Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 4th, 2018, 4:29 pm
When you talk here, and on your website, about your imagined necessity for this block to be somehow "generated", as it were, from the bottom up, you reveal (it seems to me) a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of models and theories in physics.
Spin. Theories are attempts to explain reality, and SR fails to do that. It should be thrown out, but you cling to it while rejecting a rational alternative theory that accounts for the facts without depending on magic. Physics isn't supposed to be doing magic.
I could speculate as to why that is. I could try to link it to your apparent very strange objectification of other non-physical concepts, like "hate", in other topics. These might indicate your inability to get your head around the idea of an abstraction - something that represents relationships between observables but isn't an observable itself. But then I'd be going down your route of repeated speculations as to the state of mind of my interlocutor. This is against the rules of the forum for good reason.
I've only discussed the state of your mind as a way of spelling out that I'm not making any claims about lack of intelligence on your part. That's important because I don't want it to be taken as an insult. You are falling to pieces on the maths not because you can't do the maths, but because you don't like what it says. As for the issue of "hate", I've simply used the word the way it's currently used - it refers to things which generate terrorism and other abuses. Ten thousand people were killed by people acting on hate in a holy text recently, but some people would rather defend that hate than defend the people who are murdered because of it. Note that I never attack the people who have bought into a religion which propagates hate - I simply condemn the hate and expect them to do likewise and to demonstrate that they oppose it by getting rid of it so that it stops generating more and more genocides. Is it wrong to think that this is the right way forwards for a peaceful world? God's hate should not be tolerated by anyone - if there was a God, he would expect his hate to be rejected by good people and be angry with them if they cling to it.
As I've said before, the reason why you alone concern yourself with "event-meshing failures" is that the concept represents your misunderstanding of what a 4D spacetime graph is and what the concept of a worldline means.
You're mixing models - in set zero models it's not an issue, but event-meshing failures occur in set 1 models. You won't discuss the different models though because you can see that proper, rigorous analysis destroys SR.
If you want to show me I'm wrong, you need to write a program to simulate the same simple event that my simulation covers and show how you avoid event-meshing failures while generating the block. You won't manage it because it's impossible.
I could write a program to demonstrate more clearly, using animation, where you're going wrong in our considerations of the "twin paradox" involving 4 clocks. It would illustrate that each of the 3 experiments transforms into the other, without changing the relative velocities within the experiment, by changing the frame from which the experiment is considered. This is what I've previously explained in words.
You would just reproduce the same cheating models as everyone else, using LET as a mechanism, but changing frame whenever it suits you and pretending that events unhappening and rehappening isn't a problem. And you won't produce event-meshing failures unless you make the program run all clocks at the same ticking rate, so you're not even talking about the right thing here - changing frame doesn't change anything in set 1 models because they're Lorentz invariant, which leads to the exact same event-meshing failures in all frames.
But I'd probably write it in C# using MS Visual Studio. It would be quite a bit of work for me to write it in a form that I could easily share with you. And I'm almost certain that it would do no good. So the effort doesn't seem worthwhile.
It would do no good because you've already explained how you would cheat. The simulation needs to show how to grow a block universe in order of causation, and to avoid event-meshing failures you either have to apply different rates for causation on different paths using an absolute frame mechanism or you end up with a model generating contradictions.
The speed of light as measured by all observers is a constant.
But the speed of light relative to them is not a constant.
I've described, briefly, how this was arrived at empirically elsewhere.
It isn't disputed. It simply isn't the answer to the right question.
if the speed of light is measured to be the same by observers who are moving relative to each other, something interesting must be happening to distance and time.
Nothing exotic is happening to either. Moving clocks simply run slow and their atoms settle closer together in the direction of travel (and the components of atoms do likewise).
If you start with the arena's frame and an object at rest in it, when you switch to a frame moving at 0.99c relative to the arena, you now assert that the speed of light relative to that same object as 0.01c in one direction and 1.99c in the opposite direction.
We assert no such thing. This is where you keep going wrong.
I know you don't assert such a thing, but that's where you go wrong. You reject all frame measurements of the speed of light relative to objects that aren't at rest in that frame. You simply deny them because you've been brainwashed into thinking that's the right way to do things.
The invariance of the physical constants which represent the observed strengths of the electric and magnetic forces leads directly to the invariance of the physical constant that is 'c', via a very simple mathematical relationship. So the invariance of 'c', as measured by any observer is a direct result of the invariance of these other constants as measured by any observer.
You aren't talking about the speed of light relative to them. (Or if you are, then you're making a serious error.)
Now we look at the logical consequences of this. The empirical validity of Maxwell's Equations (demonstrated by such things as Faraday's experiments) means that we cannot assert that anyone will measure the speed of light to be anything other than 'c'.
Not disputed, but not relevant either.
So, logically, we have to examine more carefully the elements of the concept of speed - change in position divided by change in time. And what logically comes out of that is that there is no single, universal "Newtonian" time.
No - that comes out of it illogically. Not logically. It's a belief system based on blind assumption.
Without ever clearly defining your concept of "underlying reality".
You go on a trip away and back and measure your clock to be ticking faster than a stay-at-home clock at all times, but when you get home you find that your clock has run slower than the stay-at-home one. That tells you that your measurements while you were travelling were misleading. The final result reveals the truth about the underlying reality of what happened during your trip.
If you stick to the business of physics and follow the logical consequences of observations you have no contradictions.
Asserting that repeatedly does not overcome the mathematical problem that you are faced with.
D = S
L = E
D > L
Therefore S > E
But you want it to be E > S. Your position is bonkers.
You haven't defined what you mean by a "normal person" but is seems clear that you mean a person using common sense and instinct. Common sense is derived from human-scale surface-of-the-Earth experience. It has fooled people for many years. That is why Aristotle's physics was replaced by Newton's.
A normal person is someone like any competent mathematician who declares that S > E in the above rather than E > S.
Any person who is capable of following a logical argument, and thinking very, very carefully about precisely what is being done when we measure/observe things, can see that there are no contradictions in Special Relativity.
E > S in the above context is your contradiction. Are you blind?
...but you've been hypnotised into not being capable of seeing them.
More state-of-mind speculations.
You are denying a contradiction that's sitting in plain sight right before you. Do you expect people not to wonder about how you can fail to see it? No one here would believe for a moment that it's down to stupidity because you're clearly very capable, and yet you trip over this every single time. Why? I'm trying to get you to ask yourself why you're rejecting sound maths. I'm trying to break the hypnotist's spell.
Given your strange comments here, and your strange comments about the concept of "hate" in a different topic (seemingly trying to objectify it into an unambiguously measurable quantity), I could come up with my own theories as to your state of mind. But I don't do that. I stick to the substance of the argument. Please do likewise.
Hate is perfectly measurable. We can see it in Nazi literature and the devastating impact that it had on the people who were exposed to it, demonising and dehumanising particular groups to the point where people could slaughter them and think of them as nothing more than vermin. You find it strange that I don't want to see that being repeated again and again forever with a never-ending series of genocides? I want a peaceful world, but you're trying to make out that that makes me weird. It may have escaped your notice, but hate speech is now being banned in a great many places and people can end up in court for posting it. There is an imbalance though on which hate is classed as hate and which is excused on holy grounds, and I object to the difference because it enables any amount of genocidal hate to be protected by tying it to an imaginary God.
The "underlying reality" is that which is invariant for all observers - the things that do not change when we change observers. It is the thing that all observations have in common. The business of physics is to discover it. The thing which is invariant between all observers is the laws of physics. That's the whole point of them. The speed of light, as measured by any observer/experimenter, either by measuring the strengths of the electric and magnetic fields or more directly, occurs as a constant in the laws of physics. Therefore the speed of light is constant as measured by all observers.
That's a good start, but some of the underlying reality is never revealed, as are the asymmetries between frames. The physics appears the same to naive physicists, but it is actually different.
No. To be clear: they calculate each other to be running slow based on their respective measurements during the trip. When re-united they observe that the travelling clock has ticked fewer times than the clock that stayed at home. This doesn't mean that anything was misleading.
It does - it means that the measurements indicating that the travelling clock was ticking faster than the non-travelling clock were misleading. The only measurement that can be trusted is the final one when the clocks are reunited.
It is a simple consequence of the fact that the travelling observer switched between two different inertial reference frames. Halc and Tamminen have already spelled this out with a numerical example. I have now repeated that example with more detail.
Voodoo. You're changes of frames are done to change the physics, asserting a new speed of light relative to any companion of the travelling clock who keeps going when the clock turns back.
I'll stick to describing what is actually empirically observed and what abstract models and theories can be logically constructed to describe and predict those observations. Rather than just citing model numbers.
You'll go on mixing incompatible models so that you can pick and choose as it suits you, failing to see that every single one of the possible SR models is broken.
The static eternal block models don't run time but rely on magical creation.
A meaningless statement to make about a mathematical model.
It isn't meaningless at all. The set zero models don't contain time at all - instead, they have a "time" dimension which is nothing more than a space dimension with a requirement that all objects are infinitely long in that dimension. That's all it is - a ridiculous mathematical abstraction which eliminates the contradictions by eliminating time.
The models that run time without clocks running slow always create event-meshing failures.
There is no such thing, in this context, as an event meshing failure.
Denial of a logical necessity.
See the descriptions elsewhere of what happens when the travelling observer changes inertial reference frames.
If D > L, S > E. That's a mathematical necessity in the models in question.
If you change the reference frame from which you are considering the relative movements of the clocks/observers in the experiment you do not change those relative movements. Changing the way that you view the experiment does not changes the facts of the experiment - the relationships between its participants. This is what you seem not to be able to get your head around.
I understand that in full, but my understanding of what's happening goes beyond that into an area where you refuse to go, which means that you don't see the asymmetries that are there. You just produce a contradiction instead, but deny it.
Your concept of there being "no running time" is physically meaningless. You keep forgetting that a 4 dimensional graph of the worldline of an object is an abstract mathematical construction.
I'm very aware that it's an abstract mathematical construction - it has no time in it at all. It's an extreme contrivance designed to hide the contradictions, but it comes at the cost of depending on magical (irrational) generation.
Fact B: it is mathematically impossible for that clock to have run slower than the stay-at-home clock on average without ticking slower than the stay-at-home clock on one or other of those legs.
No it isn't, because you are not considering what is observed by the two clocks during the transition between reference frames of the travelling clock and (apparently) not carefully considering the difference between what each clock directly observes of the other clock, and what each clock infers from those observations from the point of view of a particular reference frame.
Fact B is a fact. One of the clocks ran slow, and if it didn't run slow during one leg of its trip, it must have run slow on the other. If you can't even accept that though, you've already parted company with mathematics even before you try to insist that D > L and E > S.
I think it's best to look at Halc's and Tamminen's description of this, with specific numbers used, and then look at the more explicit description that I will post later, using those same numbers.
No, I think it's best to look directly at the simple maths of it and to remember that we are not allowed to mix models here - finding a way out that uses a set zero model does not save a set 2 model from this attack.
That is for rational people an undeniable asymmetry. This conditional truth means exactly what it says, and no amount of establishment voodoo can override it.
Symmetry means invariance through transformation. We all learn about it in the context of geometry when we're at school, considering geometrical transformations - rotations and reflections.
If you want symmetry through transformations, then you have the following symmetry:-
Frame 1: D = S, L = E, D > L, S > E
Frame 2: L = E, D = S, E > S, L > D
That's your symmetry. However, you want D > L and E > S, and you can't have that in a single frame. Reality also bans you from having it in the underlying reality, because to try to have D > L and E > S, you'd have to deny that D = S and L = E, but we know for certain that D = S and L = E.
A measurement which is accurately made has the same status as any other measurement, by any other observer, that is also accurately made.
A measurement of the relative ticking rates of two clocks moving relative to each other where they don't start together and end together is less reliable than a measurement of the relative ticking rates of two clocks where they do start together and end together. One of these measurements proves the others to be misleading, so you're inventing an equal status for them which is not only not justified in science, but which goes directly against what science should be saying. One measurement is clearly superior.
We take them all at face value and then try to find what they have in common. The thing that they have in common is referred to as the laws of physics. It is a set of abstract concepts that describe patterns (commonalities) between observations. That's it's job.
When they're shown to be misleading, it's the job of physics to accept that they merely describe the appearance of what's going on but that they do not always describe the underlying reality accurately.
The existence of the underlying reality is revealed by a clock running slow after going on a journey and returning. It runs slow on average, but you switch frame between making measurements and believe that it's always running at full speed while all other clocks are magically running slower unless they're co-moving with yours. You are incapable of recognising the mathematical necessity for your clock to run slower than the stay-at-home clock on at least one of the two legs of your trip,...
TODO
Having trouble with that bit? I don't wonder why you had to leave it till later.
I assert no such superiority. As already explained, a measurement which is accurately made has the same status as any other measurement, by any other observer, that is also accurately made. We take them all at face value and then try to find what they have in common. The thing that they have in common is referred to as the laws of physics. The laws of physics are, if you insist on using this term, the proposed "underlying reality".
There is a clear superiority of this measurement because all communication delays have been eliminated, so we can't be fooled by it - one of the clocks actually ran slow. The measurement(s) that suggested that it was running faster than the other clock when it was actually running slower than it is/are misleading.
The point is exactly as I stated earlier. If my clock is ticking faster than Lorentz's during the first leg of his trip, your clock is ticking faster than Einstein's on the fist leg of your trip. Alternatively, If your clock is ticking more slowly than Einstein's on the first leg of your trip, then my clock is ticking more slowly than Lorentz's on the first leg of his trip. Either way, its asymmetrical. You are incapable of accepting these mathematical necessities,...
See various other comments. You've failed to grasp what is observed, and what is inferred from those observations by the observers, when an observer changes inertial reference frames.
Changing frame is cheating. We have D=S, L=E, D>L, S>E for one frame, and D=S, L=E, E>S, L>D for the other. You want D>L and E>S, but you can't have it without destroying the D=S and L=E. You fail this maths test every single time.
...and that's why you're doing religion rather than physics.
Irrelevant comment.
Not at all - you're rejecting what mathematics tells you, and in doing so you are no longer doing physics. You're disqualifying yourself from physics.