Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

[David Cooper]

If one frame says something is stationary and another frame says it's moving...

Translation into correct language: If an object is stationary with respect to one frame and moving with respect to another...

You're mistranslating. It should be: If one frame says something is stationary, and that frame provides a theory of the nature of the underlying reality, and another frame says it's moving, and that frame provides a theory of the nature of the underlying reality, ...

There is a contradiction though between the claims being discussed: one frame says the object's moving and the other says it's stationary, and it isn't possible for both of those claims to be true.

THESE CLAIMS ARE NOT MADE. See above.

Those claims are automatically made whether you like it or not. All frames provide a proposed version of events which relates to an actual reality, and it either represents is correctly or is misrepresents it. Another consequence of this fact is that all frames assert that the speed of light relative to an object at rest in them is c in all directions. If you claim that there is no contradiction there, then you have necessarily accepted the standard SR dogma which you pretend doesn't exist, though only if you're pushing a set 2 model. You won't spell out which model(s) you're using though, but that's only natural because you don't want to see them being systematically blown out of the water one by one.

...the contradiction is then hidden on another level which only shows up when you ask if it's moving or stationary in the underlying reality.

What do you mean by "moving or stationary in the underlying reality"? Moving or stationary relative to what? Relative to the aether? If so, then there are no contradictions. See earlier posts.

If it's relative to the aether, then there are clearly contradictions. How can you possibly imagine otherwise?

Whether you read the word "moving" in one way or the other depends on whether you're applying a bias to it, and you're applying an SR bias.

For the last time: this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with the Special Theory of Relativity. My 10 year old son understands this very, very, very simple concept of measuring movement with respect to different reference frames, and measuring the velocity of an object relative to another object. He has never heard of the Special Theory of Relativity.

It has everything to do with SR. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, over and over again, infinitely. You tolerate contradiction. All frames are theorising about the nature of reality - the exact same reality; the only reality - and they're making contradictory claims about it.

You could accuse me of applying an LET bias to the same word, but when we look at the issue of the speed of light relative to the two objects, LET says they cannot both be c in all directions relative to both objects.

I will not accuse you of that because this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with LET. And then you're off onto the speed of light again. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the speed of light.

It has everything to do with the speed of light. The speed of light relative to a stationary object is c in all directions. The speed of light relative to a moving object isn't. You can't separate these facts.

David, I honestly don't know what's wrong with you, so I really am going to have to give up. If you can't grasp the very, very simple concept of measuring the velocity of one things relative to another thing - a concept that a 10 year old understands - without constantly bringing up the Special Theory of Relativity and the Lorentz Ether Theory and the speed of light and cults and dogma and all the rest of it I'm at a loss as to how to help you.

It's yourself you need to help: you are contradiction-blind. You told me the dogma doesn't exist, but it turns out you're running on it and don't even know it.

[David Cooper]

Lumps of clay with rulers sticking out of them do not theorize about the nature of reality. They get used by observers to measure things.
...
Lumps of clay with rulers sticking out of them do not make claims. They get used by observers to measure things.

You're playing the same old dishonest language game again. You know full well that what I'm saying is just a compact way of expressing certain ideas where when you make measurements using a frame in correct ways you become a tool of the frame, effectively speaking for it. If you measure the speed of light relative to an object in that frame in a particular direction, there is only one right answer, and that is the answer that the frame effectively asserts for that question. There are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, and each one has a single answer that can be derived from that frame, so all those answers are effectively assertions of that frame. You've been told what this use of language means before and you know full well how to translate it directly into whatever long-winded form you prefer, but you resort to language games instead as a diversion, and if you think you've wasted a lot of time, it's because you've spent almost all of it playing silly games about language.

[/quote]

If I reword your example, I can put the clear contradiction into it like this: If I observe myself to be moving with respect to the road AND take the road to be stationary in the underlying reality, but I observe myself to be stationary with respect to my car AND take the car to be stationary in the underlying reality, then I am contradicting myself

When I am driving a car, I DO NOT take my car to be stationary relative to any aether or in any "underlying reality". Nobody in the world makes that claim.[/quote]

The bits I've added are automatic extensions to what's being said if you accept that there is a single reality which all frames are attempting to describe.

Lumps of clay with rulers sticking out of them do not theorize about the nature of reality. They get used by observers to measure things.

Same dishonest game again, avoiding the issue by attacking the wording even though you know exactly how it's intended to be interpreted.

If something is not moving in one frame and is moving in another, then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not in the underlying reality which both frames are attempting to describe and we can't tell which is wrong.

Translation to correct language: If something is not moving with respect to one reference frame and moving with respect to a different reference frame... etc

You're denying the single reality which both frames are attempts to represent.

David, I know you're not going to accept any of this, no matter how many people try to explain it to you.

I'm not going to accept bad reasoning from anyone. You're going to hear all of this again some day from AGI, and it won't accept your shoddy attempts at reasoning either. You're going to be living in a world filled with devices more intelligent than any humans which will tell you that SR is an irrational, disproved theory and that LET is the only game in town, and it will remind you about your performance here. You had a chance to get there on the back of your own intelligence instead of having to be corrected by AGI.

And I know I shouldn't have spent so much time trying. I know you're going to just keep declaring that you, uniquely in the world, are thinking logically. So I will try very hard, now to let it go.

Goodbye.

I don't just claim to be thinking logically, but I prove it point by point. You, by way of contrast, rest on contradiction time and time again.

[Halc]

Each frame is theorising about the underlying reality though, and one of those frames says I'm stationary in the underlying reality while the other says I'm moving in the underlying reality. That is where the contradiction appears.

It's referring to the underlying reality. Deceptive language is language that's designed to hide the need for an underlying reality.

Relativity makes no claims about your personal vision of the underlying reality. The principle (not even the theory) says that something being stationary in a frame means that it has no velocity relative to that reference, and means nothing beyond that.

I use terms the way I do to avoid misusing them, stripping them of SR bias.

Yes, and this is mixing interpretations, something you say you don't do, and by doing so, all you do is demonstrate that the one interpretation is incompatible with the other

The terms as you use them is an invalid usage. Even the LET people make it clear when they're talking about absolute velocity/motion, as distinct from motion relative to alternate frames. Call it bias if you will, but use terms like 'absolute velocity' when you refer to them, because the definition of 'velocity' is a relation between two things.' Absolute velocity on the other hand would be a property of one thing.

[Halc]

You on the other hand are telling the adherents of some position with which you disagree what them must believe, and then that our theory is wrong.

What I do is show them where they're wrong and make it clearer and clearer to them that they're wrong by showing them more and more stark examples that destroy their position.

By telling me my own position, you are making it clear to me where you are wrong. If you want to show me wrong, you have to go with what I say. If you want to show Einstein's theory wrong, you have to go with what the theory states, not what you insist it must state.

That is classic strawman, which you repeatedly deny. You just don't see it.

I don't do strawman arguments - why would I need to?

Thank you illustrating my point.

I find errors on all manner of sites from universities and science organisations.

But not in sites you endorse, or at least not until somebody else points them out. They're easy. Selection bias can be added to your list of fallacies.

In that discussion about tides, I was up against someone who was "proving" me wrong repeatedly by quoting from a NOAA scientist's site about tides.

Yea, I saw that. Quoting a thing about centrifugal force from the 50's, even after the quote (meant for children and laymen) was retracted by said NOAA as being just wrong.

So the conflict seems to be about the metaphysical differences between the LET model (preferred frame), your model (preferred moment), and the typical Einstein interpretation with no preferred anything.

You didn't respond to this statement of mine. You included it, but only responded to a different part of the text.

I was putting across the idea that rmolnav is the genius and that I am the fool - that is the way he will read it.

I didn't take it that way on first read, but the 'superior intellect' bit was clearly aimed that way. Usage of that sort of language does come across as a tantrum ...
Steve here seems to have a better grip on his emotions than any of us. rmolnav has engaged with me now as well.

[Halc]

Pop quiz people: Find the flaw in the physics described below.

I answered that before - he claims three of the clocks agree with each other and that the one on top of the mountain is wrong, but one of his other clocks is also on top of the mountain and he's reading it incorrectly. Each part of the hand of his clock (rotating with the earth) is a different clock, ticking at different rates at different heights, but he's mistaken them all for a single clock.

Didn't see you answer this one before. Before I did the pop quiz then....
Yes, the sidereal clock on the mountain ticks at a different rate than the one on the ground, but they stay in sync despite that due to gravity dilation.

I just read far enough in that article to see that part. I thought the whole thing was about the Sagnac effect at first.

[Steve3007]

Steve here seems to have a better grip on his emotions than any of us.

To be honest, that's changed a bit as I've started to realize that the conversation with David has nothing to do with SR or LET and is simply about him flatly asserting things about such basic concepts as reference frames that aren't true, and likewise telling me what I'm saying. My disappointment that the conversation has, in that sense, been a waste of time annoys me a bit. But then at the end of our conversation he went off on an even more bizarre rant about how one day he'll get his revenge, via Artificial Intelligence, against those that have dared to defy him. That makes it clearer what we're dealing with here and easier to walk away from the conversation and look for more rational beings!

By telling me my own position, you are making it clear to me where you are wrong. If you want to show me wrong, you have to go with what I say. If you want to show Einstein's theory wrong, you have to go with what the theory states, not what you insist it must state.

The trouble is, if you're up against someone who simply tells you what you're saying, rather than constructing an argument about what you actually are saying, that's the point where rational argument becomes impossible. No matter what you say he'll just repeatedly tell you that, actually, you're saying something else and if you object, you're apparently "playing a language game".

Anyway.

Regarding the pop quiz post in which you set out Marrett's thought experiment involving ceasium clocks and Sidereal, Earth rotation, clocks, you asked readers to find the flaw in the physics.

One point that immediately springs to mind: An apparent difference between the caesium clocks and the clocks which consist of the Earth's rotation is that reading the ticks from the latter involves doing something non-local. It involves making an observation as to whether a distant reference star, in a is directly overhead (or has reached some other pre-decided point in the sky which is used to determine whether a new sidereal day has started). But in the case of the caesium clock, or any other kind of local clock, which can of course be made arbitrarily small compared to the distances over which the gravitational potential varies, this isn't true. All parts of that type of clock are stationary with respect to the same (rotating) reference frame.

Am I getting warm?

[Steve3007]

Sorry, there was a slight mistake in the grammar, above. It should have read: "... It involves making an observation as to whether a distant reference star is directly overhead...".

[Burning ghost]

State positions without resorting to saying what the other is saying please. I kind of want to get involved but cannot see an opening anyway - and frankly I’m getting bored with the needless needling going back and forth.

[David Cooper]

Relativity makes no claims about your personal vision of the underlying reality. The principle (not even the theory) says that something being stationary in a frame means that it has no velocity relative to that reference, and means nothing beyond that.

All frames are different ways of looking at the same reality. That reality = the underlying reality, but different frames put different slants on it, distorting it (in all but one case). Physics is supposed to be accounting for reality (the underlying reality, so it makes no sense for it to ignore it and pretend it isn't its job to consider it.

Let's go to the example that Steve kept avoiding. He repeatedly tried to divert attention away onto things that were less clear so that he could muddy the waters, but the example he should have been tackling is the one with two clocks ticking at different rates due to their movement relative to each other. Frame A analysis says the clock A is ticking faster than clock B, while frame B analysis says clock B is ticking faster than clock A. It cannot be true that clock A is ticking faster than clock B AND that clock B is ticking faster than clock A in the actual reality that the frames attempt to describe. The frames are generating contradictory claims, unless they're taken to mean this: frame A analysis says clock A appears to be ticking faster than clock B, and frame B analysis says clock B appears to be ticking faster than clock A.

The underlying reality provides a limited number of options for what the clocks are actually doing:-

(1) One of the clocks is ticking faster than the other, while the latter is not ticking faster than the former. (The set 3 models conform to this.)

(2) Both clocks are ticking at the same rate as each other. (The set 1 models conform to this, as does a lucky case of set 3 where both clocks are equally slowed.)

(3) Neither clock is really ticking at all. (Set zero models conform to this because they lack running time.)

The set 2 models are rejected because the contradictions invalidate them, but the three numbered options above do find ways to avoid the contradictions. However, the Set zero models are invalidated by the impossibility of the causation in them being real, so they're out of the running. The set 1 models suffer from event-meshing failures, but can scrape through into the viable category, even if they are more than a little contrived. The set 3 models are the most rational options.

I wonder if Steve's brainwashed his ten-year-old son into accepting that clock A can tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A in the same reality. If he hasn't (which is likely, because he probably realises that such contradiction is unacceptable), then he ought to accept that there is an underlying reality where the contradictions are avoided, and that set 2 models fail to achieve that. The only reason these contradictions have been discussed at all is that they disprove set 2 models (and this matters when we're considering Einstein's original version of SR which appears to have been the set 2 3D non-block model, or perhaps a hybrid of the incompatible set 1 and set 2 3D non-block models).

I use terms the way I do to avoid misusing them, stripping them of SR bias.

Yes, and this is mixing interpretations, something you say you don't do, and by doing so, all you do is demonstrate that the one interpretation is incompatible with the other.

If I'm being asked absolute questions, I refuse to provide SR answers. If I'm asked SR questions and am asked to give SR answers for them, I'll give SR answers, but there's little point in me doing that because you can do that yourself. And I'm not mixing interpretations - if someone asks absolute questions without stating that they want parroted mantras in return from an SR textbook, I'll give them absolute answers (which in many cases means that I'll tell them it's impossible for us to know, but that the fabric of space has a handle on it).

The terms as you use them is an invalid usage. Even the LET people make it clear when they're talking about absolute velocity/motion, as distinct from motion relative to alternate frames. Call it bias if you will, but use terms like 'absolute velocity' when you refer to them, because the definition of 'velocity' is a relation between two things.' Absolute velocity on the other hand would be a property of one thing.

I try to avoid using the word "velocity" altogether. The word "speed" is much clearer, and "relative speed" when not talking about absolute speed.

[David Cooper]

By telling me my own position, you are making it clear to me where you are wrong. If you want to show me wrong, you have to go with what I say. If you want to show Einstein's theory wrong, you have to go with what the theory states, not what you insist it must state.

When a theory has necessary logical consequences, those consequences are unstated parts of the theory. The people who back such a theory may wish to dissociate themselves from the consequences, but the rational way to reject the unpalatable consequences is to reject the theory that produces them and stop trying to cling to it while rejecting the consequences.

I find errors on all manner of sites from universities and science organisations.

But not in sites you endorse, or at least not until somebody else points them out. They're easy. Selection bias can be added to your list of fallacies.

I endorsed Marett's site as a good place for information on LET. I hadn't realised that he was pushing dud arguments against SR there, but now that you've drawn my attention to that, I'll add a warning about that on my page.

So the conflict seems to be about the metaphysical differences between the LET model (preferred frame), your model (preferred moment), and the typical Einstein interpretation with no preferred anything.

You didn't respond to this statement of mine. You included it, but only responded to a different part of the text.

The Einstein interpretation is a metaphysical position. Most people take it as a denial of an absolute frame, and not as keeping an open mind on the matter. If you try to keep an open mind on the matter, you are quickly forced to close to reduce things down to a number of specific options, as spelt out in my previous post. Set 2 models are blown out of the water. The key thing every time though is that you need to tie everything you say to specific models and not just keep a variety of different incompatible ones all mixed together in the same pot while pretending that they're a single model. This issue only matters for set 2 models - it simply isn't an issue for the other sets as they're Lorentz invariant.

I didn't take it that way on first read, but the 'superior intellect' bit was clearly aimed that way. Usage of that sort of language does come across as a tantrum ...
Steve here seems to have a better grip on his emotions than any of us. rmolnav has engaged with me now as well.

There's no need for anyone to have a tantrum over rmolnav - he spent months talking to himself in that thread, posting the most impenetrable junk each time, and no one was reading it any more, so to try to stop him bothering me with notifications about new posts, I suggested that he write it all up as a book. After that, he became an interesting case to study, and I've spent several weeks gradually ramping things up to see how long it takes him to get it. I've now reached the end of the process and he still hasn't budged even though his position's been shot to pieces. But it's important to note that he isn't a freak of any kind - his behaviour is within the bounds of normality.

[David Cooper]

To be honest, that's changed a bit as I've started to realize that the conversation with David has nothing to do with SR or LET and is simply about him flatly asserting things about such basic concepts as reference frames that aren't true, and likewise telling me what I'm saying.

I've found a new wording which maintains compactness while putting the same idea across in a way that you might find more acceptable: "frame A analysis says that..." rather than "frame A asserts that..." But it was never my wording that was the problem - you were just using it as an excuse to divert things away from the issues that mattered.
My disappointment was that you weren't being honest - instead of investigating the issues, you went in for endless word games as an avoidance tactic.
Revenge? I don't need revenge - I'm just letting you know that you can't run away from the argument forever because it will soon be right in your face every time you mention SR to an intelligent device. You've played games of avoidance for many days while pretending to be open to the argument to see if it stands up, but you never even began to look at it. You refuse to lay out your models. You run away from the clock ticking contradictions. And now you try to make out that I never even had an argument about SR.
When your position has logical consequences and you reject those consequences, you're not being honest with yourself.

[David Cooper]

(Not again! I keep forgetting you can't edit posts here to correct errors - half of it went missing.)

To be honest, that's changed a bit as I've started to realize that the conversation with David has nothing to do with SR or LET and is simply about him flatly asserting things about such basic concepts as reference frames that aren't true, and likewise telling me what I'm saying.

I've found a new wording which maintains compactness while putting the same idea across in a way that you might find more acceptable: "frame A analysis says that..." rather than "frame A asserts that..." But it was never my wording that was the problem - you were just using it as an excuse to divert things away from the issues that mattered.

My disappointment that the conversation has, in that sense, been a waste of time annoys me a bit.

My disappointment was that you weren't being honest - instead of investigating the issues, you went in for endless word games as an avoidance tactic.

But then at the end of our conversation he went off on an even more bizarre rant about how one day he'll get his revenge, via Artificial Intelligence, against those that have dared to defy him. That makes it clearer what we're dealing with here and easier to walk away from the conversation and look for more rational beings!

Revenge? I don't need revenge - I'm just letting you know that you can't run away from the argument forever because it will soon be right in your face every time you mention SR to an intelligent device. You've played games of avoidance for many days while pretending to be open to the argument to see if it stands up, but you never even began to look at it. You refuse to lay out your models. You run away from the clock ticking contradictions. And now you try to make out that I never even had an argument about SR.

The trouble is, if you're up against someone who simply tells you what you're saying, rather than constructing an argument about what you actually are saying, that's the point where rational argument becomes impossible. No matter what you say he'll just repeatedly tell you that, actually, you're saying something else and if you object, you're apparently "playing a language game".

When your position has logical consequences and you reject those consequences, you're not being honest with yourself.

[Burning ghost]

DC -

Congrats! You’ve made what appears to be the first post on this thread that actually sets out some clearly defined positions:

The underlying reality provides a limited number of options for what the clocks are actually doing:-

(1) One of the clocks is ticking faster than the other, while the latter is not ticking faster than the former. (The set 3 models conform to this.)

(2) Both clocks are ticking at the same rate as each other. (The set 1 models conform to this, as does a lucky case of set 3 where both clocks are equally slowed.)

(3) Neither clock is really ticking at all. (Set zero models conform to this because they lack running time.)

[Steve3007]

Just for the record, I'll repeat the clearly defined position that I take on a particular subject which I've set out several times before in this topic and its predecessor. It is my position on the definition and usage of the concept of a "reference frame". The reason why I think it's important to define that concept is that it is used in all discussions of both Galilean Relativity and Einstein's Special Relativity. Therefore neither of those two subjects can be meaningfully discussed until its definition has been agreed.

Fortunately it's a very simple concept.

A reference frame is a set of coordinates against which measurements can be made. i.e. it is thing to which we refer when making measurements. An example: If I am sitting in a car I could imagine a set of marks, like those on a ruler, drawn on the inside of that car. I can measure the positions and velocities of things both inside and outside the car with reference to those marks. I could also imagine a set of marks drawn on the road. I can measure the positions and velocities of things both inside and outside the car with reference to those marks too.

When I use the term "with respect to" a reference frame I mean "measured against" that reference frame. I may also say "with respect to" an object. In that case I mean "measured against" a reference frame fixed to that object. Just like a ruler is glued to it.

Suppose I am sitting in the car and the car is driving along the road. Suppose we consider just the car's chassis, not its wheels or its engine parts. Suppose that chassis is rigid. It doesn't flex or bend. Suppose I'm sitting still and not jumping around inside the car. My velocity with respect to the chassis of the car is zero. My velocity with respect to the road is not zero. The car's velocity with respect to the road is not zero. The road's velocity with respect to the car is not zero. The road's velocity with respect to the road is zero. The car's velocity with respect to the car is zero.

etc.

Obviously (my position is) there are no contradictions in any of the above measurements of the movements of various objects with respect to other objects.

As you can see, a very simple concept that does not in and of itself have anything to do with such subjects as the speed of light or Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. But if we were to go on to discuss those subjects we would have to have nailed this simple concept. This may all seem obvious, And I thought that it was. But apparently some disagree. This is the point of contention.

[Burning ghost]

Steve -

I think we’re all aware of basic Newtonian mechanics.