Evidence required for key element - SRT

[ozziemate]

One of the key aspects of SRT appears to be the issue of relative time.
yet no evidence that materially supports such a notion appears to exist.
It is true we have time dilation [definitely]/length contraction [possibly] as this has been evidenced by experiments many times however evidence for the existence of non-simultaneity has yet to be shown.
IMO SRT has put forward a counter intuitive proposition, that observers at relative velocity do not share the same Hyper surface of the present [ other wise known as "now"] I ask is there evidence to support accepting such a counter intuitive proposition?

In fact it could be said that this outcome of SRT , non-simultaneity is at it's very fundamental core of propositions.

So I ask for the evidence that non-simultaneity is real and not just a convenient abstraction derived to support light speed invariance through a vacuum.

Quoting or putting forward "usefulness" and "utility" is not evidence of a theories depiction of reality but merely that the theory has some value. IMO which in this case is considerable.

care to discuss?

 

[ozziemate]

It in fact appears due to the nature of the issue that it is impossible to validate nor falsify as testing of non-simultaneity [ relative t=_hsp ] is effectively impossible.

 

[sol invictus]

One of the key aspects of SRT appears to be the issue of relative time.
yet no evidence that materially supports such a notion appears to exist.

Utter and complete nonsense. The Lorentz invariance of the fundamental laws of physics is arguably the best-tested theory in the history of human knowledge. The predictions of quantum electrodynamics have been tested and confirmed to 12 significant figures.

It is true we have time dilation as this has been evidenced by experiments many times however evidence for the existence of non-simultaneity has yet to be shown.

Again, totally wrong. Any experiment testing relativistic Doppler shift, any particle physics scattering experiment, any astrophysical observation involving significant redshifts, all tests of Maxwell's equations (which includes electrical engineering, computer engineering, etc.), etc. etc.

It in fact appears due to the nature of the issue that it is impossible to validate nor falsify as testing of non-simultaneity [ relative t=_hsp ] is effectively impossible.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[ozziemate]

Utter and complete nonsense. The Lorentz invariance of the fundamental laws of physics is arguably the best-tested theory in the history of human knowledge. The predictions of quantum electrodynamics have been tested and confirmed to 12 significant figures.



Again, totally wrong. Any experiment testing relativistic Doppler shift, any particle physics scattering experiment, any astrophysical observation involving significant redshifts, all tests of Maxwell's equations (which includes electrical engineering, computer engineering, etc.), etc. etc.



You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

sol. please re-read the op as I believe you are thnking along completely different lines

 

[sol invictus]

sol. please re-read the op as I believe you are thnking along completely different lines

No, I'm not. You're simply wrong.

Look - it's clear you don't know even the first thing about this, so I'll try to explain it very simply. At its core, special relativity is the claim that the laws of physics are invariant under a set of symmetries, called Lorentz transformations. Some of those transformations (called "boosts") involve the relativity of simultaneity (i.e. observers moving at different velocities will disagree on when something happened).

But the relevant fact is that the existence of this set of symmetries is a very, very restrictive condition on the set of possible physical laws. As a result, it's extremely easy to test, because almost any deviation from the laws we believe to be correct would indicate such a violation.

If you want one concrete example I just gave one in another thread here. It was relativistic Doppler shift - I'm not going to repeat myself here, but the quick version is that if it weren't for the v*x term in the time transformation equation for a boost, the Doppler shift would be significantly different.

 

[ozziemate]

No, I'm not. You're simply wrong.

Look - it's clear you don't know even the first thing about this, so I'll try to explain it very simply. At its core, special relativity is the claim that the laws of physics are invariant under a set of symmetries, called Lorentz transformations. Some of those transformations (called "boosts") involve the relativity of simultaneity (i.e. observers moving at different velocities will disagree on when something happened).

But the relevant fact is that the existence of this set of symmetries is a very, very restrictive condition on the set of possible physical laws. As a result, it's extremely easy to test, because almost any deviation from the laws we believe to be correct would indicate such a violation.

If you want one concrete example I just gave one in another thread here. It was relativistic Doppler shift - I'm not going to repeat myself here, but the quick version is that if it weren't for the v*x term in the time transformation equation for a boost, the Doppler shift would be significantly different.

ok.....is the dopler shift due to the length contraction of space and object in the vector of travel?

Is it only due to the dilation effects [ which I include length contraction as a package]?

 

[Vorpal]

It appears to me that ozzie isn't even talking about relativity, since the same basic issue he posits can be made about any physical theory:
"I find this counter-intuitive, so how do I know it's 'really' that way or just conspires to act that way in all respects?"
In the words of Poincaré, a complete conspiracy is a law of nature. At best, questions like this are for the philosophy forum--I say at best because frankly it's not even a very interesting philosophical question. Science isn't absolutely sure of anything, but there still comes a point where the weight of the evidence is so significant that only the completely obstinate would withhold at least provisional agreement. And 'provisional' describes all of science by its very nature.

If that's all your asking, then the distinction between what's "really there" in some metaphysical sense and the validity of a scientific theory has been hammered out your other thread, by many people including myself. Although I think Fredrick probably said it best of all.

 

[ozziemate]

It appears to me that ozzie isn't even talking about relativity, since the same basic issue he posits can be made about any physical theory:
"I find this counter-intuitive, so how do I know it's 'really' that way or just conspires to act that way in all respects?"
In the words of Poincaré, a complete conspiracy is a law of nature. At best, questions like this are for the philosophy forum--I say at best because frankly it's not even a very interesting philosophical question. Science isn't absolutely sure of anything, but there still comes a point where the weight of the evidence is so significant that only the completely obstinate would withhold at least provisional agreement. And 'provisional' describes all of science by its very nature.

If that's all your asking, then the distinction between what's "really there" in some metaphysical sense and the validity of a scientific theory has been hammered out your other thread, by many people including myself. Although I think Fredrick probably said it best of all.

nope I am merely asking what is in the OP if you would care to re-read it that should be obvious....

 

[sol invictus]

Is it only due to the dilation effects [ which I include length contraction as a package]?

No.

 

[Vorpal]

nope I am merely asking what is in the OP if you would care to re-read it that should be obvious....

Then you need to take more time into communicating clearly. From your OP:

So I ask for the evidence that non-simultaneity is real and not just a convenient abstraction derived to support light speed invariance through a vacuum.

Quoting or putting forward "usefulness" and "utility" is not evidence of a theories depiction of reality but merely that the theory has some value. IMO which in this case is considerable.

In other words, (1) you agree that STR provides an experimental model of reality (otherwise, why would you admit that is has "considerable" value), and (2) your question is about whether reality is "really like STR" or a "convenient abstraction" that merely reproduces the right empirical results.

In what way did my first post in this thread misinterpret this?

 

[ozziemate]

Then you need to take more time into communicating clearly. From your OP:

In other words, (1) you agree that STR provides an experimental model of reality (otherwise, why would you admit that is has "considerable" value), and (2) your question is about whether reality is "really like STR" or a "convenient abstraction" that merely reproduces the right empirical results.

In what way did my first post in this thread misinterpret this?

Well for starters I am asking for evidence and not slander or flaming.
You have addressed only your flaming aspect...quite well too I might add....
and failed to address the issue of evidence.

Do I have to keep my thoughts out of the questions in future to avoid BS or what....Do I indicate the reasons for asking or do I keep them to myself....what would you prefer?
Do you always like posters to not post openly? Intimidate them into silence?
of course I was talking about SRT.....
and of course I was seeking hard evidence and not metaphysics

 

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Reality Check in another thread
That sounds like "relativity of simultaneity" except for the multiple universes nonsense (its all in this universe). In that case you are talking about Lorentz transformations and as sol has pointed out they have been extensively tested over the last century.

I was under the distinct impression that the transforms deals with dillation and length contraction due to relative velocity, however I am maybe mistaken...

The end result however is the issue of non-simultaneity of the t=_hsp for every observer at relative v.

My general thoughts on it are that the transforms force the t=_hsp in to a relative state simply because it considers time dilation in a form of "addition" rather than "supposition" due to the invariance of light speed factor
I will explain more later if it becomes relevant.....

 

[Vorpal]

Well for starters I am asking for evidence and not slander or flaming.
You have addressed only your flaming aspect...quite well too I might add....
and failed to address the issue of evidence.

Then you've not read my post--I said that there can be no scientific evidence for the question you've asked, because it's a question of metaphysics rather than science.

Do I have to keep my thoughts out of the questions in future to avoid BS or what....Do I indicate the reasons for asking or do I keep them to myself....what would you prefer?

I really wonder if you're reading something completely different from what everyone else is typing. My post is a very direct response to your question:

So I ask for the evidence that non-simultaneity is real and not just a convenient abstraction derived to support light speed invariance through a vacuum.

So either:
(1) Your question is the first part of your post, and it's about empirical evidence for the scientific theory, or
(2) Your question is this second part quoted above, which makes a distinction between what's "real" and what's a "convenient abstraction".

Sol has already answered (1), and you've said that he has not addressed your question. This led me to conclude that (2) is the case, and your question is about how do we know that STR represents reality rather than just produces the right answers.

If your question is neither of those, then it's not in your OP at all.

 

[sol invictus]

Well for starters I am asking for evidence and not slander or flaming.

So you say - but you ignore evidence when it's presented.

Relativistic Doppler shift as measured experimentally cannot be explained without the relativity of simultaneity. The same can be said for thousands of other experiments.

 

[ozziemate]

Then you've not read my post--I said that there can be no scientific evidence for the question you've asked, because it's a question of metaphysics rather than science.


I really wonder if you're reading something completely different from what everyone else is typing. My post is a very direct response to your question:

So either:
(1) Your question is the first part of your post, and it's about empirical evidence for the scientific theory, or
(2) Your question is this second part quoted above, which makes a distinction between what's "real" and what's a "convenient abstraction".

Sol has already answered (1), and you've said that he has not addressed your question. This led me to conclude that (2) is the case, and your question is about how do we know that STR represents reality rather than just produces the right answers.

If your question is neither of those, then it's not in your OP at all.

Firstly I must apologise for over reacting to what I assumed was a deliberate attempt to post off topic. I feel that I was mistaken in taking that attitude.
Secondly you have actually stated what I am elluding to in that the evidence of two relative v observers t=_hsp perpsectives being different is impossible to achieve in the form or material evidence. This is what I am questioning. The belief supposedly held that metaphysical evidence is all that is required to support relative t= _hsp for observers.
Now keeping in mind that the same theory proposes other natures, those other natures can not legitimately be used to support other aspects of the theory.

Which is why I am asking for hard evidence to support a metaphysical outcome of SRT.
As yet sol has suggested one form of evidence but this is not direct observation from a relative v observer and is premised on other aspects of the same theory.

So unless someone can show that relative t=_hspcan be evidenced properly I do not know what to think...

the issue revoves around a gedanken that involves many millions of years travel time for two relative v RFs The distance in time between t=_hsp is an extraordinary value.

And I question whether that difference in time between relative t=_hsp's has ever been subject to close scrutiny and mathematics. How far into the future or past is one of the reference frames relative to the other reference frame?

 

[king catfish]

Stratocaster.

Oh... I thought you meant SRV.

 

[ozziemate]

It appears to me that ozzie isn't even talking about relativity, since the same basic issue he posits can be made about any physical theory:

If you have something to say may you please direct the issue to me other wise I will ignore your post as being gossip amongst others

 

[paximperium]

If you have something to say may you please direct the issue to me other wise I will ignore your post as being gossip amongst others

It is a valid conclusion stated to others who are reading this post. Ignore it as you wish.

 

[Reality Check]

ozziemate:
The Lorentz transformations have been extensively tested over the last century. These tests are for any value of t. This includes t = t_hsp which is just the observer's present time. It has no special significance in Lorentz transformations.

 

[sol invictus]

The belief supposedly held that metaphysical evidence is all that is required to support relative t= _hsp for observers.
Now keeping in mind that the same theory proposes other natures, those other natures can not legitimately be used to support other aspects of the theory.

The problem here is that you don't understand the physics - nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing "metaphysical" here. There is a set of equations which make predictions, and the predictions are experimentally verified to mind-boggling accuracy.

The fact that you are uncomfortable with some of the implications of those equations is staggeringly uninteresting.