Laymen question about relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Doctor Dread, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    That is another non-answer, because you are not explaining what the special theory of relativity have to do with this. Please go back to post #95, and try again.

    Correct; the Doppler effect doesn't need SR to be explained.

    The Doppler effect was first described in 1842; that's some time before the theory of relativity came along. And I don't know how I'm describing things "in context of today", when you are the one constantly bringing up things from 1842 and 1905.

    So you agree with me that you were wrong. OK.

    The Doppler effect can be described by SR, but it was discovered (and explained) before Einstein was even born. So no, referencing the Doppler effect doesn't mean you are talking about SR.
    Additionally, I don't see how the waves of the sea/ocean at a coastline are related to the Doppler effect? I mean, I see where it plays a small role, but I don't see how that has any bearing on prehistoric people.

    Incorrect, a child's mind wouldn't be thinking in terms of wavelengths. Additionally, that a child's mind would come up with it doesn't make it any less non-sense.

    So you agree that you were talking non-sense when you said you were talking about the special theory of relativity. OK.

    Utterly unrelated to the theory of special relativity. Why do you keep bringing this up? "Or you are purposely trying to waylay this discussion."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,601
    Is the Doppler effect part of SR?
    Did no one ever hear a sound changing when something came toward him and passing him before the Doppler effect was offered as an explanation?
    No
    It was observed but not fully explained untill SR explained why and how this principle applies to all things relative to the point of the observer.
    It was observed and explained but not in connection of relativism. I may have jumped a step there.
    Children observe as well as adults. they just don't know how or why the waves are formed, nor do a lot of adults yet either, for that matter.
    Not in the context I cited it. I'll admit it was not offered with clarity.
    Because it is in the context of "observation" and cognition of recurring phenomena which could not be explained at that time.

    SR was an example I used because it explained a lot of things that had been "observed" but not been explained how or why for many things, not just sound or color waves lengths.

    Did no one ever see an apple fall from a tree (before Newton translated this phenomenon into gravity)?

    As Antonsen mention of Leibniz' cognition and drawings of things falling down at a certain rate, but without knowing why or how. Even Pythagoras had it wrong by asserting that heavier objects must fall faster than lighter objects, a belief which was held for some 2000 years, before Galileo proved him wrong and later still came Newton's "Law of falling bodies".

    My examples were always in context of the early mind, the the time when natural phenomena were attributed to unseen causal entities or beings and the gods were born. Cognitive observation of recurring phenomena without knowing the real causalities of how or why.

    And came a point when people began to ask "why" and much, much later began to ask "how".

    We're right back to the same debate as that of natural cognition of more or less quantities and the later assigning of single cyphers to identify specific quantities, just in a slightly different form.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    Not in the way you mean. There are Doppler effects in SR, but there are also Doppler effect outside of SR.

    That's a silly question; of course! However, the first person (we know of) that explained it was Doppler in 1842.

    Actually, yes. You said that cavemen had no idea the phenomenon of expansion existed (post #98) and you agree with me that that's incorrect.

    Wrong. Perhaps you should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#History .

    If you are talking about the Doppler effects that are specifically only present in SR, then yes, you definitely have forgotten to mention that.

    So you agree that your original statement in post #98 was irrelevant, as you were interpreting the world in a worldview that, per construction, has no explanatory power.

    Then please explain with more clarity what the developmental state of the average human brain 50.000 years ago has to do with the special theory of relativity.

    The theory of special relativity was not the answer to those observations. Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations were. Point me to one thing that cavemen could have observed that requires the special theory of relativity to explain.

    Irrelevant; the observation "gravity exists" is not comparable with "cosmic muons are reaching the ground, even though they shouldn't according to their lifetime".

    Right, so those observations don't need SR to be explained, and are thus irrelevant to this discussion.

    And (as you made clear) in the context of the special theory of relativity.

    We're not back to that; we're still trying to figure out why you think the special theory of relativity would have been relevant to cavemen. "Or you are purposely trying to waylay this discussion."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,601
    Probably not to the rudimentary human minds of that time, perhaps as far as 100,000+ years ago.
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,500
    My statement was in response to: "Children observe as well as adults. they just don't know how or why the waves are formed, nor do a lot of adults yet either, for that matter."
    You have inadvertently claimed that children only live in the distant past, "perhaps as far as 100,000+ years ago". May I suggest you rephrase your response?
     

Share This Page