0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I can't see why you have one of the rockets turn round on the t=2.00 line and not get back to the centre line at the t=4.00 line as it should. It is doing the same speed relative to its home planet on both legs and cannot get back to the centre at the t=3.75 line.
You're reading this mode wrongly. Each object leaves a solid trail of itself behind it which the other objects see at the same altitude as themselves.
In the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.
Each object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,
Based on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.
I am not discussing your interpretation of SR.
None of your simulations are my interpretation of SR.
You have to be in the right mindset to learn someone else's understanding. You are not in that mindset. You view SR as wrong and nothing will persuade you your interpretation is incorrect. I have been there. You need to overcome your own objections to see more clearly the deeper meaning.
There is no such thing as time in the sense you are trying to use it against SR.
They know it works because the observations follow SR and GR. Why it works is unknown and why we are discussing it here.
Abstract thinking is a skill set.
Some have more talent than others. Einstein was amazing in this talent.
I have a unique perspective because I was not formally trained in physics other than my courses. I did not get into theory until later on in life. The MMX was difficult to overcome but information transfer demanded a matrix. Energy itself is the matrix and the only one excluded from the MMX. It solves and answers all of the questions of why.
It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.
Objects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.
QuoteIn the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.
QuoteEach object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.
QuoteBased on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.
That is a personal belief by many including yourself.
All observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.
Quote from: phyti on 31/07/2017 18:25:52It doesn't conform to a standard Minkowski spacetime diagram with a vertical ct axis and a horizontal x axis, and speed corresponding to the angle of the timeline. The typical diagram describes events in terms of one selected reference frame, and any other clock rates require a notation such as widely spaced tick marks.It conforms exactly to it, but with the additional feature of showing how a block universe would have to be generated under the rule that no clocks run slow.QuoteObjects don't leave ghost trails, If they did we could locate the origin of light emission and calculate absolute motion in space.The idea with the block universe is that every object has four dimensions rather than three, and one of those is a length in the time dimension stretching from where the object first existed all the way to where it stops existing. Only one point of that line is visible at any one moment to any observer inside the universe, so they cannot see a trail. There is also nothing ghostly about it - it's as substantial at any point on the line as any other. However, to generate the block in the first place, these pasta-like objects have to be fed in at one end of the block (the past) and run through the block into position. If they are run into position at speeds such that their clocks all tick at the same rate, they do what mode 1 shows, and the mess of event-meshing failures that initially occur will be driven out of the block at the future end after the strands of "pasta" change the way they interact with each other further down when the later arrivals catch up with other objects that they're supposed to meet.QuoteQuoteIn the same way, light travels up the screen at infinite speed in this mode because it travels all distances in zero time while contracting them to zero distance.The graphic is supposed to be B's perception of events. Instantaneous light propagation was overturned in the 1600's based on the work of Ole Romer. Either your interpretation is wrong or the block universe model is wrong, or both. Pilots don't fly to airports that aren't there. NASA launches probes to planets with no 'event meshing failures'.In the block universe model, light travels all paths in zero time while shrinking them to zero distance. This turns the speed of light into an illusion, but then all movement is an illusion in the block universe model as nothing really moves at all unless you add a generation phase for it, and during that generation phase, light moves up the screen at infinite speed, but it is not moving with infinite speed because it is not covering any actual distance at all. Much as I think the block universe idea is ridiculous, I still have to take it seriously and look at whether it is in any way viable, and it is potentially viable - you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.QuoteQuoteEach object needs to be thought of like a strand of pasta which occupies the diagram from bottom to top,A perpetual world line. Histories of positions, and only real on paper. The diagrams are not like geographical maps, but people misinterpret them as such. The greater problem is the excessive abstraction, leading people to accept the theory as a substitute for reality.The reason many people take the block universe seriously is that it allows them to change frame without causing events to unhappen - the block is unchanged by frame changes, at least in terms of which events have happened and which haven't, because they've all happened in advance and the entire future already exists. It is interesting that this aspect of the Lorentz invariance is there even during the construction phase of such a block, as mode 1 of my diagram shows - when you change frame, no events unhappen and no new events happen either just in the course of making that frame change.Clearly though, a block universe is more complex than a simple universe where the past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet - it only seems simpler if you don't account for how it's generated and if you're prepared to throw out any real kind of causality, but even then you end up with one of the most unlikely things ever imagined because all the apparent causality written through the block has to be accounted for by nothing more than luck.QuoteQuoteBased on the rules of their model - if time is not allowed to run slow on any paths (under the control of the time of a preferred frame), then they must move up the diagram in the way I have shown.There is no preferred frame controlling unfolding of events.Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?QuoteThat is a personal belief by many including yourself.All personal beliefs should be put aside here and be replaced by reasoned analysis (although that inevitably leads to beliefs once you understand what isn't possible and what isn't simplest) - I've shown you all the different models ways of doing things (it's possible to make things that can be described as other models, but they are merely obfuscated versions of the ones I've shown) and you reject all the viable ones, choosing instead one that disproves itself by producing contradictions (which show up when events unhappen as you change frame) and which still depend on an absolute-frame mechanism for their functionality.QuoteAll observation locations cannot record the same time for any event. Their are two types of events, 'a', when the event occurs with light emission propagating outward in all directions, and 'b', when the light is detected by a human observer or a device under their control. Reasoning on cause and effect, you can't observe an event until after it happens, therefore the time of the b-event cannot influence its happening.Don't trip up over the illusions. If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong. Mode 2 is a fantasy model and it can't be used to run the real universe.
Your definition of time is really timing. Time does not slow down but timing does.
Time does not slow down but timing does. That is the ratio of SR. The measurement of tick rate slows as speed increases. If you are part of the frame that your tick rate slows there is no way to measure how much it slows. This is the basis of no fixed timing. Yet there is a fixed time as a constant c. The basis of all timing is c. Your clock measures the available energy left in velocity of an object relative to c. You always measure the speed of light in a vacuum as c in all frames. This is the point. You measure the speed of light with the timing of light. You cannot measure the thing you are measuring if that thing is part of the measurement. Electrons are affected similarly. The electron and photon are confounded by the same energy available of relative c.
The distance measurements and tick rate of your clock are confounded in every frame for timing measurements. This is the reason the SoL is measured the same in a vacuum in all frames.
Every frame has a different ratio to c but that ratio can not be measured. That is why there is no fixed frame for timing.
There is a fixed frame for the basis of time. Energy of motion is c and c is the basis of time. Motion allows life's awareness of the present. There is nothing other than the present motion based on the energy constant.
You have just made a distinction between two things and claimed that my definition of time is the latter, but my definition of time is very clearly the former. Clocks fail to measure all the time that actually passes for them.
Never mind our inability to measure time properly and to tell if we have by luck done so - the universe itself must have a right answer built into it as it runs the unfolding of events. The universe does not fool itself. If light passes one object at c relative to that object in all directions (and I'm talking about the one-way speed of light), light cannot be also be passing a second object at c relative to that second object in all directions if the second object is moving relative to the first object. The first object is stationary in the absolute frame and the second object is moving through that frame - this is an automatic requirement of having a fixed speed limit for light through space because it ties the speed of light to a specific frame which uniquely has the same one-way speed of light relative to that frame in all directions
Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.
In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.
You're not doing SR, but model 3 instead, so why are you arguing with me at all? I've stated very clearly that if you add an absolute frame to SR you can turn it into a potentially-viable model, but real followers of SR refuse to do that because as soon as they accept that there's a preferred frame, they realise they would immediately have to back LET instead because it does the same job without needing the superfluous "time" dimension. They claim they back the simplest model, but they have never actually done so - they merely pretend SR the simplest model by denying that there's an absolute frame so that they can assert that it's simpler than LET (bizarrely ignoring all the extra complexity of the infinite number of contradictions which they thereby introduce into the model, but then none of them are rational and they seem to have no respect for logic whatsoever).So, are you actually doing model 3 or model 2? If you're for model 3, you've departed from SR. If model 2, you've got contradictions which make events unhappen when you change frame. If you're doing a mixture of models 2 and 3, you're mixing incompatible models. It's really simple stuff, so I can't see why so many people have so much difficulty getting their heads around it all and separating the different models out into different compartments in their mind where they can run them and see how they perform. You'd think my interactive diagram would help them by showing them what happens when you simulate each model, but apparently not. The big boys in SR do the block universe model in order to eliminate the unhappening of events on changing frame, but they then refuse to discuss how their magical block can be generated (because they know it can't be done under the same rules), so they're playing games of avoidance where they stick their heads in the sand. It's a shambles.
Your definition of time is really timing.
you say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures,
but any failures would be corrected over time (Newtonian) and everyone's memory of those failures would be modified to match, erasing all trace of them.
Lovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?
If at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.
Quoteyou say there are no event-meshing failures with NASA probes, but you can't know that to be true. No one remembers any such failures, Space launches fail, shuttle flights fail and people die. We remember because the events are broadcast worldwide. Do you keep in touch with the real world?
Those type of failures can't be corrected, they are permanent.Who or what would modify or erase them?
You are the only person to use the term "unhappen", and it's most likely your invention. and it's nonsensical, vs the modes 2 and 3 simulations which are at least believable.
QuoteLovely, so how do you imagine that the unfolding of events on different paths is coordinated? You reject the viable ways of doing it, so what are you left with other than ways that don't work?If events are not coordinated by human influence, or programmed animal and plant behavior, then it's random. A landslide, flood, hurricane, etc, can rearrange the earths surface in many different ways. Quantum physics can produce varied outcomes (expressed in probabilities) from the same state. All these random activities depend on the laws of physics and chemistry and are not compatible with a predetermined block universe.
QuoteIf at a single Spacetime location you have two accounts of a predicted event far away and one account says that it's happened while the other account says it hasn't happened yet, one of them is wrong.You can't have two different accounts from a single location. More nonsense.
There is no such thing as time. We measure one distance by another based on a c frame for everyone.
Light moves out as a sphere covering 360 degrees. If that is what you mean by all directions. The frame is c for a photon always. Our measurements of c are for one frame only as relative to that frame only Period.
Quote from: David Cooper on 01/08/2017 20:54:15Same apparent two-way speed of light, but we shouldn't be fooled by that into thinking the one-way speed of light relative to us doesn't change as we accelerate towards or away from it.Of course it changes. We just cannot measure the change.
Quote from: David Cooper on 01/08/2017 20:54:15In saying each frame has a different ratio, you are going against the required dogma of SR which asserts very specifically that there is no absolute frame - variable ratios automatically produce an absolute frame.I am only going against your interpretation of SR.
Not all people understand relativity even if they believe they do. The absolute frame is c. Its of motion itself that we use part of that energy in GR and SR. Its backwards to conventional thinking. That is the entire problem
Do you deny the existence of cause-and-effect process too (which I've already demonstrated can be locked tightly to time)? Denying the existence of time does not help your position at all.
The bit about "in all directions" is there because there are always some directions across an object where the speed of light will be c relative to the object regardless of how fast the object is moving, but don't let these complications confuse you. Think about a universe with a single space dimension and light moving in two opposite directions relative to objects. If you do that, you won't be diverted away from the issue
You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).
No - you are going against the mainstream and you are not speaking for SR at all.
You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.
In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?
No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.
Quote from: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:43:17You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).I have only departed from your understanding of SR.
Yes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.
Quote from: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:43:17You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.
Quote from: phyti on 03/08/2017 17:56:27In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?I am not David but I would agree.
I am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.
So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.
No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.
Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.
c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.
Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.
The adverts in the forum make my machine freeze repeatedly, so I need to minimise page loads to reduce that. As a result, this post is a reply to three posts.Quote from: GoC on 03/08/2017 12:38:45No but time is not an entity that can be traveled. We ride the present only.So that appears to tie in with the normal idea that the past was the present when it was happening, but it no longer exists, and the future will become the present but doesn't exist yet. It's hard to tell what you believe time to be when you say things like "there is no such thing as time". However, what we do have is change - we are continually changing from one present to the next, and as we do so, we refer to previous states as the past while the states that the present will change into are referred to as the future. This is the case for all objects, and the events that occur run as a process locked to causation with the present dictated by the previous state and dictating the next state.QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:43:17You have departed from the rules of SR there and have, inadvertently perhaps, brought in an absolute frame (unless you're already fully aware of the consequences of your claim, in which case you should stop defending SR by pretending that a model with an absolute frame is SR).I have only departed from your understanding of SR.No - you have departed from SR which requires you to rule out an absolute frame. If you accept that in accelerating towards light you change the speed at which the light is moving relative to you, that is not compatible with the claims of SR. To be fair to you though, you are just choosing a different place to introduce the magic - they want the one-way speed of light to be the same relative to you no matter how much you accelerate towards or away from it because they know that if they accept it changes they are bringing in an absolute frame, whereas you appear to be accepting the first bit even though it brings in an absolute frame which you presumably then deny is being brought in, unless you are actually in favour of mode 3 (not SR) rather than 2.QuoteYes but I am not going against Einstein's SR. Main Stream left Einstein's SR. They cannot defend their position but it is not Einstein's position.Einstein insisted that there is no absolute frame, so you're going against him. If you're actually defending a version of model 3 and claiming it's Einstein's, then you need to recognise that and say so. You then need to decide whether you're doing 4D Minkowski Spacetime with an absolute frame, or 3D space with Newtonian time and absolute frame.QuoteQuote from: David Cooper on 02/08/2017 21:43:17You are entirely on your own with whatever model you have that you think is SR, and c is not a frame of reference.That is an unfortunate belief. c is the reason for the present. What moves the electrons? Answer that question and c as a frame of reference will be clear to you.c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one._____________________________________________________________________Quote from: phyti on 03/08/2017 17:56:27In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR._____________________________________________________________________Quote from: GoC on 04/08/2017 12:12:26Quote from: phyti on 03/08/2017 17:56:27In the U frame, A and B pass Ux=0 at Ut=0, and synch their clocks.A speed is .4c and B speed is .8c.Event E, at Ux=1, emits light at Ut=0.B intercepts the light at Bt=.33.Switching to the A frame, A is not aware of event E.E has occured for B but not for A.What is your opinion?I am not David but I would agree.Eh! You agree with a question?QuoteI am also Curios as to David's Relativity interpretation vs. LET interpretation. I find them compatibly comparable.What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.
Eh! You agree with a question?
What does that mean? LET is one theory of relativity and SR is another. None of the models are compatible with each other and none of the different models represented by the same mode are compatible with each other - if any one of these models describes the real universe, the rest cannot do so.
Same as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true.
If you are simulating the action in a viable way that could represent the functionality of the real universe (and if you've ruled out event-meshing-failure-tolerant models), you will have the event E happen at some point and you will not unhappen it. You will have to set the simulation to use one frame of reference to coordinate the action and then stick to it, so it will necessarily not be running SR.
I will have to disagree. SR does not exclude an absolute frame.
It just says you cannot measure based on a preferred frame. Einstein in one of his papers even mentioned except possibly c. c is the absolute frame which all measurements are created. It is motion itself. A concept you are not able to recognize as a possibility.
Einstein recognized c as a possible absolute frame.
Actually it probably could be described as Newtonian time c the absolute frame.
Quote from: David Cooper on 04/08/2017 23:26:02c is the speed of light and not a frame - it makes no sense whatsoever to describe it as one.Once you understand correctly it is the only thing that makes sense.
You appear not to want to understand the measurement is only relative to the frame being measured.
He is checking you ability to see logic. You failed.
Yes I agree with his opinion set as a question.
LET and SR are compatible.
QuoteSame as before. From some locations, using some frames as the base for the calculations generates the claim that E has happened while using other frames says E hasn't happened yet. Those two claims cannot both be true. Both claims are true based on the info each observer has. An event happens once and is perceived many times.
That’s a problem for the person doing the simulation. You can have two characters doing things independently of the other. Video games do this all the time.
And the universe does not think, or decide which clocks run slow.
You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.
c is not a frame or reference and it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it is, so why do you keep making such a claim? If you mean the frame of a photon, which frame is frame c if you have two photons moving in opposite directions? If you mean a frame half way in between those two photons' frames, then you're merely talking about an absolute frame, the frame in which light travels at c relative to it in all directions, and that frame is not called c
Really. What did he call it?
What a descriptive mess!
You don't understand that the most important thing is what the universe is actually capable of doing. It cannot keep unhappening events to tie in with the calculations of monkeys who think the accounts of all frames are equally true. If one account says something has happened and another account calculated at the same location as the first account was produced at says it hasn't happened yet, one of those accounts is wrong. Only people who believe in magic think otherwise.
If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame c
Hardly! I'm the only one who's being fully logical about this.
That is weird
No they aren't, but it's good that you're trying to move in the direction of LET because it shows that deep down you do understand that SR is broken.
Both claims are conditionally true, which means they're governed by an IF clause which says, if this frame is the absolute frame, then this account is true. The two IF clauses (one for each account) cannot both be true, so whichever one is false, the account tied to it which is conditionally true is actually false because the condition is false.
The universe is running the show and it is not putting on a different show for each player in which the same events play out with a different frame of reference being used for each player such that event M happens in one version of the universe before event N while in another version of the universe event N happens before event M. Even if it was doing something so extravagantly bizarre though, you also have the problem of different players changing the frame they're using as they accelerate, which means if the version of the universe they're in changes frame to keep up with their wishes, it will have to unhappen some distant events while changing frame.
If a million different players of a game are playing it independently offline, they will have a million instantiations of the game all running independently to generate the virtual universe containing the action, and the action will quickly diverge until they're all doing different things. If the million players are instead playing a game together online, they will have one single version of the game in a data centre which keeps telling every remote copy of the game what's happening at the central version so that they all remain fully compatible with the events there. The universe is like that - a single version which does things once and doesn't then unhappen and
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2017 22:55:21You are one of very few people who believe that, so you're not representing what is normally meant by SR.Normally meant is a very big distinction. Many believe they understand Relativity while its only the math that is understood.
I understand your confusion. You were never taught c was a absolute frame of energy. Constant and can go no faster. The postulate of c actually creates the absolute frame. Your understanding only allows a absolute non moving no energy frame. The problem is all other frames are a subset of frame c.
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2017 22:55:21Really. What did he call it?A medium that transferred information.
You keep making a straw man argument.
What we view with light does not represent a valid interpretation of events.
The math from your frame is as close as you can get visually. To believe events happen in the order you view them is a belief in a infinite speed of light. If light were infinite we could not distinguish objects at all. Beyond 13.6 billion light years by our frame light is a homogenous mixture that does not allow for images.
Quote from: David Cooper on 05/08/2017 22:55:21If you understood it correctly you would stop talking about a frame cWhat moves the electron? You do not have a clue to that let alone fractal views of relative c for a frame of mass.
What you view by observed position is equally true.
Your fractal view is your measurement to relative c frame.
All frames measure the same relative SOL.
The funny thing is that has to be if you measure light speed with light. You cannot measure something if what you are measuring is part of the measurement. This takes a depth of understanding.
Yes you are being logical to your understanding. Fully logical might be beyond anyone's understanding.
phyti set a scenario and asked if you agreed with his opinion. Yes I agree with his opinion. Do you consider it weird to agree with someone's opinion? That might be telling.
The math's are the same. Main stream might be prejudice about an absolute frame but SR does not discriminate and neither did Einstein in his 1920 papers. Main stream ignored him after that. Your beef is with main stream not SR per say.
Lets take two observers 180 degrees apart.
There are two objects between them that are separated. The two observers are A and B. The two objects are C and D. Event one C flashes and reflects off of D. A observer sees C flash than D reflect. So observer A views C than D. Observer B views C and D simultaneous by position. The reason is because when C event reaches D both the flash event and the reflection travel at the same rate to observer B.Nothing is un-happening because of your observed position. They are two different positions. No view with light is God's eye valid. You can never view the present. Only the God's eye position is the present. I believe in Relativity and not in the God's eye view.
No view is valid
Each are different a million different frames not the same as a single universe.
Normally, in this case, means the qualified people who tell everyone what SR is and who would ban you from physics forums if you told them they are wrong about what SR is and what Einstein said it is. You do not represent the mainstream on SR, but you don't represent Einstein either. He attached some very specific dogma to it which excludes the existence of an absolute frame
You are misusing the word frame by calling c a frame.
Did he call it a frame? Why are you calling it a frame when it is not a frame?
You clearly still don't understand how the diagrams work and what they represent - they show the God view and remove all the distortions that come from communication delays.
You're not even in the argument - you still misunderstand the basics. Forget about what can be seen and what can't be seen. The issue is about when things happen relative to other events at other locations
We're talking about relativity and not about what moves an electron. It doesn't matter how you move an electron - it makes no difference to the event coordination issues.
What do you mean by fractal? I can't see any connection with the subject
and all but one of them get it wrong because they base the measurements on a false assumption
This just shows how far you are from even beginning to understand the issue I've been discussing. You're fixated on light communication limitations and can't see beyond that.
That's as good as claiming that the universe doesn't exist.