Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time”

[Doctordick]

Well, I have received a note from Anssi that suggests that freeztar felt that I treated him abruptly earlier. I apologize directly to freeztar for my lack of interest in his concerns. My treatment of him was directly connected to what appeared to me as a lack of interest in mathematics. I take the position that logic is not the central issue on which one can build a world view as logic is far to limited to provide one with a usable perspective. This is an issue behind my second post on hypography.com which apparently was never understood by anyone (accept perhaps for Anssi). I tried to clarify the issue to Qfwfq on my forth post but apparently did no better at communicating my position. Essentially, what I was saying was that, without mathematics, logic is practically worthless as it cannot be extended beyond a few thousand steps even by the most thoughtful people and thus cannot even begin to take into account a sufficient number of variables to establish a usable world view. Our world views are built by what I call “squirrel thought”. I apologize to everyone here for being rather indifferent to their positions on many subjects; from my perspective, it is entirely due to their total lack of interest in actually finding answers to any of their own questions.

 

At any rate, I will respond to freeztar in detail. Meanwhile, to Modest, your complaints are no more then further misdirection of attention. I am not saying that relationships in physics can not be expressed in Einstein's picture any more than Galileo meant to suggest that Ptolemy and his cycles and epicycles could not yield the correct positions of the heavenly bodies. My position is simply that their problems stem from a poor definition of time. And that brings me back to freeztar's complaints:

Well, it's a good thing I'm not a physicist, huh? :rolleyes:

Now I didn't expect you to take it that way. You show definite signs of being quite thoughtful; I just wanted to point out the fact that sometimes subtle things are overlooked.

That is what I call reality. The sum of my perceptions. So, time and space are very real, to me at least.

What you miss is the fact that your perceptions themselves are a consequence of mental organization of nerve inputs and thus are actually a illusion created by the same mechanism which stands behind any aspect of your reasoning powers; essentially pure figments of your imagination, conceived of for the sole purpose of giving organizational summaries of the essentially undefined information available to you. Note that your senses are, themselves, an aspect of your world view. But most people conceive of their world view as an explanation of their senses but, without a world view, how would you know you could sense anything? You have to be able to see that your senses are no more than another aspect of your world view. If you can not comprehend that, I do not know how we can communicate.

Good for you! Us mere mortals aren't up for the challenge. :)

Being “up for the challenge” is a choice you make for yourself; I have no control over your unwillingness to think about things.

I'm not ignoring anything, merely stating a preference.

I understand that: it is your privilege not to take up any challenges you dislike. You do understand that is what is meant by “ignorance is bliss” don't you?

I'm curious what you think of mooney's interpretation of your work...

Anyone who understands physics at all comprehends that Mooney simply doesn't understand most of what anybody else is talking about. You, on the other hand, show definite signs of being thoughtful. I I didn't think you might understand me, I wouldn't answer your posts (I am an old man and really don't enjoy wasting my time, answering any of Mooney's posts strikes me as a total waste of time as he shows no sign of understanding anyone.)

Absolute truth?

There exists but one “absolute truth”. That would be “the truth by definition”. Truth by definition is no more than agreeing to let some symbol (or set of symbols) stand in for a more complex structure. One can either agree to abide by that definition or refuse to do so. If one refuses to accept such a definition, the definition simply can not be used so the question of truth is moot. If agreement to accept the definition exists then the symbol (or set of symbols) means exactly what the more complex structure refers to. By agreeing to use that symbol (or set of symbols) to represent some other collection of symbols one is agreeing to the truth of that representation. Thus it is that the relationship expressed by that symbol (or set of symbols) is either true or “not used”. If it is used it is absolute truth or else we are simply not communicating anything.

 

If you cannot follow that, talking to you is as useless as talking to mooney.

Is Ansii the only one to follow that proof, or the only one to agree with you?

Well, I would have to admit that it is possible that some lurker may have followed the proof; but, if they have they have certainly not made me aware of the fact. Maybe in the last forty years, perhaps a dozen people have looked at the proof but they have invariably ceased at the first moment they managed to find something they could interpret as an error of some kind (most often being a simple misinterpretation of what I was saying). I would say, little more than an excuse not to look any closer.

 

If you have been following any part of my conversation with Anssi, you should be aware of the fact that I am somewhat error prone. Anssi has found a great number of both typos and algebraic errors; however, no one, including Anssi, has “ever” pointed out an error in my underlying logic.

And for his troubles, he should receive a medal or something.

Yes, Anssi is quite a remarkable fellow and deserves any recognition people are willing to give him.

Learn something new everyday I suppose...;)

Learning and understanding are quite different things.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I'm failing to see the two definitions as mutually exclusive.

Ok, let us take the “time is what clocks measure” definition of time. You want to know what time it is, carry a perfectly accurate clock (let us say, accurate to within a tenth of a second over a million years) and just go by the reading on the clock. Now let us set up a simple thought experiment. Let us look at what happens with two people (or any number of people for that matter). Let them go off into the universe to explore (let them be immortal so the trip doesn't have to stop because they die). Each goes off in a different direction in the Galaxy visiting all the various stars and planets in their quadrant.

 

They are given one million years to complete their explorations and are to meet to discuss their findings at a conference to be held some specific place on earth after that one million years elapses: i.e., after the earth completes one million orbits around the sun. So they all go out and do their things and return for the meeting. Let us go to that meeting. Everyone who makes the meeting will agree that they are meeting “at the same time” but no one is apt to agree as to what that “time” is, not if they go by their clocks. That even goes for people who never leave the earth, if they live in valleys, mountains, the arctic or the equator their clocks will differ. Exactly what “time” is it anyway?

 

I know, the correct time is a relative thing: it depends upon your frame of reference. As the scientists will say, if these travelers want to get back to that meeting, they will all have to keep track of their frame of reference relative to that of the specified meeting place and correct their “time” for the difference. I don't disagree with that, I merely hold that it is essentially misdirection of attention.

 

Now look at things from a slightly different perspective. If we, as scientists, wish to know what the readings on their clocks will be (when they get to the meeting) we need to know their exact path for their exploration: the space time coordinates of that path in our frame of reference (including the corrections due to gravitational effects; the “curvature of space”) expressed in the form [imath]\vec{x}(t)[/imath] (position as a function of time, our frame of reference and “our time”). Once we have the correct coordinates of that path we can calculate the clock reading T_finish

[math]T_{finish}=\int_{t_{start}}^{t_{meeting}}\frac{1}{c}\sqrt{c^2-\left( \frac{d}{dt}\vec{x}\right)^2}\;\;dt[/math]

 

The thing under the integral sign is actually (multiply through the square root with dt) [imath]\frac{i}{c}\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-c^2dt^2}[/imath] which is exactly [imath]\frac{i}{c}dI[/imath], where [imath]dI[/imath] is . In fact, [imath]\frac{i}{c}dI[/imath] has a very well know name. It is called “proper time”. Notice that it is not called “time”; people using the “time is what clocks measure” definition of time call “t” time. Now I agree that any clock will read “proper time” so quite clearly “proper time” is “what clocks measure” (in fact, all clocks always measure “proper time”). But if “proper time” and “time” are the same thing, why is it necessary to use two names? The scientist will tell you I am making a mountain out of a mole hill; sure, clocks measure “proper time” but “time” is merely the “proper time” in the rest frame of the clock. Once again, I don't disagree with that, I merely hold that it is just more misdirection of attention designed to get your mind off the subject.

 

And that brings up another issue worth thinking about. In order to read the correct time for an inertial frame of interest, all we have to do is possess a clock “at rest” in that frame. But that brings up another problem. For a structure to be “at rest” in an inertial frame, it must have exactly zero momentum in that frame. This means an ideal “rest clock” is not a physical possibility. Most scientists will respond with one of two reasons for us to ignore that issue. The weak answer is that, “an ideal clock is not a physical possibility anyway so forget about it”. My complaint with that is that ideal clocks measure “proper time” with no difficulty as they are always at rest in their own frame even when that is an accelerated frame. The other common answer is that “space-time” is foamy and time is not meaningful on the ideal level. The fact that ideal clocks measure “proper time” with no difficulty also seems also to contradict that assertion. My feeling is that either answer is really an attempt to get off the subject; overt misdirection of attention.

 

There is one other rather obvious indicator of a problem with the “time is what clocks measure” definition of time. A common method of obtaining the lifetime of a particle with an extremely short half life is to observe the distance that particle can travel at relativistic speeds. This allows relativistic time dilation to slow down that lifetime sufficiently to allow it to be measured: i.e., the life time of the particle is measured via a clock at rest it its own frame of reference. But the time being measured there is actually “proper time”. This leads to a rather strange result when one speaks of stable particles. The path of a stable particle is often scattered by assorted interactions yielding straight path lengths which are rather short (finite) compared to the uncertainty in its mass (zero). In standard physics, the uncertainty principal says that the uncertainty [imath]\Delta m\Delta t\geq \frac{\hbar}{2c^2}[/imath]. If the uncertainty in mass is zero, the uncertainty in t must be infinite. This statement is certainly not consistent with most physics measurements. It is just another issue sidestepped by professional physicists via a change in subject; they would rather talk about how those measurements should be transformed before the subject is broached. The answer they all want to get around to is uncertainty in energy; a subtly different question.

 

The essence of magic is misdirection of attention. With misdirection of attention, one can hide the truth for years; magicians do it all the time even when we know they are lying to us. How much worse off are we when the magician doesn't even know he is doing it? Sometimes people fool themselves when they are confronted with inconsistencies in their interpretation of events. They tend to avoid bringing the inconsistency to the forefront because to do so would prove their interpretation was faulty in some way and that result implies they do not understand what they are talking about and people just hate that.

Hmmm...I thought the biggest incompatibility was gravity.

In Einstein's paradigm, without general relativity, there is no gravity: i.e., the central issue of general relativity is gravity. Their inability to quantize general relativity is equivalent to a failure to bring gravity into quantum mechanics.

Totally consistent? According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, it is not possible for fermions (entities) to exist in the same quantum state (same time same place).

Now you are just blowing wind. What does that have to do with the idea that things can not interact if they exist at different times?

I don't think the second sentence necessarily follows the first, but that's neither now nor then.

The point was that even very qualified people, in the absence of thought, can find simple things beyond their comprehension; Mooney is stuck, without thought, on the idea that his ideas are right. You, at least, show some signs of thinking things out.

 

That's because your quote says "at the same time" rather than "at the same point in time"

 

Just as a point in space is not the same as space so too a point in time is not the same as time.

But it two entities were in the same point in space at the same “time”, everyone would agree to that fact no matter what frame of reference they used wouldn't they? In the same vein, one cannot measure the length of an object without having the ends of their ruler at the same place and time of the ends of the object they are measuring can they? If that is not true, they are guessing at the length via some questionable assumptions.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

The path of a stable particle is often scattered by assorted interactions yielding straight path lengths which are rather short (finite) compared to the uncertainty in its mass (zero). In standard physics, the uncertainty principal says that the uncertainty [imath]\Delta m\Delta t\geq \frac{\hbar}{2c^2}[/imath].

 

This is nonsense if you are taking m to mean rest mass. Rest mass is NOT conjugate to t, energy is. The uncertainty principle is always between conjugate variables (momentum is conjugate to position, they are related by a fourier transform, energy is conjugate to time).

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}[/math]

 

If you are taking m to be related to the total energy, then your point doesn't stand- the uncertainty in total energy is not 0. You are either conflating two separate definitions of mass, or you have mis-remembered the uncertainty principle.

[Little Bang]

Doc, the use of math to describe phenomena of the Universe is of astronomical importance but to say logic is not as important as math is ludicrous. Logic is what got us the math. Do you think you could devise an equation that would describe a humming bird to an alien? No, logical description of events is paramount to any description of phenomena. If we can't describe the Universe with our spoken language then we do not understand the Universe.

[Doctordick]

The answer they all want to get around to is uncertainty in energy; a subtly different question.

The essence of magic is misdirection of attention.

This is nonsense if you are taking m to mean rest mass. Rest mass is NOT conjugate to t, energy is. The uncertainty principle is always between conjugate variables (momentum is conjugate to position, they are related by a fourier transform, energy is conjugate to time).

 

[math]\Delta E \Delta t \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}[/math]

 

If you are taking m to be related to the total energy, then your point doesn't stand- the uncertainty in total energy is not 0. You are either conflating two separate definitions of mass, or you have mis-remembered the uncertainty principle.

Did I call it or did I call it? It is just misdirection of attention. They certainly talk about an uncertainty in the mass of an unstable particle. Exactly what is the variable conjugate to m in their picture? When they do the calculations, they use “proper time”! :lol:

 

You know, some other things brought up in this thread also bear upon the distorted self deceptive view held as unquestionable by the physics community. That would be related to Mooney's issue concerning the motion of a comet when there is nothing to compare that motion to. Erasmus and modest both were quite quick to point out that motion could not be defined in such a case. Actually the circumstance is directly related to a very simple symmetry requirement: there can be no information in the solution of a problem which does not exist in the statement of the problem. For those who don't understand that assertion, I will give a fairly simple example.

 

What is the electromagnetic radiation produced by a spherical charge distribution undergoing radial oscillation? The answer is embedded in the fact that the electric and magnetic fields in electromagnetic radiation are vector fields orthogonal to one another and orthogonal to the direction of the radiation (a fact anyone familiar with electrodynamics would know). It is trivial to prove that a radially oscillating sphere cannot radiate via the following argument. If you have the knowledge to calculate the correct answer, pick a point far enough away from the oscillating sphere such that the size of the sphere is trivial with respect to the distance to that point and calculate the strength and direction of the electric (or magnetic) field at that point as a function of time. By this means you have the strength of the electric (or magnetic) field at that point at any specific time relative to the timing of the radial oscillation: i.e., the strength of the field at some specific time is now known!

 

Now solve the mirror image of the original problem. You must obtain the mirror image of the solution: i.e., the electric (or magnetic) field must point in the opposite direction. But the mirror image of a radially oscillating sphere is exactly the same as the original problem so the answer cannot be different. The only vector which doesn't change when you reverse its direction is one with a magnitude of zero: i.e., the electric (and magnetic) fields at infinity must vanish. Since photons are quantized electromagnetic oscillation, no such photon can exist.

 

Erasmus and modest give the correct answer with regard to the comet: neither momentum nor angular momentum can be defined in such a circumstance, not if the comet is the only thing in the universe. There exists but one rational coordinate system: the coordinate system where the momentum and the angular momentum of the comet itself vanishes. But what about the entire universe? If one believes in conservation of momentum, mass and energy it is clearly possible to talk about the center of mass of any finite collection of matter and its angular momentum. So, what is the total momentum and angular momentum of the known universe? The problem is exactly equivalent to measuring the total momentum and angular momentum of that comet: it is undefinable!

 

Thus it follows that there exists a very definite “preferred” coordinate system for the known universe. That coordinate system is the one where the total momentum and angular momentum of the known universe vanishes. In fact, that is exactly the coordinate system preferred by the physics community. The known universe (the elements of the universe they don't choose to ignore) can get as small as the laboratory they are working in. In fact, the presumption that physical phenomena don't depend upon what is ignored can be used to deduce the standard relativistic relationships (except for the rotation thing; as Newton pointed out, that just can't be ignored).

 

If anyone wishes to understand how the standard relativistic relationships can be so deduced, just read my thread, An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity!. That is why I called it "an analytical-metaphysical" take.

 

So the professional physics position (and that of Erasmus and modest) that “there is no such thing as a preferred coordinate system” is out and out misrepresentation of the circumstance: pure baloney!

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Michael Mooney]

DD:

Anyone who understands physics at all comprehends that Mooney simply doesn't understand most of what anybody else is talking about....

 

If you cannot follow that, talking to you is as useless as talking to mooney."

 

It is "useless" in a forum to just "talk to" anyone without listening to them. The latter is a foreign concept to you.

 

The point was that even very qualified people, in the absence of thought, can find simple things beyond their comprehension; Mooney is stuck, without thought, on the idea that his ideas are right. You, at least, show some signs of thinking things out.

 

This "without thought" translates clearly as "without agreeing with me."

You have never engaged in dialogue with me but only delivered arrogant slaps in the face as to how you are right and I am not only wrong but too stupid to understand your self-right-eous self.

 

I have asked you many times to tell me exactly with what points in my presentations you disagree. It's always the same... not worth your time to talk to such a dummy.

 

Last case in point, about my "lonely comet" thought experiment, you wrote:

"That would be related to Mooney's issue concerning the motion of a comet when their is nothing to compare that motion to. Erasmus and modest both were quite quick to point out that motion could not be defined in such a case. Actually the circumstance is directly related to a very simple symmetry requirement: there can be no information in the solution of a problem which does not exist in the statement of the problem"...

 

(and went on to elaborate in great detail.)

 

What you missed is that you and others here assume the absolute truth of various forms of subjective idealism... yours and AnnsiH's being "constructionism" while I base my statements on a philosophy which you absolutely deny... which I have recently repeated many times... tho you show no sign of having read those statements, let alone comprehend them.

 

Just to save you the trouble of review (which I know will not happen) I say that:

Cosmos exists independent of human observation, measurement, or definition. Sooo... If the rest of the cosmos disappeared leaving only Haley's comet, it would not only continue to exist but it would continue to move (through empty space) with no observers or frames of reference around from which to *measure relative velocity*., etc.

Naturally it would no longer orbit the now-non-existent sun, but would have the same (albeit now unmeasurable) "speed" as it did, tangent to its previous orbit, before everything else disappeared.

No one here so far has shown any capability of understanding this experiment on the terms it was presented, and you are no exception.

 

So you go off on your own quite verbose "tangent" about how "there can be no information in the solution of a problem which does not exist in the statement of the problem."

 

The comet was moving (information) when everything else disappeared. Without any force exerted on it to change that, reason alone dictates that it would continue to move (with above change of vector) regardless of subjective idealist's and constructionist relativity theorists' conceptual impairment for any philosophy beyond "It's all relative"... and absolute dependence on "frames of reference" (which the thought experiment intentionally deleted.)

 

No, DD... It is you who are absolutely convinced that your philosophy is right and mine wrong... to the point that what I say falls on deaf ears. That is not my problem, but I will not just "hold my tongue" while you continue to slander me on these boards.

 

Michael

[AnssiH]

Did I call it or did I call it?

 

Yeah... :beer:

 

When I read that response, I just thought "wow that was quick". Also a perfect example of "...they have invariably ceased at the first moment they managed to find something they could interpret as an error of some kind (most often being a simple misinterpretation of what I was saying)."

 

And btw, Michael's post above, feels perfectly analogous to quite many objections I've heard to the epistemological analysis. The feeling you get from trying to explain to him how relative motion gets and loses its meaning, that's how I feel when trying to explain how the idea of any "ontologically persistent objects in interaction" loses its meaning when you get down into the epistemological fundamentals.

 

A lot of the time, people lose sight of the fact that in their complaints, they bring in hidden assumptions that cannot be considered part of ontological reality independently of some aspects of their worldview. Some aspects that had to be first specifically defined into that specific form. Exactly like Michael is ignoring the fact that the idea of "the comet would continue to move" is entirely dependent on his hidden assumption that empty space has got ontological identities to its locations (or something akin to that, giving meaning to motion against space).

 

Few complaints of that sort come to mind immediately. One had to do with one result of the analysis, which shows that dimensionality is an open parameter to a worldview; any data can become ordered in terms of any chosen dimensionality (resulting into very different looking defined objects). That was deemed non-sense, on the grounds that "if we were living in a 4D-world, a 3D-conception of it would be flawed; we might think we are hiding when we are not". That contains very many assumptions that cannot be considered part of explicit knowledge about ontological reality, and most of all the idea that the 3D conception of a 4D world is, after the symmetry requirements of the associated transformation, a simple projection from 4D to 3D...

 

I think most of all that objection arose from the hidden assumption that space is ontologically 3 dimensional just like we perceive it... ...completely ignoring the fact that all those objects that reveal that specific form of "space", had to be first defined as persistent objects.

 

-Anssi

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

DD:

That is not my problem, but I will not just "hold my tongue" while you continue to slander me on these boards.

It is not slander, which is oral. The word of the day is "libel". That which you have, and continue to dish out in rather generous portions yourself...

[Michael Mooney]

It is not slander, which is oral. The word of the day is "libel". That which you have, and continue to dish out in rather generous portions yourself...

 

I mis-spoke.*Thanks for the correction. Actually, I've been a very good boy lately, but when I am under attack I continue to respond in as civil a way as I can, given the insults flung at me.... and given the complete ignore-ance of the underlying philosophy upon which my contributions are based.

 

(*Technically. Based on my frequently taken license to use "say" instead of "write." To clarify, my writing style is meant to have an "oral" tone... as per how my philosophy here falls on "deaf ears.)

Do you have any substantive criticism, or just your usual personal harassment?

Michael

[RCP/CRT/RRT]

I mis-spoke.*Thanks for the correction. Actually, I've been a very good boy lately, but when I am under attack I continue to respond in as civil a way as I can, given the insults flung at me.... and given the complete ignore-ance of the underlying philosophy upon which my contributions are based.

 

(*Technically. Based on my frequently taken license to use "say" instead of "write." To clarify, my writing style is meant to have an "oral" tone... as per how my philosophy here falls on "deaf ears.)

Do you have any substantive criticism, or just your usual personal harassment?

Michael

"Technically" it has nothing to with any style. When written (or typed) the attacks are libel.

 

Such as this: "Do you have any substantive criticism, or just your usual personal harassment?" This example can be considered an adhominem attack as well, although rather mild and transparent. Considered an argumentative, or logical fallacy. Where as aiming to discredit the individual based on reputation, personal beliefs, or characteristics. There by, appealing to authority their adversaries assertions must be false.

 

Not whining, I likely had it coming, but it is a logical fallacy in any case. :naughty:

 

Again, as pointed out before, you seem to believe that one cannot understand your perspective and yet disagree. To disagree is ignorance in your stated opinion.

 

And no, I cannot think of anything to add that has not already been posted. Just thought you may enjoy the constructive criticism.

 

RCP

[Erasmus00]

The essence of magic is misdirection of attention.

Did I call it or did I call it? It is just misdirection of attention. They certainly talk about an uncertainty in the mass of an unstable particle. Exactly what is the variable conjugate to m in their picture? When they do the calculations, they use “proper time”! :naughty:

 

You did call it- when you rely on an incorrect formula to make a point, it should be expected that someone will correct you.

 

Where do they talk about this uncertainty in mass of an unstable particle? What does it have to do with a particles lifetime? Certainly the time used in the energy momentum uncertainty is coordinate time, not proper time.

 

There is no variable conjugate to m, because m is not a component of a vector, it is the length of a vector. Just as proper-time is not a component of a vector but rather the length of a vector. Rather, the mass/proper time uncertainty is a general case of the energy/time uncertainty. As I've pointed you in the past, the problem with your rearrangement of special relativity is that it is frame-dependent, and lacks well-defined vectors.

[Doctordick]

You did call it- when you rely on an incorrect formula to make a point, it should be expected that someone will correct you.

 

Where do they talk about this uncertainty in mass of an unstable particle? What does it have to do with a particles lifetime? Certainly the time used in the energy momentum uncertainty is coordinate time, not proper time.

 

There is no variable conjugate to m, because m is not a component of a vector, it is the length of a vector. Just as proper-time is not a component of a vector but rather the length of a vector. As I've pointed you in the past, the problem with your rearrangement of special relativity is that it is frame-dependent, and lacks well-defined vectors.

Erasmus, I am ashamed of you. I got the impression long ago (from some things you said) that you were a graduate student in physics. Apparently that impression was false. When you misstate the facts as badly as you have here, you lower yourself to Mooney's level. You not only do a disservice to yourself, but because of the respect you have on the forum, you do a disservice to the forum.

 

If you knew any physics, you would comprehend that the uncertainty principal has nothing to do with a variable being either a vector or a component of a vector. It has to do with the measurements necessary to establish the value of that “uncertain” measurement. The lifetime of an unstable particle is expressed in “half-life”, the time one must wait for half of them to decay. In order to get the correct answer, the time must be measured in the rest frame of the particle. The “rest frame” of the particle is the frame where the velocity of the particle under examination vanishes: i.e., v_x=v_y=v_z=zero. That frame has one very unique characteristic: the time to be measured is exactly “proper time”. Your complaint is no more than shifting the perspective in a manner which avoids looking at the facts. As I said, misdirection of attention!

 

If you had studied any modern physics at all you would be well aware of the fact that unstable particles have an uncertain life span and that the uncertainty in that life span is directly related to the uncertainty in the mass of the particle. This same fact should be obvious to you as a direct consequence of the energy, time relationship given that, when at rest, the energy of a particle is given as E=mc² and c is no more than a constant.

 

By the way, at interesting fact related directly to the same common confused concept of time used by the physics community is the fact that, in Einstein's picture, nothing in the universe can follow any path where the invariant interval is real! Only time-like paths are allowed. Why is it necessary to use a geometry where valid paths in the geometry are of no use? It clearly leads to the problem that one must make an additional constraint on every problem: speeds in excess of c must be specifically disallowed. The fact that this is an additional constraint is another thing physicists would rather ignore (if you bring it up, they will consistently direct your attention elsewhere).

 

If it isn't an additional constraint, why are there people looking for tachyons?

 

As I said, I am ashamed of you Eramus :) You should be more aware of the facts and be more careful in your assertions.

[AnssiH]

As I've pointed you in the past, the problem with your rearrangement of special relativity is that it is frame-dependent, and lacks well-defined vectors.

 

What do you mean by it being frame dependent?

 

EDIT: And I should also ask, what makes you feel it is a "rearrangement of SR"?

 

By the way, at interesting fact related directly to the same common confused concept of time used by the physics community is the fact that, in Einstein's picture, nothing in the universe can follow any path where the invariant interval is real! Only time-like paths are allowed. Why is it necessary to use a geometry where valid paths in the geometry are of no use? It clearly leads to the problem that one must make an additional constraint on every problem: speeds in excess of c must be specifically disallowed. The fact that this is an additional constraint is another thing physicists would rather ignore (if you bring it up, they will consistently direct your attention elsewhere).

 

If it isn't an additional constraint, why are there people looking for tachyons?

 

That is an interesting subject, in that it's another perfect example of using the ontological interpretation of relativity to draw further conclusions.

 

Tachyons are kind of mixed up concept in any case, because people tend to imagine in their head a backward causality, i.e. ontologically real changes to reality arising from something in the future. Only, the framework where the concept arose is a static explanation to motion (I'm referring to relativistic spacetime of course). So, a more coherent conception of tachyons would be just a static existence of something, that in our (some kind of dualistic?) experience appears as if future changed past. I.e. it's a specific circumstance we call "tachyons" (notice the need to conceive a pattern-like circumstance in terms of a discreet object).

 

It is quite obvious to me that it is possible to explain Bell experiments with tachyons, but that doesn't make them real; there are very many ways to explain Bell experiments. No one is stopping you to suppose ontologically dynamic universe with superluminal information transfer appearing in that specific circumstance (as long as you know how to transform the common idea of relativistic spacetime into representation where that doesn't lead into incoherent ideas of causality).

 

It's funny, if people were to accept a tachyon ontology, they would use Bell experiments as the experimental proof of their ontology; i.e. they would say "we have seen tachyons so of course they are real". Exactly like certain aspects of the ontology of spacetime are being defended on this thread via the circumstances that relativity is set to explain.

 

I remember, once I made that comment about tachyons being a valid explanation if one just wants to take it that way, but immediately someone complained that it can't be considered valid as we don't have any experimental data about the existence of tachyons... How is that different from the idea that any given "thing" exists at all? Photons? Electrons? The "experimental proof" is always the circumstance that the concept is set to explain! Hello?

 

Eh, well, all those musings about "ontological form" are just very painful to anyone who's looked into how those ideas are related to actual data ordering mechanism... There's really no meaning to anything, apart from what we make up for ourselves... The arguments between perfectly valid choices become little bit irrelevant at that point...

 

And last;

BTW, I agree with AnnsiH (amazing!) that :

Note especially that none of that is saying that relativity is invalid model. The important bit is to understand exactly how does relativistic idea of reality arise as a necessary feature of your world model, while it never was a feature of the content of the data that your world model explains.

I would add that before relativity the world was pretty much as it is post-relativity, regardless of sophisticated "models" (which relativity certainly is... for the local ground and relative measures it covers.

 

The everyday conception of euclidean space is not explicitly stated in the content of the raw data either. You understand what I mean by that don't you?

 

The data becomes explained that way, for some very good reasons, having nothing to do with what the actual data is like, but everything to do with how it can be reasonably ordered. That may not make perfect sense to you; I'm stating something about the results of the epistemological analysis. But that statement does not arise from my "personal philosophy"; I am not claiming world is ontologically this or that.

 

-Anssi

[Michael Mooney]

AnssiH,

Here is my idea of respectful dialogue: One person, starting with the OP makes a statement or statements or inquiry and then others respond to those points and so on.

 

Here is an example of the opposite, which I have recently called ..."the complete ignore-ance of the underlying philosophy upon which my contributions are based." (Note play on the word ignorance as the act of ignoring)..."

My most concise statement of said philosophy:

"Cosmos exists independent of human observation, measurement, or definition."

You:

Exactly like Michael is ignoring the fact that the idea of "the comet would continue to move" is entirely dependent on his hidden assumption that empty space has got ontological identities to its locations (or something akin to that, giving meaning to motion against space).

 

I'm not ignoring anything and have no hidden assumptions. The above one line philosophy is explicit, and my example and reasoning is clear, as follows (tho you ignore it):

Me:

.. If the rest of the cosmos disappeared leaving only Haley's comet, it would not only continue to exist but it would continue to move (through empty space) with no observers or frames of reference around from which to *measure relative velocity*., etc.

 

And in reply to DD's long discourse on the symmetry of information starting with the requirement that it exists in the original set:

 

The comet was moving (information) when everything else disappeared. Without any force exerted on it to change that, reason alone dictates that it would continue to move...

You:

And btw, Michael's post above, feels perfectly analogous to quite many objections I've heard to the epistemological analysis. The feeling you get from trying to explain to him how relative motion gets and loses its meaning, that's how I feel when trying to explain how the idea of any "ontologically persistent objects in interaction" loses its meaning when you get down into the epistemological fundamentals.

 

"... feels perfectly analogous to...?"... without addressing what I said at all!

"The feeling you get from trying to explain... how relative motion gets and loses its meaning"... may be based on your ignoring the stated philosophy above, the terms of the experiment (in which all frames of reference were deleted to make my point,) and the "reason alone" part given that things in motion stay in motion until a force (there are none left) changes that pre-existing dynamic inertia.

 

You are so deeply committed to constructionism that you are incapable of "hearing" (or considering as a valid possibility) the philosophy stated yet again above in a nutshell.

 

You and DD are so convinced that you alone are right, that all of the above, as I said, "falls on deaf ears."

This is not respectful dialogue.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Just reviewed the last dozen or so pages of this thread, and I'd like to ask everyone here a very basic question concerning time, motion and relativity. (See "agree of disagree?" below.)

 

Please read my last post to AnssiH for background., and here are a couple of my statements from previous pages...

Concluding my post 894, p.90:

QUOTE]

Our dear Earth will not be speeding up and slowing down (in either revolution or orbit) as our clocks fluctuate in rate of time keeping.

Do you (whoever) agree or disagree?

 

From post 934:

(It is a) very basic philosophical absurdity to actually believe that there is no cosmos... no movement even... *in and of itself* independent of our observation (ed: and measurement and definitions.)

How arrogant and silly ( a human-centric cosmos) of science to assert the above!

 

Agree or disagree?

 

Footnote: Doctordunk is still insulting me without any substantial criticism of any of the above, assuming his superiority over everyone here, and using me as an example of as stupid as one can be... with no specific engagement with anything I say.

 

"When you misstate the facts as badly as you have here, you lower yourself to Mooney's level.

 

Hey Dick, what facts have I badly misstated? (Joke! Hell will freeze over before you condescend to engage and specifically answer such a supposed idiot as me.)

 

BTW, wanna compare IQ s? I've been there and it is an obscene display of whose is biggest, but your waving your supposed intellectual superiority around here is just as obscene. I really don't know how many points I'd have to lose to "lower myself to your level," but I always tell the truth and I'll let you know if you have the guts to share your numbers.

 

Michael

[Erasmus00]

Michael, I cannot answer your question until you define what you mean by motion: please define, in the most rigorous way you can, what you mean by motion, and I will then answer whether not the comet "is moving" or "has motion" if the rest of the universe disappears.

[watcher]

well just to clear up the confusion first.

 

1. the comet exists independent of our knowledge ( ontology).

agree or disagree?

 

2. the problem of having true knowledge (epistemology) about the comet does not invalidate its existence as a thing of itself. (ontology).

agree or disagree

 

3. if the epistemological tools were math and logic to know the ontology of time, then the mathematical and logical treatment of time will tell us its ontological model (metaphysics of universal principle)

agree or disagree?

[AnssiH]

"... feels perfectly analogous to...?"... without addressing what I said at all!

"The feeling you get from trying to explain... how relative motion gets and loses its meaning"... may be based on your ignoring the stated philosophy above

 

Just pointing out that we are not really communicating. You are talking about your personal philosophy, i.e. your excess beliefs regarding the ontological form of reality. I have excess beliefs too; those ideas that give me a handy and easy to comprehend picture about reality. But I'm not talking about my excess beliefs, I don't think there is any meaning to them apart from being useful "way of thinking". I can easily just choose different ways of thinking (as I think most people can when it comes to quantum mechanics), and I don't assume any of them to touch ontology, at least I don't find it meaningful to argue about whether one does as that stuff is unknowable.

 

Furthermore, once those different versions are all shown to be tied to the same underlying data ordering mechanisms, I think the discussion becomes even more moot.

 

And still about your personal philosophy, as many people have tried to point out, it is not really sufficient explanation to reality, once you get down to the details (I'm referring to your explanation of what causes time dilation). Also, in your attempts to explain your personal philosophy, you are referring to many things without properly defining them. I think in your mind they are obvious via intuition, and that everybody knows what they mean. But for people who have looked into different ways to define space and time, just cannot know what you mean by your words.

 

-Anssi