Search the FAQ Archives

3 - A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M
N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z
faqs.org - Internet FAQ Archives

Einstein (1905) Absurdities
Section - 7. Simultaneity and Measurement Prologue.

( Single Page )
[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index | Counties ]


Top Document: Einstein (1905) Absurdities
Previous Document: 6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
Next Document: 8. The data scale degradation absurdity.
See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
Einstein - and Special Relativity - not only
mixes apples and oranges, but treats indepen-
dent variables as dependent variables, and vice
versa.

One of the first things a child learns about
algebra is to not add apples and oranges.

Special Relativity adds apples and orangutans.

Apples and oranges are at least both fruit, so
you could add them and get a fruit total.

But Special Relativity adds space and time, and
does so without justification. Yes, there is a
derivation process (with some of the absurdities
outlined above) but in no way does that derivation
specify any reason why one should treat time and
space as dimensions similar enough to add them
up together.

Yes, the units in the transform equations that
mix the two together are compatible, but it is
not a set of compatible measures that are con-
sidered a four-D coordinate system. It is not
space and ct that are the four axes, it is space
and t.

Should we also consider heat and space similar
dimensions because a balloon will rise to greater
heights as its gasses warm up?

Should we also consider velocity and distance
similar measures because we can multiply the
one by time and get distance? That's identical
to the math that makes time and space suppos-
edly compatible measures.
-----------------------------------------------
The worst thing about mixing time and space as
does SR, is that there is no macro-world evidence
whatsoever that time can ever be a dependent
variable, which is what the SR transforms make
of it.

A dependent variable is one that you can control
indirectly, through control of other variables.

You can REALLY control how great a distance you
go by choosing to move for only some certain time
period at the given velocity and then not going
further than that distance.

But you can NEVER control how long a time you 'go',
no matter what you do, unless you consider suicide
as accomplishing that control.

Time is not a dependent variable, but when you
decide that t'=g(t-xv/cc), you are saying time
is just such a dependent variable.
--------------------------------------------------

But it is only by imagining that time is a dependent
variable - that you can add it somehow with space -
that allows SR to imagine its transforms are
rotations and not translations.

Imagine x as the verticle axis on your graph, time
as the horizontal axis.

If x'=gx-gvt is just moving the x-axis to the right,
more and more as time goes by, then the transformation
is just a shift in the axis with no implication that
x (space) and time are the same stuff.

If x'=gx-gvt is a rotation, as SR says, then the
graphical equivalent is to tilt the x-axis somewhat
toward the horizontal, somehow becoming part time
and part space.

User Contributions:

Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA




Top Document: Einstein (1905) Absurdities
Previous Document: 6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
Next Document: 8. The data scale degradation absurdity.

Single Page

[ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ]

Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer:
Thnktank@concentric.net (Eleaticus)





Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM