everything isalllies
2022-01-06 22:59:44 UTC
Rotchm recently made a claim on another Conversation, then deleted my response like a coward who has been caught out lying.
The discussion was regarding the question of why Einstein failed to simply include the mathematics that accommodate acceleration, (includes Gravity) into his already published Theory of STR? Why drop that theory totally to develop a totally new theory just to account for acceleration called GR?
Modern Mathematicians claim to have modified STR equations to account for acceleration, so there really is no reason to have another theory of GR especially when GR and SR are incomparable. (One requires absoluteness, the other forbids it)
Rotchm made the claim that there was a difference centred around the notion that although STR was modified to account for acceleration, it was still a "special case" because there was still a requirement that the accelerating object was accelerating "in" an Inertial Frame of Reference that also housed the "stationary observer", so it was not like GR at all. It was only still possible WITHIN an inertial frame even though it was able to calculate time dilation etc for a NON Inertial object, INSIDE the "master" Inertial frame.
Now this is absolutely pure BS and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists, who never are able to stick to one story, and have a foot in every camp as they swap their claims constantly to still appear to have a solid hypothesis.
Why is it BS?
Well because he claims that we have two observers here, one has been placed in an inertial frame and the other is supposed to be "in" that inertial frame, but NOT moving initially......
Think about that for a moment...
STR stipulates exactly that the theory ONLY work is all motion is INERTIAL.
Einstein further demands that an inertial observer (with attached imaginary frame) cant tell if he is stationary or moving --- he has no right to claim to be in a “preferred frame” which is “stationary”.
This is expressly forbidden in the theory.
So lets apply what Einstein demands in his SRT to this new setup of Rotchm.
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.
Here we only have two observers, with imaginary frames attached to their big toe, and all we know for sure is that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Therefore because its possible that either can be accelerating or maybe both are accelerating, then we cant apply the mathematics of the Lorentz equation even if it included some additional refinements to allow for acceleration of “the body that is accelerating” relative to the body (or frame if you must) that is “stationary”.
To assign the condition of Stationary or accelerating to either of these observers is to exclude this scenario from the possibility that it can be classed under the terms defined in the STR.
As this is a "thought experiment", we can add in more complications as this will only cloud the issue we are trying to solve, this I learned from Einstein personally over a toast and coffee.
Any replies that do not stay with this topic, and that sidetrack will be deleted.
Any replies that insinuate that another contributor is unable to understand, will be deleted. If someone does not understand, its because YOU have failed to make a coherent case.
Any comments from shills working for Chinese or Israel communists will be deleted. (FACT: both China and Israel employ thousands of profession shills that scour the forums for content they don't like, and try to influence the arguments by inserting propaganda.)
The discussion was regarding the question of why Einstein failed to simply include the mathematics that accommodate acceleration, (includes Gravity) into his already published Theory of STR? Why drop that theory totally to develop a totally new theory just to account for acceleration called GR?
Modern Mathematicians claim to have modified STR equations to account for acceleration, so there really is no reason to have another theory of GR especially when GR and SR are incomparable. (One requires absoluteness, the other forbids it)
Rotchm made the claim that there was a difference centred around the notion that although STR was modified to account for acceleration, it was still a "special case" because there was still a requirement that the accelerating object was accelerating "in" an Inertial Frame of Reference that also housed the "stationary observer", so it was not like GR at all. It was only still possible WITHIN an inertial frame even though it was able to calculate time dilation etc for a NON Inertial object, INSIDE the "master" Inertial frame.
Now this is absolutely pure BS and typical of the crap I have to put up with from Relativists, who never are able to stick to one story, and have a foot in every camp as they swap their claims constantly to still appear to have a solid hypothesis.
Why is it BS?
Well because he claims that we have two observers here, one has been placed in an inertial frame and the other is supposed to be "in" that inertial frame, but NOT moving initially......
Think about that for a moment...
STR stipulates exactly that the theory ONLY work is all motion is INERTIAL.
Einstein further demands that an inertial observer (with attached imaginary frame) cant tell if he is stationary or moving --- he has no right to claim to be in a “preferred frame” which is “stationary”.
This is expressly forbidden in the theory.
So lets apply what Einstein demands in his SRT to this new setup of Rotchm.
We have two observers, who both notice that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Neither can claim to be the one doing the accelerating. (And we have no way to tell as it could be either)
Neither can claim that he is the stationary one, because such a claim would requires "another 3rd frame" that supplies an Absolute condition of non motion. This is a super no no in Einstein’s theory.
How can one observer claim to be the “stationary one”, unless he has relative non motion to a KNOWN ABSOLUTELY fixed location? All motion or the lack of it, requires another reference.
Here we only have two observers, with imaginary frames attached to their big toe, and all we know for sure is that the distance between them is increasing at an accelerating rate.
Therefore because its possible that either can be accelerating or maybe both are accelerating, then we cant apply the mathematics of the Lorentz equation even if it included some additional refinements to allow for acceleration of “the body that is accelerating” relative to the body (or frame if you must) that is “stationary”.
To assign the condition of Stationary or accelerating to either of these observers is to exclude this scenario from the possibility that it can be classed under the terms defined in the STR.
As this is a "thought experiment", we can add in more complications as this will only cloud the issue we are trying to solve, this I learned from Einstein personally over a toast and coffee.
Any replies that do not stay with this topic, and that sidetrack will be deleted.
Any replies that insinuate that another contributor is unable to understand, will be deleted. If someone does not understand, its because YOU have failed to make a coherent case.
Any comments from shills working for Chinese or Israel communists will be deleted. (FACT: both China and Israel employ thousands of profession shills that scour the forums for content they don't like, and try to influence the arguments by inserting propaganda.)