Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[Moronium]

Observer B is watching observer A move past him at Bt=0, on a parallel course at speed v, and simultaneously emits a light signal in the same direction. B calculates the speed of the signal relative to A as c-v.

Is that what you mean when you say 'real/actual speed'?

 

1. I don't know that I ever used the term "real/actual speed," and to the extent I was talking about what is "ontologically" the case, I didn't offer any particular formula.

 

2.  I am just making a general observation along these lines:  If my watch runs slow by 10 minutes per hour, then I will end up saying that an "hour" has passed after a duration that is approximately 70 minutes for any other, correctly calibrated, watch.  That fact that I have "measured" an hour to be 70 minutes does not prove that an hour is 70 minutes long, nor does it make any sense to say that my watch is "correct" because it is "correct for me."  What I measure something to be may or may not be a "correct" measurement--that's the basic point.

 

3.  You didn't answer the question I asked, and it doesn't seem like you even tried to.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Moronium #157
 

Assume that A has an extremely accurate yardstick that is exactly 36" long while B has one that looks perfectly calibrated, but which is in fact shorter (say 35").

 

Who and how do they make this conclusion?
 

If A measures a football field he will find it to be 100 yards long, end to end.
If B measures it, he will conclude that it is MORE than 100 yards long

 

If 1" shorter when compared in the same place, B will lay his stick end to end 103 times vs.A's 100 times.

If B's stick is lc from moving at high speed past the field, he'll have to use a different method, like light signals. He could also record the time of each end of the field passing him, and conclude the field is shorter.

 

But it's the same football field and it's actual length does not change every time a yardstick of a different length is used by somebody to measure it. The measurements are different, that's all. The field remains constant.

 

The length of a thing is what the measurement is.There is no absolute interval of space or time.

It’s subjective, like this part of your post.

#167
 

Similarly, Bishop Berkeley, carrying radical empiricism to it's extreme, made some excellent points and arguments in favor of his claim that there was no objective reality whatsoever and that all perceptions were created only by subjective minds (solipsism).
.

 

 

Are you treating these as the same claim, or different claims?

 

Yes

[Moronium]

Sluggo, you say:

 

The length of a thing is what the measurement is.There is no absolute interval of space or time.

It’s subjective, like this part of your post.

 

 

Whether you know it or not, you are making a philosophical (metaphysical) claim here, not a "scientific" claim. The attitude you are displaying is essentially one adopted by the philosophical school commonly called "positivism."  Positivism actually reigned in the realm of the philosophy of science for several decades in the early part of the 20th century.

 

It's flaws and inconsistencies have since been thoroughly analyzed and exposed, and it is now essentially a "dead," universally discredited, philosophy (although it still attracts a fringe of hardcore adherents).

 

If you can't fathom the difference between how long  a stick "is" and how long you measure it to be, then you appear to be a dyed in the wool positivist.

 

You are, in essence, denying a basic postulate of all logic, i.e., the law of "identity," often abbreviated as "A = A."

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Sluggo, you say:

 

If B's stick is lc from moving at high speed past the field, he'll have to use a different method, like light signals. He could also record the time of each end of the field passing him, and conclude the field is shorter.

 

 

 

Yes, an observer can "conclude" virtually an infinite number of things, depending on the premises he adopts.  But subjective conclusions are not objects in the real world.

 

The "distance" between the goalposts of a particular football field is not continuously shrinking and expanding every time some object passes by it at a different speed.  It (that distance) remains unchanged, notwithstanding what the varying subjective "conclusions" of different individuals might be.  The goalposts are not constantly moving with respect to each other, especially not in opposite directions at the same damn time, eh?

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Yes, an observer can "conclude" virtually an infinite number of things, depending on the premises he adopts.  But subjective conclusions are not objects in the real world.

 

The "distance" between the goalposts of a particular football field is not continuously shrinking and expanding every time some object passes by it at a different speed.  

 

 

Just to tie it all together:  A = A.

 

Whatever you "measure" the length of that football field to be, whether you come up with, and call it, 1 inch, 1 mile, or any other measurement, it still simply is what it is.

 

A rose by any other name....

 

What you "call" it doesn't change what it is.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Moronium #3

Wrong, they can absolutely "be considered to be simultaneous" by the train observer.  All he has to do is to acknowledge that he is moving.  He won't "perceive" them, with his eyes, simultaneously but that in no way proves, or even suggests, for that matter, that they did not occur simultaneously. You can't look at a single star in the sky and see how it looks "now,"  and no reasonable would argue that what we see "now" when looking at stars is what is now

 

.

------

You refer us to a subtle detail which causes confusion. In the 1905 paper, par 1, Einstein defines the time of an event as the simultaneous reading of a local clock near the event. Then noting the inadequacy of the method as applied to remote events, defines a simultaneity convention. Time of the event vs time of perception of the event, is the issue. An event occurs once but can be perceived many times.

In SR, the observer plays the central role, and the 'time' of an event is assigned after perception/awareness. Additional info regarding distance, allows an extrapolation to determine the 'time of the event' vs 'time of perception'.

 

#15

Say I flip a coin and slam it down on the desktop with my hand covering it.  What are the chances that the "tails" side will be facing up?  50%? Buzz, wrong.  There is no "probability" to it.  It's a done deal and the outcome has been determined whether you or I or anyone else knows what that outcome is or not.  If it is tails, then the "chances" that it's tails are 100%, and 0% that it's heads.  This in no way depends on what any observer sees, knows, or can know

 

-----
The probability is the ratio of a defined outcome to all possible outcomes, i.e. 1/2.
You only know if you look!

#17
 

In fact, Einstein lifted them, whole cloth, from Lorentz

 

-----

In the 1905 paper, par 3, Einstein develops the coordinate transformations from first principles, and the two postulates. Both used the principle of constant light propagation speed. More so with Lorentz since he is studying electron behavior, directly dependent on light propagation. A case of two authors with different approaches to a common problem. The transformations can be formed with only the 2nd postulate of constant light speed, and the 1st postulate a consequence of the 2nd. So what's new?

[Moronium]

Sluggo, I made a rather detailed post (or series of posts, I've forgotten now),  in reply to your post #176, but it has all disappeared now, for some mysterious reason.  Perhaps Buffy knows why.  I have no clue.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Sluggo, you say:

 

 

Whether you know it or not, you are making a philosophical (metaphysical) claim here, not a "scientific" claim. The attitude you are displaying is essentially one adopted by the philosophical school commonly called "positivism."  Positivism actually reigned in the realm of the philosophy of science for several decades in the early part of the 20th century.

 

It's flaws and inconsistencies have since been thoroughly analyzed and exposed, and it is now essentially a "dead," universally discredited, philosophy (although it still attracts a fringe of hardcore adherents).

 

If you can't fathom the difference between how long  a stick "is" and how long you measure it to be, then you appear to be a dyed in the wool positivist.

 

You are, in essence, denying a basic postulate of all logic, i.e., the law of "identity," often abbreviated as "A = A."

A poster on another forum responded the same way, trying to label me. How foolish!  As if that resolves any questions. He didn't understand the subject either so I left him with his thoughts.

Human logic is not always correct. All statements are not true.

In early history, people thought light motion was instantaneous.

[Moronium]

A poster on another forum responded the same way, trying to label me. How foolish!  As if that resolves any questions. He didn't understand the subject either so I left him with his thoughts.

Human logic is not always correct. All statements are not true.

In early history, people thought light motion was instantaneous.

 

 

Well, Sluggo, I'm not trying to insult or belittle you. I'm just pointing out the nature of your statement.  I happen to agree with most of what you say, and you seem well-informed about the topic.  I just don't necessarily agree with your interpretations of the phenomena.

 

As I said, I had addressed your post in some detail, and I wish it hadn't just "disappeared," because it provided my reasons for disagreeing with you.  I won't bother to rewrite in all now, because apparently some admin who doesn't want anyone to hear it will just delete it again.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well, I guess I will try restating a small part of it.  You said:

 

The probability is the ratio of a defined outcome to all possible outcomes, i.e. 1/2.
You only know if you look!

 

 

 

 

As I tried to make clear, the question is not about what you, or we, or anyone knows.  The point of the example is to try to stress the important difference between epistemological questions and ontological ones.

 

The probability which your refer to is not the probability of the coin showing heads.  It is merely the probability of some ignorant person correctly guessing whether the coin will show heads or tails, which is an entirely different question.

 

The coin has been flipped.  It is either heads or tails now, and it won't change just because someone makes a guess.  The probability of it being what it is (whether heads or tails) is 100%, not 50%

 

A = A.

 

See what I'm getting at?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If I claim that there can be a difference between what something actually is, and what some person claims that it is (having certain dimensions, for example), then that too is basically a "philosophical" claim.

 

It is not a proposition which most people would find the least bit controversial though.

 

We all know that I can make a mistake when I measure something.  If I (mis)measure a board (for example) to be 9 1/4 inches wide that does not necessarily mean that it actually is that width.  It may actually be 9 1/2," for example, in which case I have simply made a mistake.

 

It is not "actually" what I measure it to be JUST BECAUSE that's what I measured it to be.  My measurements of it do not make it what it is.  It is what it is, whether I have a correct impression of what it is, or not.

 

A = A.

 

What it "is" is a question of objective empirical fact, which my measurements of it can neither influence or dictate.

 

See what I'm getting at, Sluggo?

Edited April 26, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A personal note:  Some here have accused me of being "anti-physics," which is completely mistaken.

 

Unlike people who accept physics, some people believe that there is no reality "out there."  There is no matter, or anything else--there simply is no world of objects.  Everything that is perceived is solely a product of a subjective mind.

 

Such people believe that there was no "universe" before they were born and that the "universe" will cease to exist when they die.  That's because they claim that what's called "the universe" is all in their minds, and nowhere else.

 

Such people are called "solipsists" who subscribe to a metaphysical view called solipsism.

 

Most people reject solipsism, at least in its extreme forms, but a fair share nonetheless unconsciously adopt a solipsistic mindset as a matter of practice.  In some areas, at least, they are prone to believing that it is the "subject" (the person), not the object (matter in the external world) that creates and determines "truth."  In those cases, they tend to adopt the viewpoint that there is no external world, no "objective truth" at all.  Whatever the subject "thinks" is true is true, without limitation (of logic or anything else).  There are no objective standards, only subjective, mental standards.  The subjective standard merely posits that whatever I think is true, is true.  Why?  Because I think it, that's why, and I cannot be mistaken in my own perceptions and impressions.  They are true "for me" and that ends the argument. *I* am the standard for all "truth," not anybody or anything else.

 

An opposing philosophical school, often called "realism," believes that there is some kind of world "out there" which exists totally independently of any person.  It is, and would be, there, even if no person ever existed to perceive it.  And it (the objective universe) is not controlled by subjective minds, but instead obeys physical laws which pre-exist.

 

I am a realist, and oppose solipsism, which I see as a threat to rational thinking, and hence to rational behavior.  That opposition is the motivation behind many of my posts, not an opposition to physics.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Moronium#173

Whether you know it or not, you are making a philosophical (metaphysical) claim here, not a "scientific" claim. The attitude you are displaying is essentially one adopted by the philosophical school commonly called "positivism." 

 

----

Science is philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool.

When scientists graduate, they still receive a Phd!

 

#174

Yes, an observer can "conclude" virtually an infinite number of things, depending on the premises he adopts.  But subjective conclusions are not objects in the real world.

 

---
The conclusions are based on measurements, and that's what supports science.
The mind is material. It is an image management system. It forms, interprets, and classifies images. The images are neuronal networks inside the mind, and just as 'real' as anything else. That provides the 'subjective connection', emphasizing the central role of the observer in SR. It's a theory of perception as well as other physical phenomena. Einstein stopped short of defining it as such since his interest was limited to kinematics.
----
#180
 

The coin has been flipped.  It is either heads or tails now, and it won't change just because someone makes a guess.  The probability of it being what it is (whether heads or tails) is 100%, not 50%

 

---
Probability is a property/relationship of large collections, not individual instances. An actuary knows from historical data that 10 out of 100 people will die before reaching a certain age. What he can't know is which specific people. The probability of H or T in 100 tosses is 50% for unbiased coins. It can't predict which one. It's only a certainty (100% ) AFTER you look.
---
#181
 

If I claim that there can be a difference between what something actually is, and what some person claims that it is (having certain dimensions, for example), then that too is basically a "philosophical" claim.
What it "is" is a question of objective empirical fact, which my measurements of it can neither influence or dictate.

 

---
How do you determine that (red)?

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by sluggo

[sluggo]

Moronium#182

Unlike people who accept physics, some people believe that there is no reality "out there."  There is no matter, or anything else--there simply is no world of objects.  Everything that is perceived is solely a product of a subjective mind.
Such people believe that there was no "universe" before they were born and that the "universe" will cease to exist when they die.  That's because they claim that what's called "the universe" is all in their minds, and nowhere else.
 Such people are called "solipsists" who subscribe to a metaphysical view called solipsism.

 

---

The mind is a subset of reality. The universe as only a perception is disproved every day.

When someone dies, the universe remains, minus one object.
---
 

 Most people reject solipsism, at least in its extreme forms, but a fair share nonetheless unconsciously adopt a solipsistic mindset as a matter of practice.  In some areas, at least, they are prone to believing that it is the "subject" (the person), not the object (matter in the external world) that creates and determines "truth."  In those cases, they tend to adopt the viewpoint that there is no external world, no "objective truth" at all.  Whatever the subject "thinks" is true is true, without limitation (of logic or anything else).  There are no objective standards, only subjective, mental standards.  The subjective standard merely posits that whatever I think is true, is true.  Why?  Because I think it, that's why, and I cannot be mistaken in my own perceptions and impressions.  They are true "for me" and that ends the argument. *I* am the standard for all "truth,"not anybody or anything else.

 

.
----
That sounds more like an anarchist.
----

An opposing philosophical school, often called "realism," believes that there is some kind of world "out there" which exists totally independently of any person.  It is, and would be, there, even if no person ever existed to perceive it.  And it (the objective universe) is not controlled by subjective minds, but instead obeys physical laws which pre-exist.

 

---
I accept both, the perception of the universe, which is a personal experience for each observer. It's the rainbow effect, where each looking at the same mass of water vapor, see a personal 'bow' depending on there position. As for the inanimate objects outside the mind, ignorance is replaced by 'mental constructs' to model the behavior that we observe.
---
 

 I am a realist, and oppose solipsism, which I see as a threat to rational thinking, and hence to rational behavior.  That opposition is the motivation behind many of my posts, not an opposition to physics

 

---
Truth needs no defense.
Truth is in the statement, not who says it.

[Moronium]

Your comments make sense for the most part, Sluggo, although some of them might not be relevant to the issues I'm raising.

 

I had tried to explain that there can be a difference between epistemology and ontology, but you didn't respond to the questions I asked.   You just restate this:

 

The probability of H or T in 100 tosses is 50% for unbiased coins. It can't predict which one. It's only a certainty (100% ) AFTER you look.

 

 

 

 

What does "looking" have to do with certainty, if the coin has aleady been flipped?   Can you explain that?

 

I'll repeat the scenario:  I flip a coin (say over my shoulder) but don't look to see if it's heads or tails. In the meantime it has landed with one side up.

 

Will it be certain what side that is, even if I don't look?  Does it depend on ME to make the coin what it is?  The coin will never be either heads or tails unless and until I look to see it, is that your position?

Edited April 30, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 I had said:

 

If I claim that there can be a difference between what something actually is, and what some person claims that it is (having certain dimensions, for example), then that too is basically a "philosophical" claim.  What it "is" is a question of objective empirical fact, which my measurements of it can neither influence or dictate.

 

 

Then you akaed:

 

---

How do you determine that (red)?

 

 

 

That's not point of my statement, and is an entirely different issue.  Do you agree with this part?:

 

"What it "is" is a question of objective empirical fact, which my measurements of it can neither influence or dictate."

 

Put another way, do you agree with the claim, or do you think otherwise?

Edited April 30, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

Your comments make sense for the most part, Sluggo, although some of them might not be relevant to the issues I'm raising.

 

I had tried to explain that there can be a difference between epistemology and ontology, but you didn't respond to the questions I asked.   You just restate this:

 

 

 

What does "looking" have to do with certainty, if the coin has aleady been flipped?   Can you explain that?

 

I'll repeat the scenario:  I flip a coin (say over my shoulder) but don't look to see if it's heads or tails. In the meantime it has landed with one side up.

 

Will it be certain what side that is, even if I don't look?  Does it depend on ME to make the coin what it is?  The coin will never be either heads or tails unless and until I look to see it, is that your position?

It's about what you know concerning the state of the coin. No one argues there are only 2 states H or T. The reality is: you  don't know until you look. Science requires observation vs speculation!