Halc wrote: ↑September 8th, 2018, 12:05 pmThe rest of us use the physics concept of the word, and it is very relevant in this context. I cannot say 'accelerated reference frame' if you think that means a frames that has sped up. If you're going to redefine a word for a paragraph or a post, be explicit about that in each post where you do it. Yes, it would be better to use zakh and voop for this different thing, since I still need to use the word the way physics defines it. Or better yet, use 'increasing speed' which is what you actually seem to want to convey. 'Acceleration' does not mean that in physics.
My use of the word "decelerate" in the same sentence as "accelerated" gave you all the information you needed to know how to interpret both they way I used them. They were also only mentioned en passent as I moved on to mentioning the bit about the impossibility of a clock slowing its ticking while at the same time speeding up its ticking. That's the bit that should have woken you up, but instead you fixated on the acceleration issue and unnecessary definition games.
Also, you claim that this stuff is taking us into metaphysics and that physics isn't involved in this area (regardless of the reality), but if that's the case, you should not be trying to force me to use physics terminology in place of general terminology more appropriate to my field where I have a superior role in determining the rational validity of theories. Compromise is necessary with this, and yes - if you want your "accelerated reference frame" to be understood and think it isn't being understood properly, you have to say so.
I don't know how you can have studied relativity without the basics underneath you. You don't even think there is a significance to the difference between speed (scalar) and velocity (vector), or how to do arithmetic with the latter.
I have expertise that you lack, so do you want to be belittled on the basis that you can't handle mirror angles and effective mirror angles correctly? It works both ways. I don't care how many holes there are in your knowledge - they can be filled in as we go along, and the same applies to mine.
This whole paragraph shows that you seem baffled by a trivial situation. The clocks are in the same location. They are synced in any possible perspective you can imagine. They're probably the same clock since there's no point in having two if one can do the job. To initially sync two adjacent clocks, the one merely has to set itself to the time of the other. No signal is needed.
I'm not baffled at all - I'm just seeing something that you've missed, but I'm not going to bother showing you what it is right now because it'll be more fun to let you trip over it again later in a spectacular way. But I will say now that if you're synchronising two adjacent clocks that are adjacent and not in exactly the same place, you will rely on signals moving between them.
OK, each of you has put an origin at an arbitrary location of choice. Now what. Each only knows where his own origin is. What do you write on the envelope?
For my purposes, I don't care about the postie finding the right door. What matters in my argument is that the different origins applied to the same frame are co-moving, and the fact that objects at those locations are co-moving proves that the origins are co-moving.
You need to say where your origin is (since apparently you resists just saying where you are) and then go from there. Even that is unnecessary. Specification of a known event is enough to get the mail here, but you can't do that either.
If you want the mail to be delivered correctly, you either need to use a shared coordinate system or swap the details and work out how to convert between them.
I'm persisting with you because you assert that we have a location. Been about 6 posts now, and you've not told me your location.
You need to ask the fabric of space what my location is. I told you long ago that that information isn't accessible to me, but that the universe knows.
I assert that locations are only relative to other things whose location is equally not known. There is no possible objective address that can be written on the envelope that gets the mail delivered here.
There would be an objective address for the universe to use, if it was able to process ideas and measure things.
The alien doesn't actually have to deliver anything here since he's probably too far away to do it. I just want him to know where we are. If you accept that it cannot be done, then I need to know what you mean by 'location' because the circular 'we are where we are' that you gave doesn't tell me a different definition.
I've already made it more than clear that we cannot access the information needed to pin down our positions in the space fabric. To do that, we'd have to break relativity.
The comoving frame would be needed, yes. All large-scale diagrams of the universe use it, but none of them are absolute. They always put the origin here, which makes it relative.
You can make diagrams with the origin anywhere you like, so there is no such restriction. All you're doing is picking a frame and treating it as the absolute frame. There are further complications on the scale of the universe though as the absolute frame will be different in different places if the space fabric is expanding.
The topic suddenly seems to shift mid-paragraph:
That's because I keep trying to move it back to the point that the argument was originally about instead of going off on irrelevant diversions.
I was agreeing, but what do you mean by 'comoving with'. Comoving is a property, not a relation, so I don't know how I might be comoving with another object.
If two objects are co-moving, each is co-moving with the other. It's a simple transformation between wordings which allows one of the objects to be mentioned at the end rather than putting both up front.
The relative speed of two non-stationary objects in one frame is not a statement about the relative speed of the same two objects in another frame. If it was, you would have your contradiction.
And the same applies to the speed of light relative to an object. The important point is that frames make claims which contradict all other frames and that you can't make them compatible by asserting that relative speeds between light and objects from one frame carry across into other frames.
There is no possibility of more than one frame providing a true account of reality.
True account of reality is interpretational. Here is where you consistently make your mistake.
I'm not making any mistake with this at all: any two frames contradict each other and cannot both be true unless you accept contradictions and throw out a lot of mathematics by accepting that 1=2.
You mix different interpretations and find them contradictory.
I compare the claims of different frames and rule them to be incompatible because to accept them as compatible is to accept that 1=2.
In some interpretations, all frames give a true account of reality, which is no more contradictory than my left profile being a true account of what I look like as a view from above, despite them being quite seemingly contradictory images. But you are mixing statements from two interpretations. In fact you assert one of them just above.
Looking at something from different angles and creating different images of them does not generate contradictions. Looking at a frame asserting that the speed of light in all directions relative to an object is c and another frame that asserts that the speed of light in some directions relative to that same object is >c produces a contradiction. My thought experiment confirms that the speed of light relative to some objects must be >c in some directions, and thereby that any frames which assert it to be c in all directions relative to those objects are misrepresenting reality. There are fundamental contradictions in play here, and you can't wish them away by providing examples of things that aren't contradictions while pretending that they're equivalent cases.
Your reason is based on your personal views, and you don't even understand the validity of alternate views.
I'm using accepted reasoning and I'm allowing it to dictate the conclusions. My involvement is irrelevant. If you want to break the argument, you need to break the argument and not try to misrepresent it as anyone's personal views.
Your rigor falls totally apart when you mix the two views. It is OK to only accept the one view, but you cannot assert it when disproving an alternative.
A contradiction's a contradiction. I'm not mixing up anything, but am simply applying reason in the strict way that it demands to be applied.
Take the other interpretation on its own claims, and drive it to self-inconsistency. That's the rigorous way to disprove it. All you are doing in this thread is demonstrating that what you see as SR doesn't correspond to your beliefs.
What I've done is show that SR does not function in the way that's claimed on the tin when you try to run it by its own rules. It generates contradictions which render it invalid. You are incapable of breaking the argument, so you just call it personal views and hope that other people will be stupid enough to take the same lazy way out. I've encountered no shortage of people who take that lazy way out before, but the thought experiment with the light going round the ring in opposite directions shows them up - they refuse to answer the questions. I haven't directly asked you the questions, but I'm going to ask you the most important one now. Does the light moving clockwise round the ring move faster relative to the material of the ring that it's passing (while passing close to it) than the light moving anticlockwise round the ring does? (And bear in mind that we're dealing with light not slowed by a medium other than the fabric of space.)
But it does not necessarily assert that only that other frames are less real, leaving that to interpretation.
Reason shows them to be misrepresentations of reality, so there is no point in leaving it open. It's a closed issue and there is certainly no excuse for SR's metaphysical baggage being pushed and LET's shouted down. If you don't think that's happening though, just go to a physics forum and watch your perfectly reasonable posts being deleted until you get banned, or talk to one of the qualified scientists who popularise physics in the media and find that they behave in the same aggressive manner, telling you that LET was disproved a century ago. There is a massive re-education job needing to be done in the physics world to stop this abusive stuff going on and to stop misleading the public.
Another interpretational difference is the assertion of a preferred moment (the 3D model). The model is valid, but I know no named interpretation of relativity that asserts it. LET doesn't seem to. I agree that the 3D model is not compatible with interpretations where all frames are equally real, so you're going to have to drop that assertion of you want to disprove the alternative interpreation on its own grounds.
The 4D version of SR generates contradictions in the same way as its 3D equivalent - modes 2 and 3 can both represent 3D or 4D universes. All models are covered by these modes, and they show that SR doesn't function as claimed - it breaks every way you try to run it unless you take it into mode 3 where it either becomes LET or a 4D variant of it where the time dimension there is superfluous as the superiority of the time of one frame reveals a Newtonian time distinct from the "time" of the time dimension.
Your insistence on this 3D model seems quite dogmatic to me. You are totally closed minded about the alternative.
I go through all the models and show them to be broken unless they accept the addition of Newtonian time in addition to a "time" dimension and the inclusion of an absolute frame. I make the point on my page that a 4D mode 3 model is viable, but that its "time" dimension is superfluous. Of course, it isn't superfluous when you move on into GR, and that makes it possible to unite SR and GR in the same theory, but there would need to be an acceptance of there being an absolute frame and Newtonian time in addition to the "time" of the "time" dimension (this being the time tied to the absolute frame which is clearly distinct from the "time" dimension. Those are not the SR or GR that are currently being pushed, and they would not be recognised as SR or GR either.
I don't care what Einstein said here. The question was about LET possibly asserting a 3D or 4D model. Einstein didn't author LET. I don't want his or your opinion. I want what LET asserts. I didn't see the subject come up. It seems not to matter to the view.
LET's very clear - it's a 3D model which runs under Newtonian time.
I never mentioned being able to visualize the entire set at once.
I know you didn't, but I wanted to make it more imaginable as that helps to demystify what's being discussed - it's much clearer when you can picture things easily.
The game sort of depends on the inability to do that.
Only because it leaves room for confusion when the task's so big that most people can't get their head around it. There's nothing wrong with me simplifying it as the principles as to how it works must still apply if there's no cheating being done.
I'm just talking about the abstract mathematical set, not about expressing the data in an obscene pile of paper somewhere in this universe. You asked for an example, and that was mine. The pile of paper would not be the abstract set. The pile would be a pile. Mathematicians talk about properties of the integers (a far larger set) without anybody insisting that they must be realized on paper before we can talk about them.
But the key to understanding what's actually going on here is to work out what exists and what doesn't. If you have a set of things that don't exist, that set is not altogether real. This is one of the problems with set theory, because it can promote things that don't exist into things that supposedly do exist if you get the rules of the system wrong.
What are we really dealing with here though? How does the set of legal states for this game come into being?
Again: Maybe the same way our universe is. Maybe not. Opinions vary.
I don't care how it exists or if it exists. I care that it is a structure that illustrates the properties I wanted illustrated. If and how it exists is irrelevant to my being able to discuss those properties.
I think you should care about whether it exists or not. I would suggest to you that the positions in the game don't exist until they are actualised during a game. Until that happens, they are merely potential positions that have yet to be realised. Your set of valid positions is thus hiding the reality that it is initially a set of positions that don't exist yet because they've never been actualised, and they are only actualised during the application of a running process in which real causation is in play. Your set is therefore a set of non-existent things (initially) and it is not a real thing - it doesn't really exist at the start and only becomes a set of all valid positions once all valid positions have been actualised by a running process.
It already exists as soon as the rules exist, and indeed it arguably existed before the rules were drawn up.
Yes, very good. Maybe our own universe is exactly like that.
And here you are equating the universe (or considering it being equated) to something that doesn't exist.
It is abstract to us. To some other entity capable of abstraction in another universe, we are the abstraction. I find 'abstract' to be a relation. I think in those terms because everything seems to make more sense that way. But again, that's just me.
If there are other universes out there, they aren't an abstraction any more than we are. Abstract things don't exist. A circle is a pattern/shape, but there are no physical circles. Positions in a game are patterns, so they don't physically exist either, but merely have real things represent or conform to them. This puts them in a different category from the physical content of the universe, and different rules apply to each.
But it has temporal properties fairly identical to the structure that is our own universe.
It is timeless, but time and causality do come into play when the positions are actualised and stop just being potentials.
I don't care about our physical representations of any members. I am talking about the abstract set, never about anything physical.
But the causality only comes in when there are physical representations turning them from potential positions to realised ones. Up until then, all you have is a set of positions/patterns that don't exist.
but the members themselves remain in a state that has no substance because they are just possibilities.
Yes, quite like our own universe.
Quite unlike our universe which contains things that are real and where real causality is in operation.
Those possibilities are real to the members. Each chess state has a real set of where all the pieces are, and the moves leading up to that state are in the past (designated real or not) are somewhat determinable, and alternate moves are not real to the chess state in question, and future moves are indeterminate.
But it's a set of things that don't exist yet. So long as they are unrealised potentials, they aren't real things, and no befores or afters have been played through for them.
They merely exist as things that could be calculated, and they have not been calculated.
Again, just like the states of our own universe.
Our universe is real, and real causation is active within it as a running process. Even with QM there are absolute realities as to what waves are doing and they are not just potentials in a set of non-existent things that might exist some day.
Here (about 50 posts ago) I predicted you would not accept the example, but you said you wanted it anyway. There it is.
I wanted it, and I greatly appreciate you supplying it - it's been highly illuminating.
So here you go with your pet assertion again.
You asserted that causation is at play in a static set of things which don't actually exist in any real form until they've been actualised through a running process with real things representing them, and even then they only exist in the way that patterns and shapes exist. They are part of a set of abstract things which play by different rules, so it isn't valid to equate the two kinds of things. When we call the members of the set what they actually are (i.e. nothing), we then see that the set only contains potential patterns which can only be actualised in any sense by representations of them coming into being. There is no causality at work in this set of potential patterns.
The states are very much ordered, and I never suggested that any of the states had 'been done'. Each state has a causal relationship (but not a determined relationship) with the prior state, just like today's relationship with yesterday. That's the non-flowing way of defining causality. It doesn't make sense to you because you are mixing in a different interpretation of causality, the same mistake you make when finding contradictions in SR.
Your model of reality has an error in it where you're counting things that don't exist as things that exist. This comes from the dodgy rules of a particular set of rules for handling sets where defining a set of things can be asserted to bring something into existence even though nothing real exists in the set.
Not asking you to accept it, but here you seem to declare your intent to refuse to consider the alternate interpretation on its own grounds.
I've considered it, and I've found that a stunt is being pulled in which things that don't exist are being asserted to exist. My set of all the things that could exist is another example of such a set - the members of that set don't exist until they are actualised. This set contains the space elevator, but there isn't a real one yet (unless aliens have them, but we can simply translate the idea to some other device that no aliens yet have, so it's fair to treat this as a non-existent item at the moment). Once things exist, they move into the set of real things, and if they cease to exist, they move into the set of things that have existed but no longer exist. Once no representations of a position in a game exists, that too becomes a position that doesn't exist, returning to the set of potential positions.
Most proponents of the 4D interpretations consider the structure to be actual, so since a lot of your post focuses on your bias that somebody else's view cannot be actual,
I didn't rule it out entirely - I only ruled out SR. A 4D theory similar to SR could be viable, but it goes against the metaphysical dogma tied to SR. A block universe could be real too, but a theory with that has to be able to generate the block in order of causation.
... why don't you go with the assumption that there is an actual 4D structure with no flowing going on, and that each reference frame is just an abstract orientation of the axes assigned to that very real structure, and each frame is just as real as the one non-inertial frame where the expansion seems balanced. What contradiction with itself results from that?
There is no possibility of real causation in that model.
If you don't accept these, then you're not really questioning relativity, but unrelated philosophical topics such as origins of reality, which are completely in question in any interpretation of the properties of this thing with unexplained existence.
I won't accept any model with fake causation in it - it has to be able to run if effects are to be caused by their proposed causes. You have shown me something interesting which supposedly has a causality that doesn't run built into it, but it turns out that it's based on dodgy ideas which promote things that don't exist to the status of things that do exist. This is a really useful insight though which is important to my work, so I'm very grateful to you for providing it. You have been extremely helpful and the time that you've put into your posts here is much appreciated as you have made this thread one of the more valuable ones that I've been involved in anywhere.