Einstein Was Right

[Paradox]

 

http://en.wikipedia....ygens#Mechanics

 

You'll see that Huygens formulated it in quadratic form. As far as I know it was never actually stated as F = ma until Euler got hold of what Newton had formulated from Huygens.

 

 

... But then I am just full of ludicrous, paranoid, conspiracy-theorist claptrap.

[bornagainathiest]

 

http://en.wikipedia....ygens#Mechanics

 

You'll see that Huygens formulated it in quadratic form. As far as I know it was never actually stated as F = ma until Euler got hold of what Newton had formulated from Huygens.

 

 

... But then I am just full of ludicrous, paranoid, conspiracy-theorist claptrap.

 

Well, if the ivory tower you dwell in is a non-Popperian one, why do it's foundations have to be connected to the Earth at all!

 

Intuitive concepts that don't have to relate to anything so mundane as real world testing, experiment and investigation can be ludicrous, paranoid, conspiracy-theorist claptrap!

 

How would you be able to know otherwise?

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

 

Well, if the ivory tower you dwell in is a non-Popperian one, why do it's foundations have to be connected to the Earth at all!

 

You'd be hard pushed to find a staunch (or even anything approaching it) Popperian in the philosophy of science community nowadays.

[Ouroboros]

He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum.

I think I missed that post. Isn't F=ma Newton's second law of motion?

 

Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation.

Problem making up your mind?

 

You correct other peopl, and when they repeat what you said, then you correct them again.

 

It was you hold told us it was Euler. Now you are saying it was someone else.

 

I think you're just addicted to finding issues with other people's statements, so you can tell them they're wrong, and so you can always seem to be right.

[AlphaToOmega]

"It doesn't make sense to me" isn't a rebuttal. Its an admission of ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

 

http://en.wikipedia....ygens#Mechanics

 

You'll see that Huygens formulated it in quadratic form. As far as I know it was never actually stated as F = ma until Euler got hold of what Newton had formulated from Huygens.

 

 

... But then I am just full of ludicrous, paranoid, conspiracy-theorist claptrap.

I don't think everything you are saying is wrong.

 

I do, however, think that some of what you are saying is based on conspiracy theories.

 

And it was you who told us it was Euler earlier. But it was of course wrong, just so when someone else repeats your "fact", you can correct them again.

[florduh]

It was you hold told us it was Euler. Now you are saying it was someone else.

The Mercurial, ever changing chameleon. Where have I seen this....oh yeah, Christian apologetics.

 

This was entertaining to watch for a while.

[Paradox]

He never even said F= ma, as you would know if you had read other posts of mine on this forum.

I think I missed that post. Isn't F=ma Newton's second law of motion?

 

Nope. It's Euler's formualtion of it based on a mistranslation.

Problem making up your mind?

 

You correct other peopl, and when they repeat what you said, then you correct them again.

 

It was you hold told us it was Euler. Now you are saying it was someone else.

 

I think you're just addicted to finding issues with other people's statements, so you can tell them they're wrong, and so you can always seem to be right.

 

 

I don't understand what the problem is. It was indeed Euler who formulated F = ma. It was based on a mistranslation of Newton. Newton in turn seems to have got his idea from Huygens. What ever is the problem, or inconsistency with what I had previously said, with that?

[Ouroboros]

I don't understand what the problem is. It was indeed Euler who formulated F = ma. It was based on a mistranslation of Newton. Newton in turn seems to have got his idea from Huygens. What ever is the problem, or inconsistency with what I had previously said, with that?

If you can't see what you did, then you have a serious problem.

 

I'm starting to think that Vigile is right. You're doing this on purpose.

[AlphaToOmega]

Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.

dv/dt is proportional to F

momentum = mV

so F = d(mV)/dt

If we consider m to be a constant then we get:

F=m dv/dt

a= dv/dt

Therefore F = ma

Where's the mistranslation?

[Paradox]

So, A-to-O, in the light of your respinse on that physics forum, "a wonderful description of relativity that I've never heard before", it seems that you are the one who can guide us through this (below) rebuttal of Brown's chosen-at-will paragraph, seeing it as you do for all its true clarity and depth. I note that everybody else on your treasured forum has kept silent about it so, oh wise one, it falls to you.

 

So please, if you will, take us all through it, step by step (at least, if we may, the crucial analogy in answer # 1) , thicko's that some of us non-comprehenders are, and enlighten us as to its true meaning, and how it constitutes a glowing beacon of rebuttal of Brown.

 

If you do not, forgive me but I feel I must express my fear the casual reader of this thread might think that you have gone into something like "One's that you can understand? No" mode (a comment of yours made in response to my request for counterarguments to either me or Brown).

 

Well, here's the answer to your questions, which were:

Surely there are three conclusive reasons why acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation calculated:

 

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

 

(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.

 

(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest together and change with motion in the same way independently of direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out to me.] One more contradiction, this time in statics, may be mentioned: this is the lever with two equal arms at right angles and pivoted at the corner. It is kept in equilibrium by two equal forces producing equal and opposite couples. According to the Lorentz transformation equations referred to a system moving with respect to the lever system, the couples are no longer equal so the lever should be seen to rotate, which is, of course, absurd. Tolman tried to overcome this by saying that there was a flow of energy entering one lever arm and passing out through the pivot, just stopping the rotation! Overlooking the fact that energy is a metrical term and not anything physical (Brown 1965, 1966), there would presumably be some heating in the process which is not considered. Statics provides insuperable difficulties for the physical interpretation of Lorentz transforma tion equations and this part of mechanics is avoided in the textbooks—in fact, Einstein omits statics in his definition: "The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space with time" (Einstein 1920, P. 9).

The answers are here compliments of Ken G on bautforums.com

In the science and technology sub forum

Heading, "What's wrong with this [relativity] article.

direct link

here

You wanted a physicist to answer your questions here you are:

Thank you for taking me up on my offer. That's actually a good paragraph to choose, because one part of it is not pure bunk, though it represents a misconception about relativity that a lot of people have, so it will be useful to show why there are no legitimate objections to relativity anywhere in that paragraph.

First of all, I should point out that the whole thesis of the paragraph is not actually an objection to relativity at all, it is an objection to the way some people explain relativity, in terms of variable time dilation that has something to do with acceleration. We've had threads on this very forum about that, and some knowledgeable people raised the same objection to the twin paradox not being about acceleration. I explained to them why I thought they were wrong, and I'll give the same answers again, in the context of the above arguments.

Let's start with what is right, and then we can see what is wrong. What is right is that the central idea of relativity is the concept of proper time, which is the idea that time is owned by the clock that measures it, or if you prefer, by the path taken (through spacetime) between two events by the clock that measures it. The key realization, supported by observation, is that the proper time depends not on the events themselves, but on the path taken between the events. In particular, different paths between the same two events will measure different proper times between those events. Though surprising compared to how we normally think of elapsed time (an absolute that depends on nothing but the events), this recognition is entirely analogous to the everyday knowledge that the distance we cover when we walk between two locations will depend on the path we take between those locations.

i) This claim is simply false. There's not a lot more to say, it makes an argument that is incorrect. Let me reframe the claim in the analogous situation of taking a crooked path between two locations. In the analogy, acceleration is akin to rotating your direction relative to the straight path between the locations. So the claim above is now "By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of rotating at the start, and at the halfway point where you rotate back toward the ending location, could be made negligible compared with the uniform direction you followed in between, which is proportional to the duration of the journey." See? The statement is simply wrong, although it may sound "truthy" if we allow ourselves to be led by it. The truth is that the angle of rotation at the beginning that veered from the destination, and the angle of rotation at the halfway point that veered back toward the destination, are certainly going to matter to the total distance covered, regardless of how long the journey is.

ii) Again the same analogy will serve us here. Now we simply imagine a second traveler who takes the straight path, but until the first traveler turns to aim toward the same final location, it is not clear which traveler is taking the crooked path. Instead, we just have two walkers on diverging paths, and each thinks the other is diverging from their own path. That is the analog of the bogus concept of "uniform time dilation." Now let's translate false claim (ii) into this analogy: "If there is no absolute crookedness of either path prior to the first walker turning, and the effect, if any, is due to that turn, then the use of a distance formula depending only on the steady direction of each walker and its duration cannot be justified." Baloney, this is just how we could calculate the distance traveled by both walkers, we have a formula that depends only on the steady directions they take in each straight segment of their paths, it's called the Pythagorean theorem.

(iii)This objection to the role of acceleration is also bogus, but in a more subtle way that people on here have also raised. It's really a semantic objection, not a substantive one-- it says you don't need to accelerate a clock, you can just set one clock to another as they pass. But this construction misses the whole point of proper time-- proper time is the time measured by a clock following a path, and the acceleration referred to is about the crookedness of the path (the straight path in spacetime is the only unaccelerated path in SR). So acceleration refers to a path, not a clock, yet if the clock follows the path, then it is the same acceleration. If we use different clocks following pieces of the path, the clocks themselves need not accelerate, but the path is still an accelerated path. The clocks add nothing to the issue, their lack of acceleration is irrelevant-- if the proper time is a function of the path, then the acceleration is a function of the path as well. Hand clocks around all you like, I just scoff at all the pointless bother. Certainly the predictions of relativity don't care, nor are they challenged in the least by any of those three issues.

If you think there are problems with this, then by all means go there and discuss them.

You claimed you never got a rebuttal for the article. Now you have and for the sections you asked.

You can no longer make that claim.

[Paradox]

I don't understand what the problem is. It was indeed Euler who formulated F = ma. It was based on a mistranslation of Newton. Newton in turn seems to have got his idea from Huygens. What ever is the problem, or inconsistency with what I had previously said, with that?

If you can't see what you did, then you have a serious problem.

 

I'm starting to think that Vigile is right. You're doing this on purpose.

 

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand.

[Paradox]

Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.

 

dv/dt is proportional to F

 

momentum = mV

so F = d(mV)/dt

 

If we consider m to be a constant then we get:

 

F=m dv/dt

 

a= dv/dt

 

Therefore F = ma

Where's the mistranslation?

 

Euler used a translation involving 'rate of change' where you have written 'alteration' There is no 'rate of' change in the original latin, just change. Newton's concept of force is more akin to the

modern concept of impulse (force [by modern understanding] times time),

supplied in the form of a push or a 'kick'.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't understand what the problem is. It was indeed Euler who formulated F = ma. It was based on a mistranslation of Newton. Newton in turn seems to have got his idea from Huygens. What ever is the problem, or inconsistency with what I had previously said, with that?

If you can't see what you did, then you have a serious problem.

 

I'm starting to think that Vigile is right. You're doing this on purpose.

 

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand.

That's why it's so sad.

[AlphaToOmega]

So, A-to-O, in the light of your respinse on that physics forum, "a wonderful description of relativity that I've never heard before", it seems that you are the one who can guide us through this (below) rebuttal of Brown's chosen-at-will paragraph, seeing it as you do for all its true clarity and depth. I note that everybody else on your treasured forum has kept silent about it so, oh wise one, it falls to you.

Eh?

if people didn't understand it they would post to say so.

If they didn't agree with it they would post to say so.

How does anything fall on me. The response is there, logical and complete.

You want me to explain a well written explanation?

 

 

So please, if you will, take us all through it, step by step (at least, if we may, the crucial analogy in answer # 1) , thicko's that some of us non-comprehenders are, and enlighten us as to its true meaning, and how it constitutes a glowing beacon of rebuttal of Brown.

It IS a step by step rebuttal.

If you do not, forgive me but I feel I must express my fear the casual reader of this thread might think that you have gone into something like "One's that you can understand? No" mode (a comment of yours made in response to my request for counterarguments to either me or Brown).

 

A very valid response I might add in light of the posts you've made.

I can't use the following in any argument with you:

Newtons laws

Conservation of momentum

Conservation of angular momentum

The reason I can't is that your posts show quite clearly that you do not understand them.

Then you ask for an explanation of more complex theories that require the above simpler ones to be well understood first.

Since you do not, we have no common ground on which to discuss it.

e.g. You speak enough English to ask for an explanation in French but you don't understand French.

But, what the hell, I'll give it a go anyway.

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

The argument here is that effects of acceleration can be removed from the distance covered if the journey was sufficiently long that the effects of acceleration are minor compared to the distance travelled during the constant velocity stage.

Ken equates acceleration as a slight change in path.

If you draw a line where the X axis is vt and the Y axis is distance then we get a graph for the deviation of distance due to acceleration compared to the fixed velocity vector.

What you will see is the constant velocity portion being y=0 on the graph.

The component for acceleration will have Y>0

The lower the acceleration the less the deviation but deviate it will.

No matter how long you draw the X axis the deviation will always be present.

Now arbitrarily define an end point to signify the distance.

For both lines on the graph to intersect that point requires the accelerated line to deviate at the origin up towards y>0 and then it needs to deviate back in order to intersect at the same point.

How can you ever make the accelerated line negligible without reducing acceleration to zero which will in fact make the system the same as there is no acceleration?

[AlphaToOmega]

Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd.

 

dv/dt is proportional to F

 

momentum = mV

so F = d(mV)/dt

 

If we consider m to be a constant then we get:

 

F=m dv/dt

 

a= dv/dt

 

Therefore F = ma

Where's the mistranslation?

 

Euler used a translation involving 'rate of change' where you have written 'alteration' There is no 'rate of' change in the original latin, just change. Newton's concept of force is more akin to the

modern concept of impulse (force [by modern understanding] times time),

supplied in the form of a push or a 'kick'.

 

 

And yet we come to the same conclusion.

So again I ask, where's the mistranslation?

 

B.T.W. "Alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force" is the same as: "rate of change of motion is proportional to force"

 

How about this then, what formula was Newton stating according to you?

 

 

 

 

 

[Paradox]

But, what the hell, I'll give it a go anyway.

(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the duration of the journey.

The argument here is that effects of acceleration can be removed from the distance covered if the journey was sufficiently long that the effects of acceleration are minor compared to the distance travelled during the constant velocity stage.

Ken equates acceleration as a slight change in path.

If you draw a line where the X axis is vt and the Y axis is distance then we get a graph for the deviation of distance due to acceleration compared to the fixed velocity vector.

What you will see is the constant velocity portion being y=0 on the graph.

The component for acceleration will have Y>0

The lower the acceleration the less the deviation but deviate it will.

No matter how long you draw the X axis the deviation will always be present.

Now arbitrarily define an end point to signify the distance.

For both lines on the graph to intersect that point requires the accelerated line to deviate at the origin up towards y>0 and then it needs to deviate back in order to intersect at the same point.

How can you ever make the accelerated line negligible without reducing acceleration to zero with will in fact make the system the same as there is no acceleration?

 

Brilliant!!! Genius!!! You've actually pulled it off!!!

I think Ken is speaking of world lines, and that neither of you quite invoked that word, and it would have made it easier if you had.

Oh, wait a minute, no you haven't pulled it off, as is evident from the far simpler graph of distance covered plotted against velocity-based so-called time dilation. This way, you find that the greater the distance covered, the greater the sum so-called time-dilation. For any given velocity the rotation at the half way point always takes the same amount of sum time dilation, because it always takes the same amount of acceleration (which can be construed in terms of rotation) to reach that velocity. It doesn't expand in its proportions just because you are choosintg a particularly long distance before you turn around!!!!*

So, chum, it can be made to be negligible in relation to the expected (or not expected?) amount of time dilation endured by the travelling twin.

That, you could say, is the simple, straightforward explanation.

 

* Or does it? Perhaps you can explain how?

[AlphaToOmega]

I did. You just don't understand it.

 

 

 

Go to bautforum.com, explain your objections and maybe one of them will be able to put it to you in a way you can understand it.

As I said before, they do that regularly so might be able to help you with your problem.

 

[AlphaToOmega]

double post.

[Vigile]

I think you're just addicted to finding issues with other people's statements, so you can tell them they're wrong, and so you can always seem to be right.

 

Either he's having us on, or he exhibits strong signs of narcissistic personality disorder. The fact that he thinks he can wipe the floor with the entire scientific community reveals an ego the size too large to fit in Donald Trump's head.

[AlphaToOmega]

I think you're just addicted to finding issues with other people's statements, so you can tell them they're wrong, and so you can always seem to be right.

 

Either he's having us on, or he exhibits strong signs of narcissistic personality disorder. The fact that he thinks he can wipe the floor with the entire scientific community reveals an ego the size too large to fit in Donald Trump's head.

 

An ego too big to fit in Trumps head?

That is definitely a paradox.

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

I think you're just addicted to finding issues with other people's statements, so you can tell them they're wrong, and so you can always seem to be right.

 

Either he's having us on, or he exhibits strong signs of narcissistic personality disorder. The fact that he thinks he can wipe the floor with the entire scientific community reveals an ego the size too large to fit in Donald Trump's head.

But it perhaps could hide in Donald's hair.

[bornagainathiest]

I don't understand what the problem is. It was indeed Euler who formulated F = ma. It was based on a mistranslation of Newton. Newton in turn seems to have got his idea from Huygens. What ever is the problem, or inconsistency with what I had previously said, with that?

If you can't see what you did, then you have a serious problem.

 

I'm starting to think that Vigile is right. You're doing this on purpose.

 

I'm sorry but I genuinely don't understand.

That's why it's so sad.

 

You beat me to the punch, Ouroboros!

 

I'm having a similar communication problem with the Stranger, over in the Lion's Den.

 

A problem of disconnection. It's not a function of intelligence, it's something else. Something less related to what the ruling passion actually is and more related to how it's pursued?

 

Why can't we see what's blindingly obvious to them? Why don't we share their personal revulsion of their bete noires? Why can't we appreciate the vital relevance of their mission? Why don't we see the world-shattering importance of their self-appointed crusade?

 

Their perplexity over our 'problem' with these things doesn't lead to a re-appraisal on their part. That would be tantamount to an admission of error or weakness on their part!

 

Nope. It only serves to strengthen their resolve and reinforce the behavior patterns that are already in place.

 

Can they ever be de-programmed?

 

Well, to use a wonderfully English expression, "Buggered if I know!"

 

BAA.

 

 

 

p.s.

 

Owch!

Where's the Tylenol?

Sore teeth ...and a sore butt!!

[bornagainathiest]

 

Well, if the ivory tower you dwell in is a non-Popperian one, why do it's foundations have to be connected to the Earth at all!

 

You'd be hard pushed to find a staunch (or even anything approaching it) Popperian in the philosophy of science community nowadays.

 

Yes Paradox, I'd be hard pushed, because I don't mix in those circles, remember?

 

Oh and you'd probably be hard pushed too.

 

Why?

 

Because you'd most likely reject anyone else's definition of what a staunch Popperian is - in favor of your own definition.

 

If you are the sole acceptable authority on what you consider to be acceptable, can you see how this naturally sets you against all other authorities?

 

BAA.

[Paradox]

Well, if the ivory tower you dwell in is a non-Popperian one, why do it's foundations have to be connected to the Earth at all!

 

You'd be hard pushed to find a staunch (or even anything approaching it) Popperian in the philosophy of science community nowadays.

 

Yes Paradox, I'd be hard pushed, because I don't mix in those circles, remember?

 

Oh and you'd probably be hard pushed too.

 

Why?

 

Because you'd most likely reject anyone else's definition of what a staunch Popperian is - in favor of your own definition.

 

No -- it's because very few philosophers would confer upon such a nebulous term as 'science' the exalted and well-defined status that Popper and, generally, the science community like to.