61
New Theories / Re: Split: Attempts to falsify relativity
« on: 20/02/2021 06:07:06 »QuoteThere are no biases in what I said there: the clocks in question are following straight paths at constant speed, and some of them are certainly ticking at a lower rate than the central clockThat’s a bias, just to point one out. Relative to any given clock, the central one is not ticking faster. The bias is the assumption that there is an actual tick rate, without which the frame-ambiguous statement above is not meaningful. I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, but I’m saying it’s a bias of yours to which I’ve become accustomed. All your proofs seem to rely heavily on this assumption, so any inconsistency you find is probably evidence against this new assumption.
It isn't a bias. We have a circling clock which is certainly ticking at half the rate of the central clock on average, and for it to do so, some of those clocks on tangents to its path have to be ticking at half the rate of the central clock too, or slower.That's simply a fact. If none of them are doing so, you have light moving at different speeds in the same direction along parallel paths for different clocks. There's no bias or assumption here: it's simply mathematical fact, and your bias is preventing you from recognising that because you're allowing your belief to override what mathematics actually requires. We shouldn't even need to discuss the asymmetry of probability because the case is already proven here. If clock T1 (one of eight on tangents) is ticking faster than clock A (central), then T5 is guaranteed to be ticking less than half as often as clock A. No matter how you cut the cake, there's a clock here that isn't accelerating which is certainly ticking slower than clock A, just as we know that clock B is doing on average.
Quote
QuoteThe absolute frame of relevance is the local absolute frame in which light travels at c in all directions relative to an object at rest in that frame. That is the one I'm working with here.Why local?
Because the universe is expanding, so the absolute frame shifts as you move around. The absolute absolute frame might exist as one in which the universe expands, but that's another story.
Quote
You’re the one that says LET maintains Euclidean geometry, which sounds like you meant Minkowskian. Are you saying the absolute frame does not order all events in reality, only the local ones? Didn’t you say that any theory should be discarded if it isn’t a model of the universe? I don’t agree with that, but here you are pushing something that only works locally and then turning around and rejecting the validity of SR when it doesn’t describe the entire universe (something it never claims to do).
There are different kinds of absolute frame. Discussing the absolute absolute one takes us to something we can't pin down as we can't see outside the universe. The absolute one (which we should maybe call the local absolute frame) is the one in which the an object is at rest in if light moves at c in all directions relative to it (or at a reduced speed locally measured as c, if we take into account gravity wells slowing light).
Quote
QuoteIf we have clock A as the stay-at-home twin, clock B as the travelling twin, clock C moving to the right and clock D moving to the left, then we use clock B like the circling clock to prove that either clock C or clock D must be ticking at a lower rate than clock A.Taken as an absolute statement, it seems wrong. C could be moving at .1c left, D at .1c right, and A moving at .2c in any direction since it is completely unspecified above. So I cannot agree.
You can assign any speeds you like and it will remain correct, once you take into account that B moves at the same speed as C (and in the same direction) during one leg of its trip, and then at the same speed and direction as D during the other leg. If I didn't state that this was the case, it was possible to work out that this must be the case as this is an equivalent case to the previous circling system where the T clocks travel at the same speed as B when moving together. In the straight-line version, we have C and D playing the equivalent role of T clocks.
Quote
Taken as a statement relative to the assumed frame in which A is stationary, A by definition is stationary, and any clock in motion in any direction relative to that frame is going to tick slower relative to the A clock. The speeds and direction don’t matter. So it is true pretty much by definition, without need for all the extra details.
Taken any other way and you’re mixing frames without explicit references, and the whole scenario is meaningless. Try again, but with care to say it precisely.
The point here is that all observers agree that B ticks half as often as A on average (in the straight-line case as well in the circling case), so it is certainly ticking at a lower rate some of the time. C and D are forced to tick at the same rate as B, one on each leg of B's trip, and that forces one of them to tick at a lower rate than A too. We don't know which, but we do know that one of them is ticking at a lower rate full stop: it is not also ticking at a faster rate. To have it tick at a faster rate you have to change frame, but that means changing the speed of a light pulse (travelling through the system along the line all the action takes place on) relative to the clocks, so it's you that mixes frames when you try to have your cake and eat it. You want both C and D to be ticking both faster than A and slower than A, but if you have one, you cannot have the other.
Quote
B isn’t described well at all in your statement, but I assume B is going left-right relative to A and not some other direction. He’s got 3D of directions from which to choose after all.
I referred to it as the straight-line case because all the action takes place along that line.
Quote
The point was to demonstrate asymmetry of probability. Have yet to see mention of that.
Again the point is already proved without needing to go into the probability asymmetry issue. The only reason for going there is to try to help overcome the theory-induced blindness that stops you seeing that your frame mixing is a mathematically illegal move. If you pick a clock randomly from C and D, the odds are that you have picked a clock that's ticking slower than clock A.
Quote
Assuming C and D are moving at .866c relative to A (you didn’t say it), then they’re both ticking at half rate relative to frame A and there's no average or probability involved.
There's no guarantee that clock A is stationary. If you consider all possible speeds of A, then in more than half of all cases, C will be ticking at a lower rate than A, and in more than half of all cases, D will be ticking at a lower rate than A.
Quote
Relative to an arbitrary frame, this isn’t so. Let’s suppose for simplicity that C is stationary. Relative to that frame, A is ticking at 0.5, C at 1.0 and D (moving at .99c) ticks at at a rate of 0.14 for a C-D average of 0.57 which is actually higher than the A rate of 0.5, not half of it.
Did you even get out a calculator? This is what I mean about you guessing.
See my previous answer: there are more cases in which a random choice will lead to a clock ticking at a lower rate being selected than there are for a higher rate being selected.
Quote
So ‘calculate and prove’ means guess, and incorrectly at that. I can’t call it incorrect mathematics because I didn’t see any, rigorous or otherwise.
See my previous two answers. There is not a symmetry of probability when you make a random choice. And like I said before, the case is already proven without even needing to look at the issue of probabilities because you're making a mathematically illegal move every time you mix frames and change the speed of the aforementioned light pulse relative to all the clocks. That is why different frames are fundamentally incompatible with each other: if one is correct, all the others are necessarily wrong because they have different speeds for that light pulse relative to all the clocks. If you take one statement from one frame ("C is ticking faster than A") and another from another frame ("D is ticking faster than A") you are violating a mathematical rule by tolerating a contradiction: you have that pulse of light move at different speeds relative to all those clocks at the same time when you mix frames in that way. That's always been the big mistake made by people who think that STR works: Einstein made that error and a whole lot of others copied it without realising what the consequences are, and everyone else ever since has just taken it as a valid move because all those big beasts of physics before them set a precedent for accepting it, but mathematics has never accepted it because it's an illegal move. You can't get away with it with sounds in air, and that's obvious because the medium is directly detectable, but even if you hide the medium and remove your ability to send faster-than-sound signals, there's still a trace of that medium in the way the speed of sound is governed: you can see there that different frames are incompatible with each other because a frame change leads to the speed of a sound pulse relative to the sound clocks changing, and that means it's no longer the same system. That is the crucial point, and the exact same thing applies to the light-in-space case: the magical medium that supposedly isn't a medium governs the speed of the light pulse relative to the clocks and it can't support more than one speed for it relative to any of those clocks at the same time. As soon as you mix frames, you have the light pulse moving relative to itself. I don't know what stops people seeing that, but they simply aren't simulating the action correctly in their head.
Quote
QuoteIf we start with clock A and then pick randomly between clocks C and D, we will probably choose a clock that's ticking at a lower rate than clock A.No frame reference again.
That's because it's all frames of reference being considered here: the whole lot of them collectively.
Quote
Hand waving and talking of biases aside, you’ve not shown what I asked. What does ‘involved in the action’ mean?
The actual time it spends on running its leg of the relay race (as opposed to the number of clock ticks it makes during that time) - if you factor that in, it serves as another way to bias or unbias it, just as with your bit about B spending more time travelling with D than with C in one scenario. It's a morass of biases which take a lot of time to assess, but none of this should be necessary to look at in the first place because you're already breaking a fundamental rule of mathematics before we even consider probabilities - all of this stuff about probabilities is just an attempt to help you see that there's an asymmetry their to try to unlock your mind to make you doubt STR enough to stop it shackling your thinking, because then you might then be able to see the mathematical illegality of frame mixing. As it stands though, your beliefs override your ability to recognise that every time. I had hoped that when you looked at my paper showing how absolute speeds can be pinned down in expanding space, that might unlock you enough to start to see what's going on here, but no: you just told me in a pm that STR doesn't need to apply to the real universe and that everyone knows it doesn't! So why is everyone still worshiping it? If it doesn't fit our universe, it's plain wrong, and we already knew that from its inability to conform to the rules of mathematics.
Quote
From A’s viewpoint, why would any clock arranged evenly in a circle be ‘represented’ more than another? It’s faster than the threshold absolute speed or not. There’s nothing else to it.
That's all part of a discussion about trying to cancel out the biases. The fact that won't be overturned by any tinkering with biases is that there are as many possible cases where clock C is ticking faster than clock A as there are possible cases where clock D is ticking faster than clock A, but there are extra possible cases where clock A is ticking faster than both clock C and clock D. That's the only thing you need to consider to see the asymmetry in the probabilities: in a large enough sample size of cases when you choose a random clock C or D to compare with their clock A, you will more likely choose a clock that's ticking at a lower rate than that clock A. We can discard all the other stuff about this in the discussion about the probabilities as none of them can override this no matter how much they're biased.
Quote
I thought you were choosing a ‘random clock’, which from frame A sounds like a choice of completely arbitrary direction to for .866c of velocity. Correct me if you mean something else by your words.
You're taking a random speed for clock A and choosing randomly between clock C and clock D to compare with it. Do that with a large enough sample and you will choose more cases where clock A is ticking faster than your chosen clock than the opposite.
Quote
Still, my gut is moved after thinking about it. I think it is 50%. I thought of a little proof. I’m willing to accept the statement, despite your lack of rigorous demonstration of it. I’ll share the thinking if you don’t want to give it a shot yourself. Your guesses are not always wrong.
The important points I make are not guesses in any way. Once we get into areas where biases can be introduced, I have taken some shortcuts without checking so carefully because even if I get them wrong, they cannot overturn the argument.
Quote
You still haven’t demonstrated ‘asymmetry of probability’.
I did in the previous post, and again here: go up three answers.
[quoteThe probability goes to 50/50 with the 1D case.[/quote]
It doesn't. There are extra cases where both C and D are ticking slower than A, and whenever you make random choices with those, A wins out.