Halc wrote: ↑September 12th, 2018, 11:30 pmOh, you classify growing block as 3D block. I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense. That is a viable metaphysical model, but it is still asserting a preferred moment, so not the Minkowski model that lacks any preferred moment.
4D models can have it too. It may be though that the Minkowski model itself is specifically a mode zero model which is also an eternal static block model which accounts only for a universe that is never generated in order of causation, in which case the 4D mode 1,2 and 3 models are distinct from it.
Of course it does - it only shows the construction phase and leaves it to your imagination to deal with the persisting block being left in its wake.
That would be two kinds of time, not just the one. I know of no named interpretation that proposes two kinds of time, but they're probably out there.
It looks as if you're pinning everything on 4D mode zero then, and that means we should return to discussing the fake causality written through the block.
You can attempt to find this 3D version contradictory, but few hold the position. Your unorthodox description is apparently that all events are in the past of a present that has long since gone on, but that is not a model of the universe since we're at the present in any model that has one. We experience flow, and the model explains that with a flowing present, not a flowing future.
Which 3D version? If it's a block version of mode 3, there's no contradiction - just two phases running under different physics, one to generate the block and another for imaginary physics within the block. If it's mode 2, there's contradiction there during the construction phase which invalidates the model before we even look at the block. If it's mode 1, there are event-meshing failures which are eliminated over time, but it's still far-fetched, and if it's 3D mode zero, an eternal static block, then the causality written through it is fake. None of the block models simplify anything - they just add complexity, and in some cases depend on magic for their creation as they lack a rational construction phase).
Steve clings to it because he isn't interpreting the depicted positions of the objects as representative of the sole valid state of the system, but rather interpreting the simulation as what would be measured in the depicted frame. But your verbal description of the simulation does not describe it that way, so I see it wasn't intended to be a representation of what is measured.
It is a representation of what is measured, but it is also depicting a proposed version of reality at a moment in time. Anyone who clings to mode 2 is tolerating contradictions and needs to recognise that they are doing so. If they don't want to tolerate contradictions, they need to shift to a different model (and have the courage to name it).
Maybe you could program in the block interpretation, hmm??? Your list of modes is hardly the only options.
I suspect you will not do it because doing so would not serve your purposes.
All the modes if treated as 3D generate the same shape of 3D block, and if treated as 4D generate the same shape of 4D block, and those two blocks are mode zero models if you want to miss out the construction phase and remove all trace of movement from them. If you want to include a construction phase for a block in order to make the causation real, you need to choose between modes 1, 2 and 3 - otherwise, you depend on magical construction.
The article takes a very defensive tone. I was amused by a section entitled: "LORENTZIAN RELATIVITY IS THE ONLY CORRECT ONE" which is immediately followed not by a discussion of how other theories are wrong, but this: "The goal of this page is to show that Lorentz's Relativity is easily explainable." Since it makes all the same predictions as 'standard' relativity, I don't see why it would be required to show this, instead of what the title proclaimed. As I said, quite the defensive tone.
I pointed you to LaFreniere to show you what you asked for, and that is someone in the LET camp and the kind of language typically used by such people.
This is not much of an endorsement. The real physicists don't hang out in them.
One of them worked at CERN, but he used the language of SR. He had no trouble understanding other people's use of LET language though.
A lot of the work was based on establishing that LET is still viable - I linked to Doug Marett's site from my page: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Conspiracy.html
A conspiracy site. Lovely.
He is referring to the way light conspires to hide the fabric of space from us.
I see it claims that LET makes different predictions than Einstein's work and Einstein's relativity is thus falsified by Sagnac effect and others, linking to interesting deeper pages full of invalid physics.
Your interpretation skills are a bit off there - it doesn't say anything of the kind. He shows that LET predicts the results of those experiments and investigates whether SR does likewise. If SR makes different predictions, it is SR that is falsified by those experiments. Naturally enough though, SR folk like to claim that SR fits the experiments too, which means they may twist things in places to make it fit them or just ignore the parts that don't fit, and that's why they don't get a tick in every box. Perhaps you could point to some invalid physics on his site (other than the invalid physics that he's attacking).
That you link to this page doesn't surprise me, but it really doesn't do much for your credibility. It's like reading a flood geology site. Is LET that poorly done that it needs this sort of support?
It is a high-quality site with high-quality information. Show me where it's broken. In some places, the wording is ambiguous and can lead to it being misinterpreted by those who just glance at it. For example, he says: "The fact that light is perceived to be exactly C (on Earth) in all inertial frames suggests that either: 1) relativity is correct, which leads us to a series of paradoxes and contradictions regarding time, or 2) That the speed of light C can change, but this change is somehow hidden from our view." In the second of those points, he isn't talking about light moving at speeds other than c, but the speed of light relative to objects.
Lorentz seemed never to have posited this passing time in his theory. The first site you link makes no mention of it. I didn't find it in the conspiracy place either, but I didn't look hard since the site doesn't seem to conform to Lorentz's ideas.
Lorentz didn't need to - it was just a continuation of the way time had been viewed previously. Marett's page absolutely conforms to Lorentz's ideas.
My page does say that the modes can all be regarded as 3D or Minkowski (4D)
Your verbal description of each mode describes them otherwise, so no, they cannot be regarded as Minkowski, which has no concept of 'has happened' for instance.
If you want to consider the 4D interpretation, drop the terminology from a different interpretation.
Regardless of what the text local to the diagram says, they can be regarded as 3D or 4D. The 4D structure in each case is identical to Minkowski's, and any of the 4D modes generating a block universe would result in something with the exact same geometry as a Minkowski Spacetime block.
Yes, no running. But the +/- buttons should still function, so the simulation could still be used to show it.
It could be used to show it, but the graphics capabilities of JavaScript aren't up to it - it can only show moving points and not lines (unless you create the lines as photos and then switch one photo for another every time you change the slant of a line.) The dots that I use are just large pieces of punctuation.
There would be just the lines, and no current positions of the objects. You've not included mode 0 in the available modes. The picture above is the closest we get, but it lacks the frame transformations. You've not shown mode 0 to make predictions inconsistent with empirical observations, or inconsistent with its own premises. You've only shown it to be inconsistent with premises of mode 3.
Running time with any of the modes will give you slices through the block, so it's easy enough to run time and imagine all the positions for each moment connected up to the next and the one before. If you have clear plastic and a marker pen, you can produce full drawings from it that way for a specific frame, then compare drawings based on different frames.
and by all three other modes if you imagine them building the block as they go.
That is not Minkowski spacetime.
Absolutely identical geometry.