Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

[David Cooper]

No special relativity doesn't contain contradictions, at least if you observe the boundaries, where the theory can get applied. The scope of energy , mass and time-scales as well as length scales and amount of particles play a role which phyisics and it's theories can get applied. As long as you stay within the boundaries, there is no contradiction. The cumulant into a many particle system theory of statistical physics , has perhaps in some boundary question some contraditictions with the phenomenological thermodynamics, but this is most of the times not that easy to verify in an experimental fashion outside of some super relativistic ballistic transport phenomena.

The contradictions apply to set 2 models. SR does not rely on set 2 models, but many people in the SR camp do make the mistake of supporting set 2 models (which should be rejected by all rational people). Having got those models out of the way, your job is to identify the model(s) that you're using which you think function fine. For most of the serious guys, that usually means the set zero 4D block model in which time doesn't run, so the block wasn't generated in order of causation (or indeed in any order at all). That puts them at an awkward position where all the apparent causality written through the block is fake - nothing in it ever caused anything else in the block.

[David Cooper]

My bold, but you don't refer me to them. I asked a simple question and you don't provide the answer.

I'm giving you a free choice of any papers on any experiments relating to SR. You claimed that LET doesn't work, so it's your job to show me a case where it fails.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding LET but to me it requires the existence of an absolute frame of reference for all measurements, whereas relativity says all measurements are relative to how you execute the measurement.

LET allows you to make measurements the same way as you do for SR, and indeed the SR method for doing so was copied from LET. When you use a frame of reference as the base for your measurements, you determine that a clock moving through that frame is ticking slow if the chosen frame is the absolute frame. If you switch to the frame in which that clock's at rest, then you can say that the clock is not ticking slow if the new frame is the absolute frame. All such statements are treated as potential truths, so it is conditionally true that the clock is not ticking slow in the frame in which it is at rest, the condition being that that frame is the absolute frame. SR simply drops the condition and asserts that there is no absolute frame while claiming equal validity for the measurements of all frames. That's where the contradictions come in, if you're using a set 2 model. (If you're using a set zero model (static eternal block), the contradictions are no longer a problem, but another fatal problem has been introduced in that such a universe can't be generated - it can only come into existence by magic. The set 1, 2 and 3 models provide potential ways to generate a block universe in order of causation without depending on magic, but the only ones that don't break the rules of SR are in the invalidated set 2, so you don't have any viable SR model at all.)

Since these are pretty much directly opposed ideas I struggle to see how a paper supporting one could also support the other but feel free to educate me, I'm only a biochemist. I do however need the data not just an assertion.

You deal in assertions, so why shouldn't I do the same in return? You said LET was broken, so you need to explain where you got that idea from. If you can't be bothered doing the work to justify your assertion, why should I do your homework for you? I have told you that LET fits the experiments as well as SR, but there's no point in me cherry-picking any of them to present as examples because if I was trying to hide ones where it fails, I wouldn't show you those, so even if I put in a hundred hours collecting data for you, you'd reject it out of hand and demand more. I can't throw my valuable time down the drain like that, and that's why the onus is on you to find the experiments that disprove LET. That should be easy for you as you're so sure that LET fails some - they must be well known to Google.

My point about papers "confirming" SR/GR also "confirming" LET is simply the result of them making the same predictions and using the same maths for everything. It is the interpretation of what's going on with the underlying reality that's different. If there was an equal acceptance of LET rather than a rejection of it while the SR/GR interpretation is presented as a crowning glory of science, there wouldn't be a problem - most people would gravitate to LET because it's rational, but they're steered away from it to its irrational rival by the establishment. We have a situation where two rival approaches are being treated very differently with the inferior one being presented as superior, and this is done through a continual bombardment of propaganda. I've shown though that all the possible SR models are broken (in one way or another), while LET works fine.

[Halc]

According to Steve, physics isn't interested in this subject because it's metaphysics, and that isn't their field. In other words, a theory can be logically ridiculous to any extreme and they don't care: to them, it's right if it gives them useful measurements.

For the record: This is a false characterization of what I've said. The subject of the role of metaphysics within physics, and the possible definitions of the word "metaphysics", is probably a topic in itself. I've discussed it in more detail elsewhere in this forum in the past. I don't like my position to be misrepresented with no reference to anything I've actually said.

Sorry Steve - I may have been attributing to you something that came from Halc, but I thought it was a position you both shared. It is also very much the standard defence of the establishment though to rule discussion of the metaphysics as something separate from physics (mere philosophy), while at the same time they ram their own pet metaphysics down everyone's throats.

I have definitely stated some opinions on the role of metaphysics, but while separate from physics, they're very much interested in metaphysics. Einstein had strong opinions on the subject. "God doesn't roll dice", which eliminates several QM interpretations where dice rolling goes on.

I was the one that said that metaphysics is only lightly covered in a graduate level course on quantum mechanics. It is essential that the theory be separated from its interpretations, and the course is structured accordingly. I'd have to say that relativity emphasises this separation less. It is often taught with 4 dimensional spacetime since all the mathematics comes from that model. An absolute model is very complicated because everything needs to be translated, and no clock in existence can possibly measure actual time since there is no escaping the gravity well.

Yes, interpretations of relativity need to be logically consistent. Those that propose those interpretations care about that. This is a philosophy forum, so we care about it.

[Halc]

I’d recommend pursuing this in a physics forum.

I've tried, but they don't like it on physics forums - they try to shut down any such discussion in any way they can, and that means delete, delete, ban.

I actually see what you're up against over there at Naked Science. I butted into the tide-bulge thingy, and you demonstrate pretty thoroughly that their centrifugal idea cannot explain every case. People are as resistant to being told they're wrong over there as they are here.

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. That is classic strawman, which you repeatedly deny. You just don't see it. You refuse to hear corrections when they're pointed out. You alter a valid view by mixing in assertions that the view does not make, and then find the combinations contradictory, which they are. At no point is the position actually proposed proved inconsistent, because you never consider it.

The bit about the conspiracyOfLight having errors seemed to surprise you. I found the errors effortlessly by just looking at the places where relativity was claimed to predict something else. In each case, it is misrepresented, and you're doing the same thing.
If I find I am getting inconsistent answers from relativity, I assume the problem is me, not relativity.
Even you said that LET makes all the same predictions, so relativity cannot be wrong without LET also being 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.
And as Steve points out, this conflict is exacerbated by your refusal to use even the most simple terms the way physics defines them. I know you're not this uneducated. The misuse of terms seems deliberately deceptive, like you're a used car salesman or something. If you want to debunk Einstein's version of relativity, speak the language of that thing and drive it to self inconsistency, not inconsistency with a religion that redefines all the terms.

I don't see you using this sort of deception in the moon thread because you have the advantage of being right. You do however go on a similar tantrum about them all not dropping at your feet with the superior argument. The top of the most recent post implied you're a genius among fools, which makes it really hard for the causal reader to be able to tell the difference.

[Steve3007]

From this post:
viewtopic.php?p=319981#p319981

The exchange quoted below is an example of one of the points on which we disagree. This one exemplifies our disagreement over how the concept of a reference frame is used in physics.

Start of the exchange.

If one frame says something is stationary and another says it's moving, it is clearly impossible to tell whether something is moving or not, so your objection to that one is frankly ridiculous

Which is perhaps one reason why frames don't say that. Movement is defined as the change in the spatial distance between two objects with respect to time. So, if you use the correct definition of the word "moving", clearly we can work out if we're moving.

Frames do say that. You can measure movement in any way you like, but if something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame) and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame), then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

End of the exchange.

A reference frame is simply a set of coordinates. It can be simply visualized by imagining a ball with X, Y and Z axes sticking out of it at right-angles to each other. A lump of clay and three rulers. That ball is stationary with respect to that reference frame. The movements of other objects can be measured with respect to that reference frame. Other reference frames (other lumps of clay with rulers sticking out of them) can be moving relative to that reference frame.

So what David is saying in the part of the above quote which I have highlighted in bold is that if I measure the movement of a single object with respect to two different reference frames that are moving relative to each other, the different results that I get constitute "contradictory claims" and "we can't tell which one is wrong".

This is the same as saying that If I am driving in a car, and if I make the observation that I am stationary with respect to the car but moving with respect to the road, I am making contradictory claims, one or both of which must be wrong.

I disagree.

David's recent response to this:

It's not the same as that at all. Something more equivalent would be the following claim: if I'm driving in a car and make the observation that I'm stationary with respect to the car, and also stationary with respect to the road, but that the car is moving along the road, I am not making contradictory claims.

David, look properly at what you've said here and what you've said in the part of the above post that I highlighted in bold. Look at the meanings of the sentences. The example you've given in the quote immediately above, in your most recent response, clearly does contain a contradictory claim because it says something completely different from the part I highlighted in bold earlier. In this more recent example, there's a claim to be both moving and stationary with respect to the road. Obviously that's a contradiction. Now look at the bolded quote from you. I'll break it down for you into easy chunks:

If something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame)...

i.e. if a measurement with respect to frame 1 indicates no movement with respect to that frame.

...and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame),...

i.e. if a measurement with respect to frame 2 indicates movement with respect to that frame.

...then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

i.e. if something is measured as stationary with respect to frame 1 and moving with respect to frame 2 then you claim that there is a contradiction.

This is precisely the same as saying that if I observe myself to be moving with respect to the road but stationary with respect to my car, then I am contradicting myself. As I said earlier.

You seem to be incapable of seeing the meaning of your own utterances.

Your example failed to preserve the contradiction that was in the original, so it failed as a parallel, but you mistakenly presented it as evidence relevant to the case in point. This is what happens time and time again when people who lack the necessary expertise in logical reasoning attempt to apply a science which they have not studied in sufficient depth.

David, you accuse others of "lacking the necessary expertise in logical reasoning" yet you don't seem to be able to understand the logic of a simple set of sentences that you yourself have written. As a result, it's impossible for me to even tell what you actually think.

So please, will you correct this:

Frames do say that. You can measure movement in any way you like, but if something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame) and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame), then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

so that I can work out what you actually think is going on when somebody measures their velocity with respect to a reference frame. Because right now, I don't know.

[Steve3007]

viewtopic.php?p=320004#p320004

My bold, but you don't refer me to them. I asked a simple question and you don't provide the answer. Maybe I'm misunderstanding LET but to me it requires the existence of an absolute frame of reference for all measurements, whereas relativity says all measurements are relative to how you execute the measurement. Since these are pretty much directly opposed ideas I struggle to see how a paper supporting one could also support the other but feel free to educate me, I'm only a biochemist. I do however need the data not just an assertion.

David's reply to this:

I'm giving you a free choice of any papers on any experiments relating to SR. You claimed that LET doesn't work, so it's your job to show me a case where it fails.

David, this appears to be another example of you failing to properly appreciate what is being said. In this case, it's the words of Mark1955.

Look at what he actually said. He didn't "claim that LET doesn't work". He pointed out that there are difference between LET and SR and then asked why, if that is the case, a paper supporting one could also support the other.

If you're going to make any progress discussing anything with anybody, you've got to properly read and understand what they actually say. Not just jump to your own conclusions about what they've said. Until you start doing that, your grand claims that most of the rest of the world lack your own magnificent expertise in logical reasoning are, I'm afraid, going to look like hypocrisy.

[Steve3007]

Again, in reply to Mark1955:

When you use a frame of reference as the base for your measurements, you determine that a clock moving through that frame is ticking slow if the chosen frame is the absolute frame. If you switch to the frame in which that clock's at rest, then you can say that the clock is not ticking slow if the new frame is the absolute frame. All such statements are treated as potential truths, so it is conditionally true that the clock is not ticking slow in the frame in which it is at rest, the condition being that that frame is the absolute frame.

Another example which appears, once again, to show that you do not understand what a reference frame is. Clocks and other objects don't "move through" reference frames. Measurements of time and distance are made with respect to reference frames. A single event can be observed with respect to more than one reference frame. If I measure the rate at which a clock appears to be ticking with respect to a reference frame relative to which I am stationary, I am not saying: "I assert unconditionally that this clock is ticking at this rate!". I am simply saying: "I observe ticks from that clock. I compare them to ticks from a clock that is stationary relative to me. I note differences."

[Halc]

Thanks Halc, I try to understand. Perhaps I cannot ask the right questions. I was thinking of the model with no preferred frame, and what it implies if all frames give equal truth values for the timing of events in other frames.

The model with no preferred frames is the spacetime model. In that one, ordering of events separated in a space-like way is different in different frames, and thus one cannot be the cause of the other (if you accept the principle of locality). So simultaneous with the event of your brother (who left you at .8c on your mutual 20th birthday) turning 30, you might be anywhere from just over 23.75 years old to about 46.6 years old, and these would all be equally true.

[Steve3007]

I don't see you using this sort of deception in the moon thread because you have the advantage of being right. You do however go on a similar tantrum about them all not dropping at your feet with the superior argument. The top of the most recent post implied you're a genius among fools, which makes it really hard for the causal reader to be able to tell the difference.

I would perhaps have more sympathy for David, and go easier on him, if he didn't constantly declare himself to be uniquely gifted in logical, rational analysis while seemingly being unable to parse the simplest of sentences.

Halc, just for the sake of my own sanity, please could you have a look at this post:

viewtopic.php?p=320037#p320037

and tell me honestly if I've completely misunderstood the meaning of the part of David's words that I highlighted in bold. If he's simply made a mistake in his language there, fair enough. It happens. But until he corrects that mistake I just can't fathom what he things the process of measuring velocity against a reference frame involves.

One of the many things I don't seem to be able to get him to see is that if he accepts the standard definitions, in physics, of words like "velocity" and "acceleration", that doesn't in itself require him to abandon the concept of an aether. He's perfectly free to talk about the velocity of an object relative to that substance. It's only when we come to discuss SR and LET that the argument over aether arises. But I honestly don't think it's worth trying to delve into those subjects in depth, with him, until we've established a common language in which to communicate.

[Burning ghost]

Steve -

I can see a problem. The “road” is not in a different tie frame to the car. I think that is what he meant?

[Steve3007]

I can see a problem. The “road” is not in a different tie frame to the car. I think that is what he meant?

Thanks for your input BG. I don't know what you mean by a "tie frame".

If I'm driving along a road, do you agree that a reference frame that is stationary relative to the car is not stationary relative to the road?

[Halc]

Halc, just for the sake of my own sanity, please could you have a look at this post:

viewtopic.php?p=320037#p320037

and tell me honestly if I've completely misunderstood the meaning of the part of David's words that I highlighted in bold. If he's simply made a mistake in his language there, fair enough. It happens. But until he corrects that mistake I just can't fathom what he things the process of measuring velocity against a reference frame involves.

Frames do say that. You can measure movement in any way you like, but if something is not moving in one frame (no change in spatial distance between itself and any other object at rest in that frame) and is moving in another (with a change in spatial distance between other objects which are at rest in that frame), then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not, and we can't tell which one is wrong.

Interpreted straight up, he's saying that it is a contradiction to say I am stationary relative to the car (first frame) and moving relative to the road (second frame). That isn't a contradiction at all of course since it is a measurement of two different things.

The deceptive language occurs in the part about : "whether the object is moving or not", which suddenly discards the explicit frame references and makes an implied reference to movement (having nonzero speed) relative to the ether. But that is left off. Einstein's relativity posits no ether, so it has no concept of something moving relative to it, and neither frame made a claim to be the frame in which the ether is stationary. He might also have just implied absolute velocity without ether, but that violates the physics definition of velocity/speed/motion, and neither statement about the car or road frame made any claims about absolute motion.

One of the many things I don't seem to be able to get him to see is that if he accepts the standard definitions, in physics, of words like "velocity" and "acceleration", that doesn't in itself require him to abandon the concept of an aether. He's perfectly free to talk about the velocity of an object relative to that substance. It's only when we come to discuss SR and LET that the argument over aether arises. But I honestly don't think it's worth trying to delve into those subjects in depth, with him, until we've established a common language in which to communicate.

Well I get the impression he's no dunce, so misusing the terms when it suites his purposes seems more deliberate than uneducated. That was just my personal impression.
Part of the issue is that LET is not really a theory since it makes no predictions, but is more of an absolute language mode like the difference between A-series and B-series verb tenses. Speaking in LET mode makes all the references implied, to the ether. An object is said to have motion or not, when it means it has motion or not relative to the ether. The above bolded statement seems to switch to that mode in the end, but he does so without saying it.

I'm not sure he means that here, since it would then read "then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving relative to the ether or not", which makes no sense since relativity theory makes no claims about motion relative to the ether. But by leaving off the ether reference, the statement can be interpreted two ways, but both are wrong.
1: The two measurements are of different things, so it is not contradictory that they are not the same value.
2: Relativity makes no claims about absolute motion, or motion relative to ether, and neither does either statement: (stationary relative to car, moving relative to road).

[Burning ghost]

I can see a problem. The “road” is not in a different tie frame to the car. I think that is what he meant?

Thanks for your input BG. I don't know what you mean by a "tie frame".

If I'm driving along a road, do you agree that a reference frame that is stationary relative to the car is not stationary relative to the road?

It depends how long the road is and/or whether you’re talking about “sections” of the road entire length of the road.

That was the only possible issue I could see. I try and make sense of what people say even if it sounds completely wrong.

[Steve3007]

Interpreted straight up, he's saying that it is a contradiction to say I am stationary relative to the car (first frame) and moving relative to the road (second frame). That isn't a contradiction at all of course since it is a measurement of two different things.

The deceptive language occurs in the part about : "whether the object is moving or not", which suddenly discards the explicit frame references and makes an implied reference to movement (having nonzero speed) relative to the ether. But that is left off.

Thanks for taking the time.

OK, yes maybe that's what he means. If that is what he means, then (as you've said) his statement translates to this:

"If something is not moving with respect to frame 1 but it is moving with respect to frame 2 then we have contradictory claims from different frames about whether the object is moving or not relative to the ether."

In which case, as you've said it still doesn't make sense. We don't have any claims at all about the movement relative to the ether. We have measurements of movement with respect to frames 1 and 2.

Weird.

Well I get the impression he's no dunce, so misusing the terms when it suites his purposes seems more deliberate than uneducated. That was just my personal impression...

Yes, you're perhaps right. Perhaps what it shows is that being a "dunce" or being intelligent is not a single, simple concept. I've looked at the Javascript code for his gravity/tides simulation. It's a mess, but it clearly does implicitly contain the concept of 2D vectors being added together, and the kind of numerical integration that you have to do when you write a computer simulation of some physics. I'm just not sure whether he actually understands the mathematical concepts behind what he's doing. But that's only because he does a very good impersonation of someone who doesn't understand those things in his words here. Maybe it is just an impersonation.

It depends how long the road is and/or whether you’re talking about “sections” of the road entire length of the road.

I don't see how that makes any difference at all. Perhaps the term "reference frame" confuses people. Let me put it like this:

If I'm driving along a road, in a car, do you agree that I am stationary relative to the seat I'm sitting on in the car, but that the car is not stationary relative to the road, but is actually moving along it?

Does your answer depend on the length of the road?

Hint: This is not a trick question. The absolutely obvious answer is the one that I'm after.

[Burning ghost]

Steve -

If the road goes all the way around the Earth there is an exception. The issue is if you’re talking about the whole road or a section of the road. Let us not forget that the road isn’t stationary either (assuming it is on Earth which is not stationary.) So along those lines it is possible to say that both the car and the object X are all stationary unless you consider also that the parts of the car are not part of the car (ie. The engine parts that are moving are not moving with the car but in a different “frame.”)

That is the only possible issue I can see that Cooper may be trying to make. It’s a long shot.