0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Please let me know what you learn if you choose to study Ehrenfest's paradox. I'd be very interested.
I should really put out a warning about psychologists here: be aware that many of them are parasites who mess with their customer's minds in order to go on and on making more money out of them, so don't get sucked in too deep.
QuoteOf course there is proof that you are wrong: in any given reference frame, the events of the past determine the events of the future without difficulty. This is something established a century ago.You're missing the point again as you have no ability to analyse properly. This is all about the coordination of how events play out on different paths. If you're running time slower on one path than another in order to make events mesh, you can't also be running time more quickly on the former path than on the other. You can either do one or the other, but not both.
Of course there is proof that you are wrong: in any given reference frame, the events of the past determine the events of the future without difficulty. This is something established a century ago.
QuoteThat the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.Yes, you have a guaranteed way to generate useful information, but it's a preferred-frame method of generating that information.
That the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.
QuoteQuoteComputers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.Please provide a source to support this claim.If you don't believe there's a non-Euclidean reality there which trumps the naive Euclidean views we get of it, how can you believe in SR at all? You're arguing against SR.
QuoteComputers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.Please provide a source to support this claim.
Computers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.
And since model 2 is SR, you're acknowledging that SR generates contradictions.
QuoteYour animations...They're computer simulations.
Your animations...
QuoteJust like in Galilean relativity, where one cannot compare different frames without translation. It would be absurd to say that the mast on a ship is never in motion because it is never moving relative to the ship, even in a frame where the ship is in motion.An inadequate analogy is an inadequate analogy which sheds no light on the issue.
Just like in Galilean relativity, where one cannot compare different frames without translation. It would be absurd to say that the mast on a ship is never in motion because it is never moving relative to the ship, even in a frame where the ship is in motion.
In the static block model, the chains are of apparent causation rather than real causation - the block exists eternally by magic having never been generated. As soon as you try to account for the generation of the block in cause-and-effect order, you have to add more laws of physics to the model in order to allow that, at which point it becomes one of the other models.
It has the backing of someone who used to work at a very high level in education, in charge of most of the schools in a large region of scotland. He actually insists on paying for the webhosting costs.
Most importantly though, I'm simply asking the awkward questions which everyone should be asking and which the experts are running away from answering.
"Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then? How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions? The reality is that they don't exist, and that's why there are so many people out there who regard SR as fantasy physics."The key part of the first sentence is "that does the job", and the second sentence spells out exactly what that means. None of those links led to anything that did the job without cheating. There is no program anywhere out there that does the job without cheating because the job is impossible. It is equally impossible for the real universe to do the job without using a preferred frame or having a means of tolerating event-meshing failures.
So let's state the frame of reference where the observers clock ticks at 2 ticks to the rockets 1 tick at speed of 0.866c as having the length of a standard second.A standard second can be broken down into time frames of subdivisions of a second. We'll work in divisions of 100 000 microseconds. A standard second will have ten of these divisions. The rocket will therefore have 20 divisions.
Now how did I guess that you had experience with psychologists and didn't like what they had to say?
David, you are an angry person who is, briefly, fooling himself that he has found a contradiction in something that has been discussed in incredible depth for over a century. You need some help.
Paths exist in frames of reference, or it is better to say that one cannot describe a path without also given the frame of reference for one's description. There is no problem coordinating paths: this is an artefact of you continuing to make aphyisical comparisons between frames that have no consistent meaning.
QuoteThat the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.This is just more of your crazy talk. No frame is preferred, each one is equally legitimate and one can start from any state at any time in one frame and evolve a physical system and get the same results (taking the proper translations into account) in any other frame.
The only way that you generate a contradiction is by pointing out that different frames assign different coordinates to events. It takes no great intellect to do this and one can equally show that Galilean relativity is incorrect in the same way.
Please provide a reference to support your claim that in SR, "the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant". You either read this somewhere or you made it up yourself. Did some crank tell you this?
Please. You are creating little animations. They are little cartoon lies that you use to mislead others and yourself.
It is not an analogy: applying your reasoning, Galilean relativity fails because the locations in one frame do not equal the locations in another frame.
People always misunderstand the block universe model like this. Cause and effect does not need to be weaker in the block universe model: the same restrictions on event order can be in place. Some people even argue that cause and effect is stronger in the block universe model. Regardless, this is not required for SR.
I am glad that you have supporters to help you make your way through life, but I worry that their indulgence will do you harm.
Except that they have answered: one can't compare values from different frames without applying the correct translation. Only you refuse to listen.
So, by "cheating", you mean that they merely applied the transformations and did not try to combine the events of two frames in one frame?
I'm simply doing what you are unable to do: I'm running through the events of a simple scenario with planets and rockets and looking to see how it's arranged that a rocket can be reunited with its planet when its clocks tick half as many times as clocks on the planet while it's away.
That takes coordination, and there are different ways of trying to do it which are not compatible with each other.
If you are running events such that the rocket's progress is slowed equally along both legs of its path in order to avoid event-meshing failure at the reunion point, you are using the planet's frame as a preferred frame as a mechanism for how the universe runs and not merely as a way of analysing the events that play out in it (where you don't care about whether you're getting a true account or not). There's a big difference between those two things.
That doesn't work for the universe. It has to have events play out in one single way and not in an infinite number of different ways that contradict each other.
Changing the frame you're using to analyse things can't change what's actually happened and what has yet to happen.
If the stay-at-home twin is half way between the parting point and reunion point, his travelling twin may or may not have made the turn, but changing the frame of reference he's using for his analysis isn't going to change what's happened for his twin.
QuotePlease provide a reference to support your claim that in SR, "the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant". You either read this somewhere or you made it up yourself. Did some crank tell you this?I heard it from a more rational SR expert than the majority who said it was contested, but it is also clear that it is correct.
Model zero, the static, eternal block universe, has no causality involved in it because it was not generated in cause-and-effect order,
QuoteSo, by "cheating", you mean that they merely applied the transformations and did not try to combine the events of two frames in one frame?I mean that they're using a preferred frame mechanism where the time of that frame governs all the others, making their clocks run slow.
Quote from: timey on 30/08/2016 00:18:52So let's state the frame of reference where the observers clock ticks at 2 ticks to the rockets 1 tick at speed of 0.866c as having the length of a standard second.A standard second can be broken down into time frames of subdivisions of a second. We'll work in divisions of 100 000 microseconds. A standard second will have ten of these divisions. The rocket will therefore have 20 divisions.But from the rocket's point of view, its only going to have 10 of your divisions while the "standard second" will look as if it has 20. Can you handle that?
You may be trying to do this, but you are using David Cooper relativity, not SR. In SR, these tasks are accomplished relatively straightforwardly by the Lorentz transformations.
Again, you are free to use whatever mean you wish, but do not lie to use and claim that David Cooper relativity is SR.
In SR, one is free to use whatever frame of reference one wishes; no frame of reference is preferred and all frames produce consistent results (they are identical under transformation). You do not like this but we are not bound by your aesthetic preferences.
This is your aesthetic preference. The evidence is that the universe doesn't particularly care about event order for spatially separated events.
Nobody thinks that the choice of reference frame changes the actual world, it only changes the description. You want to prevent people from using certain descriptions without offering any actual alternative.
When you say this, you are assuming that there is some absolute frame of reference. According to SR, what has "happened" for a certain even is only those events in the past light cone of that event. This set of past events is invariant and is definitely causally connected to the given event. You are demanding, against all evidence, that there is some preferred reference frame where, even though there is no possible causal connection between two events, there is nonetheless a fact of the matter with regards to their time order. The evidence does not support that there is such a link.
You are just making a circular argument: there must be a preferred reference frame because there is a preferred reference frame.
So, you "heard" it. That's exactly the sort of scholarship I expected.
Saying that over nad over again does not make it true. You are simply repeating that the block universe is a block universe.
Why are you lying about all those links. None of them do that. They all begin with an arbitrary frame, not a preferred frame. If one were to apply an inverse translation, then one could recover the original information from the secondary frame. You just can't understand how people can be content without a preferred reference frame, so you just say that they are using one when they start from an arbitrary frame. Real good reasoning.
There is only one fixed frame where mass is concerned and that being c. Mass can never reach c so a fixed frame for the position of mass is impossible. Moving 0.4 c in one vector while moving 0.8 c in another vector violates relativity postulates unless they are in opposite directions on the same vector.
Assuming contraction is actually physical rather than just a visual interpretation caused by the finite speed of light is a exercise in futility. The same reason why you cannot measure the position and the speed of an electron applies to all objects in motion. All things are always in motion so there is no fixed frame.
Why would you believe the image produced is the physical description when there is no frame of reference.
the faster an object moves the greater the angle of view past 90 degrees. Even when two trains are moving at the same speed there is no 90 degree view. If you just follow the math without understanding the process causing the math your conclusions will remain invalid.