Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Tamminen »

Halc wrote: September 21st, 2018, 7:39 am
Tamminen wrote: September 20th, 2018, 12:18 pm 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.
OK, but when I am 30 years old, and my brother is 26 years old, he can go for a cup of coffee on a nearby planet, and his clock and calendar readings can be documented. If he continues at the speed of .8c, he still knows that I am 23.6 years old, doesn't he? So it is true that when I am 30 years old, he is 26 years old, as documented, but simultaneously, from my perspective, he knows that I am 23.6 years old. Can it be so that the first known thing is a fact but the second is not? So that what is simultaneous with my brother, from his perspective, as he is 26 years old, is not what is really happening in my frame? I thought there were no preferred frames. I repeat, I do not see any logical contradiction here, but I think, as you in fact said above, that this is a 4D model. This was my original assumption. But I still have my past, I remember myself as I was 23.6 years old, so why say that the 4D model has no past or future? Or do you mean something else than this?
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

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

This from the bottom of Marett's Sagnac page: http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Sagnac ... ndRel.html
You can go there to see a picture of how the sidereal clock works if the verbal description here is unclear.
No Sagnac effect or claims about rotating reference frames this time.
Marrett wrote:The Sagnac Clock:

As we said earlier, in order to prove that time dilation is an illusion, we would need to design a clock that does not depend on the speed of light in its counting principle, and see if this clock is unaffected by time dilation. Again, we turn to essential feature of the Sagnac effect, rotation, to design such a clock. This concept was first proposed in our article “The Paradox of the Clocks in the Canaries” in 2010.

The simplest time dilation effect to test is gravitational time dilation, the speeding up of clocks with altitude. According to Einstein, the rate of time follows the gravitational potential, so a clock on the surface of the earth should count more slowly than a clock at some high altitude, such as at the top of a mountain. Time is alleged to be moving into the future faster at the top of a mountain. So we need a clock on the Earth that is unaffected by altitude. Let's say we use the rotation of the earth as our clock instead of a conventional cesium clock. After all, our human concept of time, and the units that compose it (days, hours, minutes, seconds) are already derived from the rotation period of the earth, so it should be the ideal clock for comparison. For each observer, we could use as our reference the position of the sun in the sky, or the position of a Foucault pendulum, or most preferably the position of the fixed stars in sidereal time. If we measure the sidereal day (23.93447 hours) as the time for one earth rotation relative to the vernal equinox, using a sighting star as a reference, we can then place an observer A at the top of a mountain, and another observer B at sea level. Preferably the mountain observer is exactly vertical over the sea level observer, and this vertical line passes through the center of the earth, as shown in the picture below. We use as our example the mountain Pico del Teide on Tenerife, with an altitude of 3718 meters. We give each observer A and B a cesium clock, and a sidereal clock. The sidereal clocks mark a tick when the reference star is directly overhead each day. The cesium clocks mark a tick when 23.93477 hours has passed in their local time. We then compare the four clocks to determine if they are counting at the same rate.

What happens is that when the reference star passes over the red vertical line passing through observer A and B, both sidereal clocks have no choice but to trigger at the same moment, differing only in the light propagation time between A and B. Because this propagation time is a fixed amount, it does not affect the rate at which the two clocks count – therefore the count rate is exactly the same. However, since both cesium clocks experience gravitational time dilation, the cesium clock at observer A must count faster than the cesium clock at observer B. If we had pre-synchronized the two clocks at sea level, then the cesium clock at observer A will begin to go out of synchronization with the other three clocks, and the amount of time gained by cesium clock A will continue to increase as the days pass. Clearly three of the 4 clocks agree on the amount of elapsed time – only cesium clock A reads in error. The fact that we have created clocks immune to time dilation implies that real time has never changed at the top of the mountain – apparent time dilation is an artifact of the difference in the speed of light at two difference points in space, and the use of clocks calibrated to the speed of light – i.e. the light clocks of Einstein.
Interestingly, the 3 clocks that stay in sync are all the ones running slowest, and thus the ones furthest from 'actual time' claimed by LET. If the physics is sound, it seems to actually prove that LET is completely wrong then since it is implied that the two sidereal clocks that "do not depend on light speed" should run at actual time which would be faster than the more dilated ones in the gravity wells. I notice that Marett left that part out.
For that matter, ceasium clocks don't depend on light speed either, instead counting energy state oscillations of excited ceasium atoms. Einstein described a light-clock for a thought experiment, but I've never seen a practical implementation of one.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Burning ghost wrote: September 21st, 2018, 10:57 am 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.
I saw this response coming when Steve misunderstoond what you were asking.

For the question, assume the road is stationary and not on a rotating frame of reference like all of Earth. So effectively, relative to the road immediately under the car, a question about an ideal situation. Yes, we all know that there is not a single object in the universe that is not accelerating for any length of time, and therefore there is no such thing as a real stationary object.

Cooper is probably more concerned with absolute velocity and not so much with issues with the road not having an actual stable velocity.

BTW, We both still don't know what a 'tie frame' is. I never saw that defined.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Burning ghost »

*time
AKA badgerjelly
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

As a reminder, my question was 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?
I don't think we need to be concerned about whether or not the road, or the Earth, are rotating or are moving/stationary relative to anything else. The question asks about relative velocities between person, road car and car seat. It doesn't care about anything else. Since it specifically talks about the seat of the car, I don't think we need to be concerned about such things as the engine parts' movements relative to the car's body. Although I should perhaps have specified that the seat is fixed rigidly to the car's chassis, the driver is not in the process of stretching or adjusting his/her seat and we are considering the large scale movements of these objects and not the vibrations of their constituent atoms. There may be some more things I should have made clear too.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Tamminen wrote: September 21st, 2018, 11:03 am OK, but when I am 30 years old, and my brother is 26 years old
No frame has been specified. I cannot answer this. Without that, you have no clue that your brother is 26 or 40 or whatever.
So that what is simultaneous with my brother, from his perspective, as he is 26 years old, is not what is really happening in my frame?
Different frames order events differently, so no, there is no 'what is really happening simultaneous with event X' in a model that has no preferred frame.
I thought there were no preferred frames.
There can be. LET asserts one, and frames all events and speeds in relation to this undetectable ether. In that model, your brother really is some specific age when you turn 30, but to compute it, you need to know how fast each of you is moving in the preferred frame.
But I still have my past, I remember myself as I was 23.6 years old, so why say that the 4D model has no past or future?
Events are not objectivly in the past or the future. They're just relatively in the past or future of other events, so you remembering when you were 23.6 years old means that the event is in the past of the event of you being 30, but still in the future of the event of your 20th birthday. A model with a preferred moment (not to be confused with a preferred frame) says that your 26th birthday is in the past, period. David asserts this sort of model. Most people on earth assume it, even if they don't know it. It is intuitive, until you start asking the sorts of questions you are here in this thread, which most people never bother to do.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Halc wrote: September 20th, 2018, 8:48 pmYou 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.
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.
I don't do strawman arguments - why would I need to? If people claim that correct things are wrong, am I just supposed to accept their incorrect claims even though I show them to be incorrect? Reason decides who's right - I don't. I am forced to go with reason every time. There's no point in you making assertions that I'm proving the wrong thing if you aren't going to show me where I'm doing that - I want to destroy the point you're making if it's wrong, and it it's right, I want to know that it's right.
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.
I find errors on all manner of sites from universities and science organisations. 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. In the case of Marett's site, his attacks on SR are weak and bloated - they make for dull reading, so I haven't waded through much of it. Of more interest to me is the stuff where he's explaining how LET accounts for the same experiments as SR and GR, and any mistakes in that would be a lot more significant.
Even you said that LET makes all the same predictions, so relativity cannot be wrong without LET also being wrong.
SR and GR can be wrong without LET being wrong though, and there is no viable model that fits the specifications of SR.
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'm not misusing the terms - I'm just using the language of LET. Using the language of SR introduces a bias against the existence of an absolute frame, so it isn't the right way to describe reality.
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 was putting across the idea that rmolnav is the genius and that I am the fool - that is the way he will read it. And there's no tantrum - I'm simply systematically pushing him in to a more and more ridiculous position. I don't care whether he changes position of not - my involvement in the discussion there is purely part of my study into how people think.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

D1: 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.

S1: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.

D2: 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.

S2a: 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.
...
S2b: 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".
...
S2c: 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.
...
S2d: I disagree.[/quote]

D3: 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.
Steve3007 wrote: September 21st, 2018, 1:44 amDavid, 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 [D2]. 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.
D1 says that you can't tell if you're moving or not because different frames make contradictory assertions (about the underlying reality) and you don't know which are true. S1 then tries to change the definition of the word "moving", and D2 shows that it makes no difference to the meaning. In S2b, what you say is correct, but we're interpreting it in different ways. You're reading from it that the claims about what the claims are are not contradictory (and I agree with that), while I'm reading from it that there is a contradiction between the claims that are being discussed - this all depends on how you interpret the part that says "the different results that I get".

You produce an example with no contradiction in it in S2c, so in D3 I show you a replacement for your example that would actually contain a contradiction. D3 is more equivalent in that it contains a contradiction, whereas your example doesn't. My replacement doesn't fit with any real measurements, but it isn't there to illustrate an example of something that does - it is simply there to show what a real contradiction looks like. I then went on to provide a better example of the kind of contradiction that does apply to this stuff in which I compared the speed of light relative to objects which are moving relative to each other, and that was the best place to take it because the clearest way to illustrate the difference between stationary and moving objects is to look at the speed of light relative to them.

I can see now though that you hadn't taken on board what I said the last time this came up (with Halc, if I remember rightly), so it seems that I need to go through it again for you. If one frame says something is stationary and another frame says it's moving, there is no contradiction in the claim that one frame says the object is stationary and the other frame says the object's moving. 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. You can word it in different ways to make subtle differences in meaning: frame A says the object's stationary relative to frame A and frame B says it's moving relative to frame B, and with this careful wording there is no direct contradiction - 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. 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. 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. SR is normally taken to say that it is c relative to both objects in all directions, and that is another aspect of the exact same SR bias. If you reject that SR bias (the SR dogma that you disown) and want to allow the speed of light relative to the objects to be different, then you are accepting the LET "bias" and by extension the underlying reality that you don't want to accept - you are then logically forced to interpret the word "moving" the LET way.
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.
No: you're just looking for the contradiction in the wrong place. The claims have contradictions tied up in them as the two frames are both theorising about the nature of the underlying reality, and they cannot both be correct in their description of it. Frame A claims that the object is stationary in the underlying reality, and frame B claims that it is moving in the underlying reality.
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.
No - the issue is that you can't recognise the subtle differences in meanings. 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.

The contradictions are found when you consider different frames to be attempting to provide accurate descriptions of the underlying reality. Your SR bias predisposes you to ignore the need for an underlying reality, so you are largely blind to it.
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.
As always, you are the one who is missing the crucial part of the picture. You're trying to make out that I'm calling things contradictions that (quite genuinely) aren't contradictions, but you're failing to see the actual contradictions that I am pointing to.
So please, will you correct this:
David Cooper wrote: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.
There is nothing there needing correction other than your reading of it. It might help you though if I word it like this:-

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.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Steve3007 wrote: September 21st, 2018, 2:24 am 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.
He claimed in two posts that it was a disproved theory (I don't have time to check the way he worded this, but it came to the same thing). He then said that with LET you depend on the absolute frame for all measurements, so I answered that by explaining that it makes measurements the same way as SR does. Any paper about measurements from experiments that support SR automatically support LET, and I can't be expected to link to papers that mention LET when everyone goes out of their way to refer to SR instead in every case in order to conform to the bias of the establishment.
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.
I've given him perfectly adequate answers each time. If he wants papers that back LET, he needs to find papers that back SR and then write into them "and LET" every time he sees "SR" being mentioned, unless it involves a metaphysical claim, and when I say I'm referring to any or all of them, I mean just that.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Steve3007 wrote: September 21st, 2018, 2:49 am Another example which appears, once again, to show that you do not understand what a reference frame is.
Every time you make that accusation it turns out that you're just playing word games.
Clocks and other objects don't "move through" reference frames.
Reference frames put coordinates to space with a particular time synchronisation slant, and objects are either at rest in that system of coordinates (such that their coordinates aren't changing) or are moving (with the coordinates changing). It is common for people to talk about objects being stationary or moving in a frame.
Measurements of time and distance are made with respect to reference frames.
Which means that if you're using a reference frame and measure something to be moving, it is moving through that reference frame.
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."
Each frame theorises about the nature of the underlying reality. If one frame says clock A is ticking faster than clock B and another frame says clock B is ticking faster than clock A, it is not possible for both frames to be providing a correct description of the underlying reality.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

David Cooper wrote: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...
...there is no contradiction in the claim that one frame says the object is stationary and the other frame says the object's moving.
Translation into correct language: there is no contradiction in the observation that the object is stationary WRT one frame and moving WRT the other.
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.
You can word it in different ways to make subtle differences in meaning: frame A says the object's stationary relative to frame A and frame B says it's moving relative to frame B, and with this careful wording there is no direct contradiction...
This is what happens when measurements are made against reference frames.
...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.
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.
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.

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.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Halc wrote: September 21st, 2018, 8:56 am
David Cooper wrote: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.

There's no road or car in the thing you're translating from - all there is is an object that's at rest in one frame and moving in another. However, if you add in a road which is at rest in one frame and a car that's at rest in another, then I can be stationary relative to the car and moving relative to the road. 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.



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



It makes the same predictions as SR and GR, so they can't be theories either by your reasoning.



If there isn't a statement or clause somewhere saying "relative to ..." to govern a statement, then the most rational interpretation of it is that it's relative to the underlying reality. If the speed of light relative to an object is c in every direction, then if you accelerate the object so that it's moving, the speed of light relative to the object is no longer c in every direction. If you accept that, you are logically required to accept the existence of an underlying reality which conflicts with some frames (all but one of them). If you don't accept that though, then you are logically required to claim that the speed of light is always c in all directions relative to all objects. You need to do one thing or the other and stop trying to do both. Make up your mind where you stand on this issue. Remember though that the issue of contradiction is only relevant to set 2 models.



Relative to the underlying reality. But if you want to deny the existence of an underlying reality, it makes no difference to the point that you can't tell whether or not you're moving (in an underlying reality that some people say doesn't exist). In set 2 models, the unfolding of events is controlled by a preferred frame mechanism which governs the time that passes on clocks depending on the speed they move through that frame, but every frame is trying to act as the preferred frame at the same time, providing the same mechanism to the same reality, all of them in contradiction with each other as they attempt to govern the unfolding of events for a single reality by slowing each other's clocks down. When you change the frame you're viewing that reality through, events that had taken place in the previous frame have yet to happen for the new frame, so everything's permanently in a state of happened and not happened at the same time, and it really is the same time because all frames exist simultaneously at all locations to govern the local content that makes up the reality there. Set 2 models have that magical, contradictory property for all their content, and that's why they're not valid models.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Just a bit more before I finally give up and move onto to something more productive.
David Cooper wrote:The claims have contradictions tied up in them as the two frames are both theorizing about the nature of the underlying reality, and they cannot both be correct in their description of it.
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.
Frame A claims that the object is stationary in the underlying reality, and frame B claims that it is moving in the underlying reality.
Lumps of clay with rulers sticking out of them do not make claims. They get used by observers to measure things.
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.
The contradictions are found when you consider different frames to be attempting to provide accurate descriptions of the underlying reality.
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.
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

---

David, I know you're not going to accept any of this, no matter how many people try to explain it to you. 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.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Forgot to preview it - one missing "/" and all the stuff I was replying to disappeared. Here's the post done properly:-
Halc wrote: September 21st, 2018, 8:56 am
David Cooper wrote: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.
There's no road or car in the thing you're translating from - all there is is an object that's at rest in one frame and moving in another. However, if you add in a road which is at rest in one frame and a car that's at rest in another, then I can be stationary relative to the car and moving relative to the road. 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.
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.
It's referring to the underlying reality. Deceptive language is language that's designed to hide the need for an underlying reality.
so misusing the terms when it suites his purposes
I use terms the way I do to avoid misusing them, stripping them of SR bias.
Part of the issue is that LET is not really a theory since it makes no predictions,
It makes the same predictions as SR and GR, so they can't be theories either by your reasoning.
Speaking in LET mode makes all the references implied, to the ether.
If there isn't a statement or clause somewhere saying "relative to ..." to govern a statement, then the most rational interpretation of it is that it's relative to the underlying reality. If the speed of light relative to an object is c in every direction, then if you accelerate the object so that it's moving, the speed of light relative to the object is no longer c in every direction. If you accept that, you are logically required to accept the existence of an underlying reality which conflicts with some frames (all but one of them). If you don't accept that though, then you are logically required to claim that the speed of light is always c in all directions relative to all objects. You need to do one thing or the other and stop trying to do both. Make up your mind where you stand on this issue. Remember though that the issue of contradiction is only relevant to set 2 models.
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.
Relative to the underlying reality. But if you want to deny the existence of an underlying reality, it makes no difference to the point that you can't tell whether or not you're moving (in an underlying reality that some people say doesn't exist). In set 2 models, the unfolding of events is controlled by a preferred frame mechanism which governs the time that passes on clocks depending on the speed they move through that frame, but every frame is trying to act as the preferred frame at the same time, providing the same mechanism to the same reality, all of them in contradiction with each other as they attempt to govern the unfolding of events for a single reality by slowing each other's clocks down. When you change the frame you're viewing that reality through, events that had taken place in the previous frame have yet to happen for the new frame, so everything's permanently in a state of happened and not happened at the same time, and it really is the same time because all frames exist simultaneously at all locations to govern the local content that makes up the reality there. Set 2 models have that magical, contradictory property for all their content, and that's why they're not valid models.
David Cooper
Posts: 224
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 4:51 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by David Cooper »

Halc wrote: September 21st, 2018, 11:39 amPop 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.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021