
>
> Start with all three clocks synchronized and set at zero. Acceleration
> begins at t_o rest frame, and is equal and opposite wrt rest frame, and
> it is large and short-lived. Final velocities of the moving ships are
> equal and opposite. Let the time of flight be very large compared to the
> acceleration intervals. The ships then accelerate equally wrt rest frame
> back toward their initial positions, and are now moving at the same but
> opposite velocity as before wrt rest frame. They quickly accelerate to a
> stop wrt rest frame when reaching their original positions.
>
> Show, with the use of the Lorentz transform, why these clocks ticked the
> same number of times during their leave, or if you disagree, then show
> how one ticked more times than the other, now explain why one was
> preferred over the other. When someday you learn that you cannot use the
> transform to relate arbitrary frames, but rather only to relate some
> frame to the medium frame, then you'll be something other than just
> fucking dumb. I'm not at all convinced however, judging from the SRist's
> persistence in general, that this will ever occur. Dumbass seems to be
> incurable.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=FJsUa.33704$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Or no, wait, I'll help you:
As seen in Moe's frame where time t is used:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/MoeLarryCurly.gif
<Total proper time Larry>
= Int{ 0 to T/2; 1/glout dt } + Int{ T/2 to T; 1/glin dt }
<Total proper time Curly>
= Int{ 0 to T/2; 1/gcout dt } + Int{ T/2 to T; 1/gcin dt }
where the gamma values are given by
glout = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] Larry outbound
glin = 1/sqrt[ 1 - (-v)^2/c^2 ] Larry inbound
gcout = 1/sqrt[ 1 - (-v)^2/c^2 ] Curly outbound
gcin = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ] Curly inbound
and you see that
glout = glin = gcout = gcin
so finally
<Total proper time Larry> = <Total proper time Curly>
= 1/g * Int{ 0 to T; dt }
= 1/g * T
= <Total proper time Moe> / g
where
g = 1/sqrt[ 1 - v^2/c^2 ]
HTH but I'm sure it won't. Never mind, many engineers
have the struggle of their life with it. Yet, bridges do get
built, don't they?
Dirk Vdm
Big Bird
We can all convince ourselves of this by looking at it with our own
eyes.
Should you claim that the sky is green with purple polka dots, I'll be
happy to give you a few hints (for example you might want to look
*upwards* if you want to discern the color of the sky, not into your
pants).
If, after seeing for yourself that the sky is blue, you insist on
LYING that you see a green sky with purple polka dots (or you refuse
to look at it outright) it merely means that you're a liar -- it does
not by any means make *me* a "blueist".
re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> In the context of physics, Who is a 'relativist'?
Nobody -- the term doesn't exist.
Nobody is a "relativist" because some people like to lie about the
things they can see for themselves with their own eyes.
> I adopt Einstein's
> characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
> [...]
Einstein never wrote any such nonsense.
You are a liar.
Patrick Reany
Prove it.
Patrick
Hayek
Patrick Reany wrote:
> Who is a 'relativist'?
He who does *not* do the twist !
(hint : rotation!)
Hayek.
Bilge
theory which best explains the experimental data is best theory
which explains the experimental data. The term is stupid.
Richard
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
I see you took the bait.
Now since Larry and Curly were originally at rest in the Curly outbound
frame, that is, before they took a trip over to visit Moe's frame from
whence you began your calculations above, then from the Shem's frame,
which is the same as Curly's outbound frame, Curly's and Larry's clocks
have not ticked an equal number of times when they return to Moe's
frame. Hence you have a causal contradiction, or IOW an empirical
contradicton.QED.
Do the math dumbass.
BTW, I was thinking, when I read your reply, how simpletons such as
yourself are so utterly easy to trip up, and so eager to prove just how
moronic they really are. You sir are just fucking dumb.
Richard Perry
Big Bird
> > > I adopt Einstein's
> > > characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
> > > [...]
> >
> > Einstein never wrote any such nonsense.
> >
> > You are a liar.
>
> Prove it.
>
Prove what? You made up something and then you attributed it to
Einstein (claiming that it is "implicit" in his writings). That's
what makes you a liar.
*You* are making the claim here that Einstein used the term or the
concept of a "relativist" (which he didn't, because the concept is
bogus to begin with) and the burden of proof is squarely on you to
support this claim.
Patrick Reany
> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0308...@posting.google.com>...
> > con...@biosys.net (Big Bird) wrote in message news:<df160b8f.03082...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > I adopt Einstein's
> > > > characterization implicit in his many essays, books, and articles:
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > Einstein never wrote any such nonsense.
> > >
> > > You are a liar.
> >
> > Prove it.
> >
>
> Prove what? You made up something and then you attributed it to
> Einstein (claiming that it is "implicit" in his writings). That's
> what makes you a liar.
You made the definite claim that I am a liar. Prove it.
Patrick
greywolf42
He just did.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Bill Hobba
> Apparently a "relativist" is someone who has decided that the
> theory which best explains the experimental data is best theory
> which explains the experimental data. The term is stupid.
Actually that is an even better answer than mine. This whole thread (as
indicated by the title) is stupid.
Thanks
Bill