TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)

[Oli]

Then demonstrate (or prove) that it's a derived effect of motion. If something moves faster than something else it arrives in less TIME. Posting optical illusions has no contingency whatsoever on the topic in question - they're irrelevant fluff, nothing more, nothing less.
Following through on heat being motion, then motion is nothing more than energy - motion qua motion is not the base of things...

 

[przyk]

pryzk: perhaps we'll have to agree to differ on the points above. When I see "axiomatic" or "defined" or "law" or "that's just how it is", I'm reminded of religion:

Child: Who created the world, Daddy?
Parent: Why, God created the world, my son.
Child: What is God Daddy?
Parent: God surpasses all human understanding my son.
Child: Who created God, Daddy?
Parent: Oh shut up you stupid kid.

I think we see an element of this even in science. It's human nature.

If you ask me why all the laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, my answer will basically boil down to "I don't know". I don't try to pretend I know everything, or that I have a buddy called God who does.

You don't have to answer the question about that Pixie God. But you should ask it.

To what end? What's so great about reflexively asking "Why?" all the time? I've lost interest in looking for explanations for axioms a long time ago. It's pointless, as my "invisible pixie" hypothesis was intended to illustrate: it's an answer to your "Why?" that you will never succeed in either proving or disproving.

I think you should also ask yourself why you can have more than one local time at one locale and neither is real.

I think you should explain what problem you are having with multiple local times. My default view is "anything's possible".

I also think you should be clear on what you mean by "real". It means "detectable" or "having detectable consequences" to me. For example: your claim that Minkowski's formulation of STR is wrong is completely meaningless to me, and this is not because I'm caught up in the mathematics. If you say that we don't *really* live in a "block universe", I want to know what the observable consequences of living in a "block universe" are, as well as what Minkowski's formulation predicts we will observe that we don't.

I think you should ask if c only appears to be invariant.

I always ask myself "What do we really know?" This is actually the question I abandoned "Why?" in favour of. It leads me to objective conclusions, like this one:

Fixing c to be invariant by definition is a convention that is rendered practical by relativity, and would be extremely impractical otherwise. The real science in all of this, what the special theory of relativity boils down to, is the Lorentz invariance in the laws of physics. This is the symmetry that cannot simply be defined into existence, and from which all the relativistic effects (time dilation, invariance of c, reciprocity, etc.), whether you want to call them "real" or "perceived", follow.

Since I did not get this from a textbook, I hope you will stop accusing me of not thinking for myself. Honestly I really don't trust others to do my thinking for me.

If you prefer not to, that's up to you. I've asked myself these questions, because I really do want to understand.

And that's great. Just as long as you're realistic about getting answers.

And I've worked out what I think are the answers. You might not like them, that's up to you.

I would say it's not the kind of thing I'm looking for. I hope the rest of this post will al least partially explain why.

To be honest, I also think you could use some education in formal logic.

I rather think it's because you don't like the questions. You want time to be axiomatic. You don't want it to be "explained".

What I like or want and what I think is possible are two different things. If it helps, I do feel some unrest toward axioms, but axioms are unavoidable.

But thanks nevertheless for your feedback on this essay. It has been of some value.

I should point out that at least part of the reason all the scientifically minded posters here are a little exasperated with you is due to your mislabeling your work as science. This results from your own misconceptions regarding the aims and standards of science, and how scientific theories are rated against one another.

Maybe check out metaphysics.

PS: No, we shouldn't ban a reference frame where the sun goes round the earth. But we should never forget Bruno

So what was your point then? Given the context it didn't seem to be "long held beliefs can be overturned".

We observe colour. But atoms don't have the property of red or green or blue.

We observe diffraction patterns. The wave nature of light is supported by ample experimental evidence, which is what ties the model firmly to reality.

 

[Farsight]

pryzk: You consider yourself a scientist but you don't want to know "why? You're satisfied with the answer that says It's the law of physics so don't ask? You still can't see a problem with multiple local times at one locale? You think colour is real rather than perception, because it's detectable? And you still don't understand the significance of Bruno challenging orthodoxy and being burnt alive for his trouble? What can I say?

We don't observe Minkowski's block universe. It's that simple. It also offers the possibility of time travel, which some serious scientists are looking at earnestly. But we don't observe time travel, and it poses impossible paradoxes dodged by hypothetical parallel worlds that we don't observe either.

I too ask myself What do we really know? That's why I put the emphasis on the ontology rather than the maths. I ask myself what's really there, and find myself at odds with mathematical abstraction based upon axioms that you've lost interest, all steered by language construction that reinforces concepts that are taken for granted. You might consider invariant c to be practical, but it's so darn practical that gravity remains a problem in physics. It's illogical to sit there pondering What do we really know when you won't track back from some dead end challenging everything every step of the way. All the way back to the axiom, if that's what it takes. I have. Because I'm scientific, and rational, and logical, and I think for myself.

I'm sorry pryzk, you need to look at The Psychology of Belief. You convince yourself that you're logical when you don't know the answers but you won't look at the assumptions that left you stranded. Then when I do, you seek to dismiss as illogical or irrelevant like Oli dismisses the colour illusion. I'm not trying to get back at you here with some tit for tat, I really mean all this. Look at Oli and how he thinks we move along in time, and how he dismisses the colour illusion as mere fluff. He is so convinced that he's right he just won't look at the issue. You're similar but to a lesser degree. You've read the essay, you've got no telling points that show it to be plumb wrong, but you offer ongoing resistance with all this talk of logic and metaphysics. Think about why. Better still, read all the RELATIVITY+ essays, ask yourself honestly if I give you at least something of value somewhere on time, money, energy, mass, and gravity. Then come back and ask yourself again about how rational and logical and scientific I am.

 

[Oli]

Look at Oli and how he thinks we move along in time, and how he dismisses the colour illusion as mere fluff.

You haven't shown that we don't move along in time. And the "fluff" comment was that the (mis)perception of colour does not necessarily translate to a misperception of anything else.

He is so convinced that he's right he just won't look at the issue. You're similar but to a lesser degree. You've read the essay

And you assume I haven't read it? Wrong!

 

[Dan (Edmond)]

These two statements are incompatible. Read this article, and rethink your signature.



I admit that I was being abit selfish there.

On something else, I came to these forums for people with logic and the ability to think many layers deep.
I thank all of you for at least passing the newgrounds forum community 10-fold in intelligence, but... you get the point.

I expect you to flame me alot. Well, I think this may be one of my last posts.

Goodbye, I'll try to find some other forum (I don't expect to).

Again, sorry for the signature.

 

[BenTheMan]

On something else, I came to these forums for people with logic and the ability to think many layers.
I thank all of you for at least passing the newgrounds forum community 10-fold in intelligence, but... you get the point.

I expect you to flame me alot. Well, I think this may be one of my last posts.

Goodbye, I'll try to find some other forum (I don't expect to).

Thank you for the melodramatics.

If you don't want to be told you're wrong, don't make outrageous statements.

 

[przyk]

pryzk: You consider yourself a scientist but you don't want to know "why?

I've been through this already with you, and just to make sure you have no illusions about this, you do not set the standards for science. I am not a working scientist - just scientifically minded. This is a mindset that is clearly quite alien to you. My thinking has evolved from where you're at years ago. I did try explaining it, as well as linking you to further reading. I also explained why I don't fill sciforum's storage space with CTRL-V'd "why"s. You want to respond with an argument from incredulity, as if there were something so obviously wrong with this that you can't explain? Now I'm pissed.

You're satisfied with the answer that says It's the law of physics so don't ask?

I have accepted that axioms are inevitable. Do not put words in my mouth. You are now resorting to particularly dishonest debate tactics. I find the fact that you could not reply to my last two posts point-by-point very telling.

You still can't see a problem with multiple local times at one locale?

You still can't explain why it should be a problem?

You think colour is real rather than perception, because it's detectable?

I can tell the difference between frequencies/photon energies etc. and my mind's internal representation of colour, if that's what you mean.

And you still don't understand the significance of Bruno challenging orthodoxy and being burnt alive for his trouble?

You still can't explain the relevance of it?

What can I say?

Given the above, an apology for not reading my last post would be appreciated.

We don't observe Minkowski's block universe. It's that simple.

You are going to have to get a lot more specific than that. Thought experiments, events, and so on. Minkowski never said we would see trailing glowing white "worldlines" following everything around, or that we would observe the universe to be a "block", whatever that's supposed to mean.

It also offers the possibility of time travel, which some serious scientists are looking at earnestly.

No it doesn't. Try to understand this: Minkowski's formulation of STR is mathematically equivalent to every other formulation of the theory out there, including Einstein's original one and the earlier Lorentz Ether Theory. It cannot predict or allow anything that any other formalism does not. The differences between these different formalisms exist solely in your head.

But we don't observe time travel,

It's impossible because it hasn't been witnessed yet? Is that supposed to be the open-mindedness you accuse everyone else of lacking?

and it poses impossible paradoxes

If allowed under no constraints, and given our current conception of causality which could always be called into question.

dodged by hypothetical parallel worlds that we don't observe either.

I would study the theories regarding parallel worlds before drawing conclusions. I guess that's just me.

I too ask myself What do we really know? That's why I put the emphasis on the ontology rather than the maths.

Why? Because what we really know is how good the mathematical models are at making accurate predictions.

I ask myself what's really there, and find myself at odds with mathematical abstraction based upon axioms

Well of course the math isn't going to mean anything to you if you spend no time getting to grips with it. The mathematics is invariably meaningful to those who have studied it and meaningless to those who haven't.

that you've lost interest,

My priorities have changed since I was twelve. I thought I'd explained this.

all steered by language construction that reinforces concepts that are taken for granted.

This is due to your own lack of education regarding the terminology employed by physicists and mathematicians.

You might consider invariant c to be practical, but it's so darn practical that gravity remains a problem in physics.

I explained this, and you haven't established a link with this and whatever problems physicists are having reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics.

It's illogical to sit there pondering What do we really know when you won't track back from some dead end

I smell hypocrisy.

challenging everything every step of the way. All the way back to the axiom, if that's what it takes. I have.

Yet you completely missed Lorentz invariance?

Because I'm scientific, and rational, and logical, and I think for myself.

You think for yourself maybe, but you're not scientific, rational, or logical. In case you hadn't noticed, you're at odds with all the scientifically minded posters here.

I'm sorry pryzk, you need to look at The Psychology of Belief.

You need to take a look at that article Tom2 dug up. About how the incompetent can't even recognize their own incompetence or competence in others. That's you. I hope it's just a (potentially amendable) lack of experience on your part. Lost causes are depressing to watch.

You convince yourself that you're logical when you don't know the answers

Do you even know what logic is? The importance of logic is the reason physics is so heavily dependent on mathematics (which you keep dismissing as unimportant). The mathematics is what allows physicists to rigorously define the properties of abstract objects and how they can be manipulated, which is necessary before any logic can be applied. You consistenly skip this step.

You want an exercise in logic? Take the final paragraphs in "Time Explained" and "Energy Explained" (which I consider hand-waving at best), and split them up into individual assertions. Then make sure you are prepared to explain, at every step, what general rule you are applying to get from each assertion to the next. That is logic.

but you won't look at the assumptions that left you stranded.

What assumptions?

Then when I do, you seek to dismiss as illogical or irrelevant like Oli dismisses the colour illusion. I'm not trying to get back at you here with some tit for tat, I really mean all this.

I have explained why I have dismissed your points. You are inventing your own standards here and whining because nobody wants to play by your rules. Nobody here hates you or feels threatened by you. It's your arguments that aren't convincing, except to you apparently. That's not my fault.

Look at Oli and how he thinks we move along in time,

Try asking him what he would measure movement through time with respect to. Not everyone has thought in depth about every issue, you know, and actually presenting an argument is a lot more convincing than "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, and you will all see it [insert nice round number] years from now."

and how he dismisses the colour illusion as mere fluff.

It is mere fluff. Scientists realised a long time ago that human senses are unreliable. That's why they use scientific instruments. I myself skipped through the first half of "Time Explained" as there was nothing there worth replying to.

He is so convinced that he's right he just won't look at the issue. You're similar but to a lesser degree.

You mean the fact that I reach different conclusions than you, or value the avenues you take differently than you couldn't possibly be because I was actually thinking critically for myself all along, and have been doing so most of my life?

You've read the essay, you've got no telling points that show it to be plumb wrong,

That is because you have simply offered no logic and nothing of substance. At the best of times I'll read stuff you say and think "okay, if he wants to see things that way". At worst, I see hand-waving, pseudo-logic, and wordplay. There is little I can do in response to those parts of your posts except identify them for what they are. Statements are neither meaningful nor logical just because you feel they are.

but you offer ongoing resistance with all this talk of logic and metaphysics.

I tell you what my standards are and you fail to meet them. I ask for a definition for "negative motion" and you fail to convince me you even know what you're talking about. I ask for a derivation of the kinetic energy formula based on your meaningless definition of energy and, of course, you cannot provide it. That's what this debate looks like from my perspective.

Think about why. Better still, read all the RELATIVITY+ essays, ask yourself honestly if I give you at least something of value somewhere on time, money, energy, mass, and gravity. Then come back and ask yourself again about how rational and logical and scientific I am.

Why don't you get an education in physics, then try answering those questions for yourself? You've had enough special attention, and so far you have not told me anything new or that I see as being of any substance.

 

[Tom2]

No I'm not Tom.

You certainly are being silly.

We observe colour. But atoms don't have the property of red or green or blue.

Of course not. But then again I'm not talking about qualia here. I'm talking about measurable, quantifiable observations that any two people can duplicate and agree upon.

Read the opening paragraphs of the essay.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=60883

Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather stick to the point at hand.

I take great pains to say the things we observe are not necessarily the things that are there in the world we're trying to understand. Read what I said, think about it, then look at your post again.

Regardless of what it says in the essay, "what we observe" constitutes the only information we have about the world.

 

[Farsight]

Tom2: You talk about what we observe, then discount some of what we observe as qualia that don't count. Then when we observe the Shapiro Effect and gravitational time dilation, you'll discount some more of what we observe because a law says c never varies, and you'll sweep the observation under a rather vague carpet called spacetime curvature. Your "what we observe" is pick and mix to suit your concepts. I used to think like you. But not any more. Because I've learned to be more discerning about what we observe. I've developed an ontological viewpoint, and I pay much more attention than I did.

Can the twins in my black-hole scenario measure, and quantify, and agree upon the elapsed time? No. So we infer something that neither of them observed directly. Then we propose an idea, then we devise an experiment, and when we've tested it to our satisfaction, we have some confidence that we've gathered some more information about the world.

What I'm saying about variable c is rather like me telling you that your weight on the moon is different to your weight on Earth. But you say I'm being silly because everybody knows there's are always sixteen ounces to the pound because that's "what we observe". And all the while you're missing the obvious, and not paying attention to what we really do observe.

 

[Farsight]

I've been through this already with you, and just to make sure you have no illusions about this, you do not set the standards for science. I am not a working scientist - just scientifically minded. This is a mindset that is clearly quite alien to you. My thinking has evolved from where you're at years ago. I did try explaining it, as well as linking you to further reading. I also explained why I don't fill sciforum's storage space with CTRL-V'd "why"s. You want to respond with an argument from incredulity, as if there were something so obviously wrong with this that you can't explain? Now I'm pissed.

Don't kid yourself that you're scientifically minded. I ask why. You don't. You won't.

I have accepted that axioms are inevitable. Do not put words in my mouth. You are now resorting to particularly dishonest debate tactics. I find the fact that you could not reply to my last two posts point-by-point very telling.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm definitely not being dishonest, and I chose not to reply to your posts point to point because you are labouring them. You're being deliberately pedantic and disingenuous. No I'm not telling you again why two different local times at one local place is a nonsense. And I'm not "explaining" Bruno. Because you'll merely pretend that I haven't, and your posts grow ever bigger into an avalanche of off-topic insult. You want an apology? Get out of it. It was somebody just like you who tied Bruno to the stake.

And I'm not going to get specific about the block universe and the time travel and the parallel universes that we don't observe. Because you're prevaricating, throwing up a barrage of diversionary issues and abuse because you can't come up with telling points. Because come hell or high water you're going to cling to your orthodoxy rather than actually read this essay to find out why I think time travel is impossible. Instead you pretend to understand a mathematical model because you're so rational and scientific, yet you will not examine the axioms, and you will not examine my logic. And moreover your arrogance will brook no examination of the axioms or the logic, and so seeks to deter anybody else from reading this essay. Hypocrisy? Look to yourself. You take a look at that article Tom2 dug up.

...I myself skipped through the first half of "Time Explained" as there was nothing there worth replying to...

LOL, says it all really. You prejudged it, and you skimmed it. So much for your logic, science, rationality, open mind, and sincerity.

Enough. We're done.

 

[Tom2]

Tom2: You talk about what we observe, then discount some of what we observe as qualia that don't count.

No, I'm making the distinction between careful measurements and qualitative judgments about the colors in your optical illusions. No one disputes that the brain can be fooled into thinking that two patches of the same color are in fact different. But there are better ways to measure such things, and there is a difference between using one's eyeball and using a precision instrument.

Then when we observe the Shapiro Effect and gravitational time dilation, you'll discount some more of what we observe because a law says c never varies, and you'll sweep the observation under a rather vague carpet called spacetime curvature. Your "what we observe" is pick and mix to suit your concepts.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about this. I was talking about Lorentz invariance, and you know that.

I used to think like you. But not any more. Because I've learned to be more discerning about what we observe.

You have yet to start thinking like me. That much is obvious from what I've read from you so far.

I've developed an ontological viewpoint, and I pay much more attention than I did.

Your posts no more resemble ontology than they do science.

Can the twins in my black-hole scenario measure, and quantify, and agree upon the elapsed time? No. So we infer something that neither of them observed directly. Then we propose an idea, then we devise an experiment, and when we've tested it to our satisfaction, we have some confidence that we've gathered some more information about the world.

I haven't read your twin scenario, and I don't know where to find it. Not that it matters. I'm still waiting for you to deal with the point I brought up, which is that observations are our only way of obtaining information about the world. Instead of blathering on about your essays or what you think I might say, why don't you just tell me what other source of information you think we have about the world?

What I'm saying about variable c is rather like me telling you that your weight on the moon is different to your weight on Earth. But you say I'm being silly because everybody knows there's are always sixteen ounces to the pound because that's "what we observe". And all the while you're missing the obvious, and not paying attention to what we really do observe.

No, it's you who is missing the obvious. Arguments by analogy only hold when the particulars of the analog (in this case, the "varying weight" argument) can be mapped mutatis mutandis into the particulars of the point on the table (your "varying speed of light" argument). In this case, that cannot be done. We know how a body's weight varies with its mass, the mass of an attracting body, and the distance from the same. We also know how spatiotemporal measurements vary from one inertial frame to another. The two situations are totally different, mathematically speaking.

And saying that we observe 16 ounces to the pound is silly. There are 16 ounces to the pound by definition.

 

[Farsight]

No, I'm making the distinction between careful measurements and qualitative judgments about the colors in your optical illusions. No one disputes that the brain can be fooled into thinking that two patches of the same color are in fact different. But there are better ways to measure such things, and there is a difference between using one's eyeball and using a precision instrument.

Agreed.

Farsight: Then when we observe the Shapiro Effect and gravitational time dilation, you'll discount some more of what we observe because a law says c never varies, and you'll sweep the observation under a rather vague carpet called spacetime curvature. Your "what we observe" is pick and mix to suit your concepts. Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said anything about this. I was talking about Lorentz invariance, and you know that.

Don't duck the issue. We observe the Shapiro Effect. You explain it away using Lorentz Invariance. You deny the observation because it doesn't fit your curved spacetime concept. Try proving me wrong. You'll find yourself giving a circular justification that uses the concept to justify itself.

You have yet to start thinking like me. That much is obvious from what I've read from you so far... Your posts no more resemble ontology than they do science... I haven't read your twin scenario, and I don't know where to find it. Not that it matters. I'm still waiting for you to deal with the point I brought up, which is that observations are our only way of obtaining information about the world. Instead of blathering on about your essays or what you think I might say, why don't you just tell me what other source of information you think we have about the world?

Oh don't start getting abusive. The other source of information is inference.

No, it's you who is missing the obvious. Arguments by analogy only hold when the particulars of the analog (in this case, the "varying weight" argument) can be mapped mutatis mutandis into the particulars of the point on the table (your "varying speed of light" argument). In this case, that cannot be done. We know how a body's weight varies with its mass, the mass of an attracting body, and the distance from the same. We also know how spatiotemporal measurements vary from one inertial frame to another. The two situations are totally different, mathematically speaking.
And saying that we observe 16 ounces to the pound is silly. There are 16 ounces to the pound by definition.

No it isn't silly. Because by definition:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

What might alter that radiation period given that the caesium atom remains at rest and at 0K? My toy model says that matter is in its barest essence made from light. I can explain energy, mass, and gravity. What are you going to do, read what I say with an open mind or heap scorn because you declare that nobody can explain mass? This model says that if we observe gravitational time dilation in some location, it's because c must be reduced in that location. Despite the fact that it's always measured locally at 300,000km/s, and despite the fact that you deem it to be constant because of a law based on your total immersion in a pure-marble world made out of light. It's Einstein's geometrical goal. And the analogy holds: you are measuring those pounds with ounces and saying the weight never changes whilst sneering at my explanation involving a variation in c that we cannot measure directly. Now stop posturing, read RELATIVITY+, and think it through. It works. It flies. And whilst plenty of people feel so threatened and outraged that they offer bluster aplenty, nobody but nobody can shoot it down.

So they aim for the messenger instead.

 

[Dinosaur]

Same as a philosophy text and the lectures from the professor, the posters to this thread are making the concept of time far too complex.

Einstein explained it very well. When you embellish on his view, you confuse the concept without adding any useful ideas. See a post way back in this thread. No sense quoting it. Those who ignored it the first time are not going to pay attention anyway.

 

[Farsight]

Einstein once wrote something like the following about time, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.

• When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.
  
  It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.
  
  In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.
  
  There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.

The above is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory, not a quote. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms., not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be some construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.

This one Dinosaur?

All: OK, I'm off for three days now and expect to be out of touch. Catch you later. Please refer to RELATIVITY+ in addition to this essay.

 

[przyk]

Don't kid yourself that you're scientifically minded. I ask why. You don't. You won't.

For the last time: you do not set the standards for science. You have not even tried to understand what does motivate me. All you're interested in is fitting anyone who doesn't cater to your ego to a stereotype.

I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm definitely not being dishonest,

I never anywhere said "It's the law of physics so don't ask". You tried to pretend I did, and this is a dishonest tactic. You should consider a career in politics, where the ability to lie and misrepresent your opponents is actually likely to get you somewhere.

and I chose not to reply to your posts point to point because you are labouring them. You're being deliberately pedantic and disingenuous.

Excuses. I was being rigourous. I did tell you your essays lacked rigour before.

No I'm not telling you again why two different local times at one local place is a nonsense.

"Again" would imply you'd already done it at least once.

And I'm not "explaining" Bruno. Because you'll merely pretend that I haven't,

Really? Take a look at where this started:

When you read the history you can see a slow evolution from the postulate that says the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. The problem with reference frames is that all our observer velocities are zero, and if you don’t take care the sun goes round the earth. They don’t explain why the speed of light is always the same. It wasn’t until Einstein met Godel in Princeton that he realised the full impact of what Special Relativity really meant:

You know what I think? When I asked you exactly what the problem was with reference frames in which the Sun revolves around the Earth, you realised that you in fact did not have a point. You then used the clear association with the old dogmatic views of the Catholic church and its oppression to put up a facade - a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject.

and your posts grow ever bigger into an avalanche of off-topic insult.

Take a look in the mirror. Look at who stopped addressing points here and started giving me insults to reply to. I already told you not to dish out what you couldn't take. You were warned.

You want an apology?

Yes, I feel I'm owed one.

Get out of it. It was somebody just like you who tied Bruno to the stake.

Make that two. I have never threatened you in any way, nor have I ever in any way attempted to restrict your freedom of speech. Get some perspective here. You are beginning to disgust me.

And I'm not going to get specific about the block universe and the time travel and the parallel universes that we don't observe.

You have not convinced me that Minkowski's formulation of relativity predicts anything we don't observe. I also explained why it couldn't disagree in any way with Einstein's original formulation. Get a clue. Learn what an isomorphism is.

Because you're prevaricating, throwing up a barrage of diversionary issues and abuse because you can't come up with telling points.

Again, look in the mirror. Who here is the one really failing to respond to points and specific questions?

Because come hell or high water you're going to cling to your orthodoxy

You have not established that I hold any orthodox beliefs, hence another unfounded accusation from you.

rather than actually read this essay to find out why I think time travel is impossible.

I have read your essay. It's you who thinks undefined terms and handwaving equals logic and science.

Instead you pretend to understand a mathematical model because you're so rational and scientific,

Pretend? Unlike you, I do understand mathematical models, including for exactly what they are. I don't need to pretend anything. The only person putting up facades to camouflage his own ignorance here is you.

yet you will not examine the axioms,

I make sure I can identify the axioms. There is not necessarily anything more anyone can do than that, except reformulate the model or replace it in order to reduce the number of necessary axioms (look up Occam's razor). You have never actually offered a rebuttal to this point - just dodged and whined.

and you will not examine my logic.

Claiming you have presented logic will not make it true. I was actually quite surprised when I read your essays only to find there was almost nothing of substance there. Most crackpots who claim they have a theory capable of turning contemporary physics on its head actually present some kind of attempt at a model.

And moreover your arrogance will brook no examination of the axioms or the logic, and so seeks to deter anybody else from reading this essay.

Would you like me to troll your threads with "Warning! Pseudoscience! Don't Read This!"?

Hypocrisy? Look to yourself. You take a look at that article Tom2 dug up.

Well, what do you know: denial. Very convincing.

LOL, says it all really. You prejudged it, and you skimmed it.

Skimmed? Yes. Prejudged? No. I call it "fluff" because it adds nothing to your essay. And compare the skimming I did with the time you spent getting an education in physics, especially the fields you love to be so dismissive about. You're such a hypocrite, you know.

So much for your logic, science, rationality, open mind, and sincerity.

Not that you'd recognise the real thing if you saw it.

Enough. We're done.

Well, that settles it then. I can't discuss anything with someone so inflexible, dishonest, and in love with the sound of their own voice as you. I'm going to ignore you from now on, whether or not you can resist the temptation to have the last word.

 

[Tom2]

Don't duck the issue. We observe the Shapiro Effect. You explain it away using Lorentz Invariance. You deny the observation because it doesn't fit your curved spacetime concept. Try proving me wrong. You'll find yourself giving a circular justification that uses the concept to justify itself.

I am beginning to think that you are completely insane.

Farsight, I never said anything about the Shapiro effect, I never denied any observation of the same, I never said anything about curved spacetime, and I never tried to use Lorentz invariance to explain the Shapiro effect or anything else. Somewhere, an imaginary conversation must have taken place inside your head. But it didn't happen anywhere in the real world.

Try "proving" you wrong Farsight? About what, the Shapiro effect? You haven't made any claims about it, and furthermore I was not talking about it.

Oh don't start getting abusive. The other source of information is inference.

Wrong, Farsight. Inferences generate predictions, not information. The predictions that come from inference must be tested experimentally.

No it isn't silly. Because by definition:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0K…

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't see the difference between defining an ounce to be 1/16th of a pound, and defining the second in terms of the behavior of a physical system? Farsight, yes your previous claim is silly, because no one but no one has "observed" a pound to contain 16 ounces. The claim is tautological and therefore cannot be the subject of a scientific experiment. It is possible, on the other hand, that cesium atoms could slow down their radiation rate, and so that can be the subject of an experiment.

What might alter that radiation period given that the caesium atom remains at rest and at 0K? My toy model says that matter is in its barest essence made from light. I can explain energy, mass, and gravity. What are you going to do, read what I say with an open mind or heap scorn because you declare that nobody can explain mass?

Errr...Farsight, no one--not even you--can explain mass at present. Determining particle masses is still one of the great open problems in physics. If you think you can explain mass then show how your model correctly predicts the lepton masses. Unless you can do that, you have nothing.

The rest of your post is just you tooting your own horn, which I'm not particularly interested in participating in. So I'm stopping now. Besides, you're ignoring my point anyway.

 

[Dinosaur]

Przyk: I am not sure how Farsight would answer the following.

. . . . . When I asked you exactly what the problem was with reference frames in which the Sun revolves around the Earth, you realised that you in fact did not have a point. You then used the clear association with the old dogmatic views of the Catholic church] . . . . .

There is a good answer: An Earth based reference frame is valid. The only problem is that it complicates the mathematics dealing with the orbit of the Earth and other planets, asteroids, comets. et cetera.

An Earth based reference frame is preferred when doing calculations relating to our space program. For this purpose, a sun based reference frame would complicate the calculations.

BTW: This issue is not in any way related to the view of the church at the time of Gaileo.

 

[przyk]

Hi Dinosaur,

An Earth based reference frame is valid. The only problem is that it complicates the mathematics dealing with the orbit of the Earth and other planets, asteroids, comets. et cetera.

Agreed. Also worth noting is the loss of homogeneity and isotropy in the laws of physics if you transform them into rotating or other accelerating reference frames (I'm not sure which frames general relativity covers). You start having priviledged points (like at the centre of rotation) and priviledged directions in which objects tend to get pulled, which I see as a loss in aesthetics. Farsight seemed to be suggesting that there was something fundamentally wrong with the use of Earth-centric reference frames, though - not just that they were in some ways more complicated to deal with.

BTW: This issue is not in any way related to the view of the church at the time of Gaileo.

I'm not the one who brought up the issue. Farsight responded to my question about those reference frames with this:

If you take reference frames to their extreme you will use the reference frame of the earth and say the sun goes round the earth. When people first said the earth actually goes round the sun, they called them blasphemers and heretics.

That Farsight wants to make a point of comparing himself with Galileo or Bruno (fighting against what he sees as oppression and a dogmatic establishment) doesn't surprise me in itself, but I don't buy that he wanted to do it in the middle of a paragraph about relativity and reference frames.

Anyway. I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Farsight]

I am beginning to think that you are completely insane. Farsight, I never said anything about the Shapiro effect, I never denied any observation of the same, I never said anything about curved spacetime, and I never tried to use Lorentz invariance to explain the Shapiro effect or anything else. Somewhere, an imaginary conversation must have taken place inside your head. But it didn't happen anywhere in the real world. Try "proving" you wrong Farsight? About what, the Shapiro effect? You haven't made any claims about it, and furthermore I was not talking about it.

Try reading back through the thread. I'm sure you recall writing: Farsight, you're being silly. When przyk says that Lorentz invariance is "just the way it is", there is no comparison to be drawn to religious proclamations. That is because Lorentz invariance is what is observed. If you don't understand the difference between statements made on the basis of observation and statements made on the basis of blind faith, then you simply have no understanding of science.. I raised the Shapiro Effect. We observe it. I'm talking about measurable, quantifiable observations that any two people can duplicate and agree upon. There is a measurable observable time delay associated with a location, the light takes longer to arrive. But if we go to that location we wouldn't see the light travelling slower. Lorentz Invariance is maintained, but there is a difference, in c. We observe it. It validates my argument. But you prefer to sling insults instead of talking about the Shapiro Effect.

Wrong, Farsight. Inferences generate predictions, not information. The predictions that come from inference must be tested experimentally.

No problem.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can't see the difference between defining an ounce to be 1/16th of a pound, and defining the second in terms of the behavior of a physical system? Farsight, yes your previous claim is silly, because no one but no one has "observed" a pound to contain 16 ounces. The claim is tautological and therefore cannot be the subject of a scientific experiment. It is possible, on the other hand, that cesium atoms could slow down their radiation rate, and so that can be the subject of an experiment.

But the clock would "slow down" too. If I conducted an experiment using multiple clocks in different locations you'd be calling me silly because of course everybody knows that gravitational time dilation is "curved spacetime" and not a variation in c.

Errr...Farsight, no one--not even you--can explain mass at present. Determining particle masses is still one of the great open problems in physics. If you think you can explain mass then show how your model correctly predicts the lepton masses. Unless you can do that, you have nothing.

I can explain mass. It's in the MASS EXPLAINED essay, and it's crushingly simple. But that's OK, you can happily ignore the solution to one of the great open problems in physics as "pseudoscience".

The rest of your post is just you tooting your own horn, which I'm not particularly interested in participating in. So I'm stopping now. Besides, you're ignoring my point anyway.

You haven't ever been interested in a the logic I present. All you've been interested in is dismissal and insult. Make a note of RELATIVITY+ Doubting Thomas, because it isn't going away.

 

[Tom2]

I raised the Shapiro Effect.

Farsight, you try reading back through the thread. You raised the Shapiro effect, and then proceded to tell me what I would say about it. I told you to stop putting words into my mouth, and then you kept right on doing it. I made a very simple point, and then you started holding me accountable for arguments that I never forwarded.

We observe it. I'm talking about measurable, quantifiable observations that any two people can duplicate and agree upon. There is a measurable observable time delay associated with a location, the light takes longer to arrive. But if we go to that location we wouldn't see the light travelling slower. Lorentz Invariance is maintained, but there is a difference, in c. We observe it. It validates my argument. But you prefer to sling insults instead of talking about the Shapiro Effect.

Farsight, do you understand that "Lorentz invariance" pertains to Special Relativity, while the Shapiro effect is a prediction of General Relativity?

But the clock would "slow down" too. If I conducted an experiment using multiple clocks in different locations you'd be calling me silly because of course everybody knows that gravitational time dilation is "curved spacetime" and not a variation in c.

I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about the diminishing of the radiation rate of the cesium atoms over time, like a clock winding down. That could potentially happen. But there will never be any more or less than 16 ounces to the pound. I can't believe you're still going on about this.

I can explain mass. It's in the MASS EXPLAINED essay, and it's crushingly simple. But that's OK, you can happily ignore the solution to one of the great open problems in physics as "pseudoscience".

I've read "mass explained". You haven't explained anything, and you haven't solved anything. Let me know when you have at least the lepton masses. Until then, I'm going to go back to working on real physics.

You haven't ever been interested in a the logic I present. All you've been interested in is dismissal and insult.

You haven't ever been interested in the logic I present. All you've been interested in is putting words into my mouth and holding me accountable for things I never said.

Make a note of RELATIVITY+ Doubting Thomas, because it isn't going away.

Make a note of Minkowski's spacetime Nearsight, because it isn't going away.