Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?
Posted: September 29th, 2018, 7:09 pm
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2018, 9:14 pmThere are actual accelerations and actual decelerations, and these relate to the absolute frame. There are also apparent accelerations and decelerations which relate to other frames. When we know that we're talking within the context of a specific frame, we can drop the word "apparent" as it can be assumed, and in theories where there's no absolute frame, we can even drop that assumption. However, when I'm asked absolute questions, I will answer using descriptions that relate to valid theories rather than invalidated ones, but you complain when I do that because you want me to give absolute answers using descriptions that relate to an invalidated theory, and that is something I refuse to do. If you ask me to give SR answers to absolute questions, I will give you SR answers.David Cooper wrote:You know full well what I mean by acceleration because I've spelt it out clearly.You have absolutely not spelled it out at all. I have succinctly stated numerous times that the definition of acceleration is rate of change of velocity with respect to time.
They are not absolutely unambiguous in physics - they are only unambiguous in SR/GR.I prefer my usage of the word because it is less ambiguous than yours - this leads to greater clarity.This is the opposite of the truth. The reason why terms like "acceleration" have well defined specific meanings in physics is so that they are absolutely unambiguous. It is impossible to mistake the short, simple definition of acceleration for anything else. But generally, in everyday life, words are used ambiguously, meaning different things in different contexts.
I have spelt out exactly what I mean by them.Everyone is entitled to use words in they way they want to so long as they spell out how they intend to be interpreted, and I have done so.No you haven't. I have said many times "acceleration means...". You have not.
The "man in the street" has numerous different purposes for words and generally isn't concerned with precision of language.The man in the street will call something a deceleration something that looks to him like a deceleration, but when you point out to him that the Earth is moving round the sun, the sun round the galaxy, and that the galaxy too is moving towards M31, his natural response is to think of all this movement being relative to space, and that a deceleration will naturally mean slowing down relative to space, or slowing towards a speed (or lack of speed) where light passes at a relative speed of c in all directions. That is the way people naturally think, until the SR people start messing with their minds.
When discussing physics we don't have that luxury. As a software engineer, like me, you should know this. You don't talk to your computer using vague, ambiguous English, do you? You use precisely defined, unambiguous computer languages that are defined according to agreed published standards that anybody who is interested can look up. If you want to be properly understood you need to apply similar standards here.My work involves programming computers to understand natural language so that it will be possible to program them using normal words the way normal people use them while the computer interprets what they mean and asks for clarification if it isn't sure - it will not force them to speak in any way other than the way that is natural to them. Almost everything can be done with full precision using normal words, and where specialist vocabulary is essential, it can be learned by the person who needs it at that point. If it isn't essential, there is no reason why the person's existing way of talking should be banned. There should be no difficulty whatsoever in an expert understanding the words of the man in the street when they're discussing a subject where the expert knows alternative wordings for things but where ordinary words are good enough. The inability of the expert to cope with ordinary wordings shows a lack of capability on his part which makes it harder for him to communicate with normal people.
In this case here, it is particularly important to use language that is as open as possible to the man in the street because we are taking on in philosophy something that physicists supposedly consider to be outside their remit and beyond their expertise. We are not bound by the language of physicists, and we want to express things so clearly that anyone can follow what's being said without needing any expertise. This matters, because we're asking non-physicists to judge theories and we want to strip away all the jargon and just say directly in normal language what everything is and does. There is nothing in SR, GR or LET that can't be described and discussed in normal language, apart from the key idea of frames of reference, the names of different models (which had never been catalogued properly by anyone until I did it), and an understanding of what a block universe is.