Re: Can the Special Theory of Relativity be "explained"

On Jun 26, 1:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Vickson" <RGVick...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:307075a8-476f-4bad-95cd-f6f55dac3140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| On Jun 26, 8:24 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > "Ray Vickson" <RGVick...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| >
| >news:c7564dac-8250-41b2-a2a4-51b67140e0cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | On Jun 26, 3:18 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | > "Ray Vickson" <RGVick...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | >
| > |
>news:ac242691-556b-44b6-aea8-1d40ec39549d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | On Jun 25, 9:50 am, andy everett <vze2q...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > | > | > Is there a possible visualization of our Universe from which
Laws of
| > | > | > Nature such as Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity might be
| > implied.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Thank you for any thoughts.
| > | > |
| > | > | Yes. There are several derivations of the Lorentz transformation,
| > | > | based on the following assumptions.
| > | > | Consider two "inertial" frames of reference, with frame F' moving
at
| > | > | velocity v wrt F, along their common x-axes. Assume
| > | > | (1) The quantities (x',y',z',t') in frame F and (x,y,z,t) in frame
F
| > | > | are related linearly.
| > | > | (2) y' = y and z' = z (i.e., rulers perpendicular to the motion
remain
| > | > | unchanged in length; this is almost required by the fact that a
moving
| > | > | ruler and a stationary ruler can everywhere coincide at an instant
if
| > | > | they are oriented perpendicular to their motion.)
| > | > | (3) There is no preferred direction.
| > | > | (4)IIf clocks beat faster or slower
| > | >
| > | > Why would anyone make that absurd assumption?
| > |
| > | > IIf you assume the world is flat, then you can derive a flat world.
| > | > Such arguments are circular.
| >
| > | The assumption said "if", not "is":
| >
| > Ok. If and only if you are a cretin then you are an imbecile.
| > I did not say you ARE a cretin, but if you are then you are an idiot.
| > The assumption is "if".
| >
| > | we merely allow for the
| > | possibility, without claiming its truth one way or another.
| >
| > Of course. I'm merely allowing for the possibility that you are
| > stupid.
| >
| > | Then, one
| > | derives that the world has *either* Galilean *or* Lorentzian
| > | behaviour.
| >
| > Einstein said:
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same.
| > Lorentz had nothing to do with it.
| >
| > In his own words:
| > 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
| > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
| > to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
| > agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
| > dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
| >
| > Does that have anything to do with clocks?
| >
| > | Note that classical, Galilean behaviour is perfectly
| > | compatible with ALL the assumptions. However, there is *another*
| > | solution, namely, SR.
| >
| > That's not a solution, that's a problem looking for one.
| >
| > | The argument is essentially saying that those
| > | are the ONLY TWO possibilities. After that, experiment must enter the
| > | picture to decide between the two.
| > |
| > A thought experiment can be decided by another thought experiment,
| > if and only if you can think.
| >
| > "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
| > evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.
| >
| > I'll repeat my question:
| > Why would anyone make that absurd assumption?
|
| I realize now my answer could have been better. Here is the improved
| version. The assumption you refer to just says that meter sticks
| moving at speed |v| (as seen by F) have the same length whether they
| are moving to the East or to the West. Standard clocks moving at speed
||v| beat at the same rate whether they are moving East or West. Why do
| you say that assumption is absurd? (Actually, my original statement
| did not include the stuff about lengths, but that was an oversight.)
|
| R.G. Vickson

Look at this way, Ray.
This little gif is a demonstration of Einstein's third postulate,
"the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the
"time" it requires to travel from B to A' , as seen from either frame.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

The light is represented by the blue bead.
It travels from A to B and back again, taking the same time each
way because as everybody knows, 4 = 12. The great genius Einstein
said so.

Now I haven't said anything about metre sticks, you brought that up.

My question is and remains:
Why would anyone make that absurd assumption?

My question remains: why is it absurd to assume that a clock
travelling West at speed 's' tick-tocks at the same rate as a clock
travelling East at speed the same speed s? You claim that is absurd. I
am asking you why you think that. The question is SIMPLE and
UNCOMPLICATED; it mentions nothing about light rays travelling here or
there, or forward and reverse light speeds or anything else. YOU seem
to want to complicate the issue.

R.G. Vickson



Let me make an assumption of my own.
Specimens of homo neanderthalensis that accept Einstein's ranting
lunacy are below average intelligence, they cannot be members of
homo sapiens sapiens.

Now perhaps you accept that a visit from Santa Claus is a plausible
explanation for prezzies under a Xmas tree and SR is a plausible
theory in physics. I do not.

The thread title does have an answer. The Special Theory of Relativity
is explained by understanding what a confidence trick perpetrated by
a shaman is. Only the gullible would swallow such garbage.

--
Androcles, proud to be as British as Baldric.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/MagnaCarta.wmv

.