0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now we're at the heart of the matter. You're discussing metaphysics behind special relativity. That's a perfectly valid and interesting area, but it's not a matter for this science forum. If we were a philosophy forum, I'd say go at it!We had some interesting discussions here, but unless you'd like to discuss science, I'll have to ask you again to keep it to "new theories." Thanks!
Quote from: David Cooper on 14/09/2012 23:02:45Now, a lot of confusion comes into things if you try to explain things in terms of clocks ticking at different rates on the planet and in the rocket, because if all frames are genuinely equal there can be no difference between the fundamental rates at which clocks tick and you can't have some ticking faster than others.Clocks don't tick at the same rate for all observers. That's time dilation.
Now, a lot of confusion comes into things if you try to explain things in terms of clocks ticking at different rates on the planet and in the rocket, because if all frames are genuinely equal there can be no difference between the fundamental rates at which clocks tick and you can't have some ticking faster than others.
Quote By eliminating Newtonian time altogether, the rocket doesn't actually move though - it simply is, and all of its atoms are stretched through the model like spaghetti such that they exist in all times. This is what SR does to the nature of the universe.OK. Each object can have a world line through space-time of all the points in space and time it has occupied. I guess a line is like spaghetti. So what?
By eliminating Newtonian time altogether, the rocket doesn't actually move though - it simply is, and all of its atoms are stretched through the model like spaghetti such that they exist in all times. This is what SR does to the nature of the universe.
QuoteThere is nothing in SR to account for how such a universe can be generated, so it just exists eternally without the future ever having been generated from the past and without causes having any opportunity to generate effects.We discussed this in your other thread and you insisted you weren't talking about generating a universe. Now you are again.
There is nothing in SR to account for how such a universe can be generated, so it just exists eternally without the future ever having been generated from the past and without causes having any opportunity to generate effects.
As I told you there, arguing that "there is nothing in SR to account for how such a universe can be generated" is pointless unless you're arguing against a theory that deals with the generation of the universe. Special relativity doesn't. It works within the universe to make predictions.
All you've offered is a theory with an additional, undetectable element that does the same job and tries to explain how the universe is generated. But then again, so does believing exactly in special relativity and then adding "God made the universe." That's simply not a scientific way of doing things.
Your point about causes being unable to generate effects is completely wrong as well. Causes obviously generate effects in SR. If you can connect a cause to an effect by a valid world line, it can generate that effect.
I take it from this then that it is a matter of philosophy to think about how an eternal block universe can be generated without adding Newtonian time to it and therefore it doesn't matter whether a block universe can't be generated or not as it is not important to the laws of physics in terms of making predictions.
1) Does the Lorentzian model offer any predictions of measurements that differ from SR?
2) We already know that the Lorentzian model assumes the existance of the Lorentzian aether (an undetectable, preferred reference frame), while SR doesn't. So that's one complicating factor for the Lorentzian model. While only using the measurable predictions of both theories, does SR have an additional, unmeasurable feature that the Lorentzian model lacks?
Of course, it may be philosophically preferable. But that's not a matter for discussion here, so let's take that to New Theories.
Now, by what force are physical objects and distances contracted, as objects in-and-of themselves, independent of how they may be observed differently from different frames?
If Earth is said to have various diameters when variously observed, what force makes the real physical Earth change shape? Ducking the question does not answer it.
The apparent movement of the stars has nothing at all to do with the claims of length contraction. Read some basic astronomy.
Now, by what force are physical objects and distances contracted, as objects in-and-of themselves, independent of how they may be observed differently from different frames?If Earth is said to have various diameters when variously observed, what force makes the real physical Earth change shape? Ducking the question does not answer it.
In SR there is no force applied, but there seem to be many different explanations as to what happens - my reading of it is that you simply get a different view of them from other frames where they appear to contract in their apparent direction of travel because part of their length is expressed in the time dimension, and the result is that they are effectively shortened from the point of view of observers moving at other speeds.
David, your examples of light contraction are 'on the spot' as far as I'm concerned. If I remember right Lorentz 'invented' length contraction just to explain the MM experiment. And when it comes to light clocks I have a very sweet link doing the math in a understandable way, using geometry. All Moving Clocks Are Slowed by Motion And this site is also a pleasure to read, shows that relativity is explainable if you try, not just reserved for those whose brains have outgrown their skulls.
David Cooper:QuoteIn SR there is no force applied, but there seem to be many different explanations as to what happens - my reading of it is that you simply get a different view of them from other frames where they appear to contract in their apparent direction of travel because part of their length is expressed in the time dimension, and the result is that they are effectively shortened from the point of view of observers moving at other speeds.Since Earth is a solid object and my "probe" is a rigid metallic craft, and since no force is applied, how do you explain their changes in shape/ length /diameter without applying a force... other than apparent changes as very distinct from changes in the objects themselves?How about one question and one answer at a time for a 'change' for the sake of clarity?
Within SR (and I'll restrict this reply to that since that's what I was talking about in the box at the top), I don't think there's any real contraction of the object at all - all you're getting is apparent contraction
David Cooper:QuoteIn SR there is no force applied, but there seem to be many different explanations as to what happens - my reading of it is that you simply get a different view of them from other frames where they appear to contract in their apparent direction of travel because part of their length is expressed in the time dimension, and the result is that they are effectively shortened from the point of view of observers moving at other speeds.Since Earth is a solid object and my "probe" is a rigid metallic craft, and since no force is applied, how do you explain their changes in shape/ length /diameter without applying a force... other than apparent changes as very distinct from changes in the objects themselves?
Since Earth is a solid object and my "probe" is a rigid metallic craft, and since no force is applied, how do you explain their changes in shape/ length /diameter without applying a force... other than apparent changes as very distinct from changes in the objects themselves?