Jump to content

User talk:Modocc/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Criticisms of relativity

(Paradoctor deleted my last edit today in the philosophical criticisms section... or wherever it was... criticisms of relativity... said it wasn't relevant. So here it is addressed to you.):

Please explain what you mean by, "...we sometimes do template articles for 'expert attention'," and direct me if you will to information about such "template articles." As you said, "There certainly is a great deal of criticism that has been leveled at relativity...," but, as an editor says in the lead of the Criticism of the Theory of Relativity article, "Even today there are some critics of relativity (sometimes called "anti-relativists"), however, their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community"... edited from ..."not to be taken seriously" after my complaint. None of my citations have been acceptable, for the obvious reason stated in that editorial policy. Is there any way to get a criticism of relativity (all non-mainstream, by definition) printed in a Wikipedia article? Perhaps in a "template article" for "expert attention?" I would be glad to write one comparing the philosophical basis of observer/frame-dependent observations/measurements with the philosophy of realism (citing dictionary definitions) and quoting Einstein (rejecting realism), Godel (on relativity's idealism), Larson ("..no evidence for length contraction",) Lindler (on Einstein's "mathematical idealism"), Ross (on the ontology of non-Euclidean geometry,) a Mensa Bulletin on Objective Reality, Burns, Lewis, and Tolman in Einstein's Jury, and perhaps others as I research further. Hopefully Paradoctor's opinion that ..."further direct discussion must be considered fruitless" will not be taken here as indisputable and beyond challenge and therefore beyond challenge. Ps: Apparently his opinion is law around here. LCcritic (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The template I was referring to is simply a message, this one, that is sometimes placed at the beginning of an article. Your proposal would be a wp:content fork, which is also prohibited. Larson's opinion is insufficient, Ross is a primary source, and your interpretation of Einstein can be mistaken (to him his theoretical postulates apparently were the only empirical observer-independent reality he required as an a priori). Idealists deny any objective realism, but not reality, but its not clear that Godel was stating that Einstein's postulates are not objective and therefore not real. Linder's blog is not a published source (I don't recall him being dismissive of relativity, but I may have to take a second look). This appears to be your first mention of the Mensa Bulletin and I don't know where to look for that to see how critical of relativity it actually is, or whether or not it's a valid secondary source. Given the status that relativity enjoys, I have doubt that reasonable philosophers who are intimately familiar with the concepts of Galilean invariance go around stating relativity must be wrong (which it is) because the classical theory regarding space and time has to be correct, unless they want to be ostracized. For me, it's more productive to pursue, comprehend and write about the mathematics of a correct theory that turns relativity on its head such that instead of space and time being "unreal" and apparent, the measured light speed invariance is actually apparent and unreal. Modocc (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You affirm that for every possible criticism of relativity there is a technicality, well linked in Wiki policy which effectively disqualifies any serious criticism thereof, as explicitly stated in the "Criticisms" article... "their viewpoints are not accepted by the scientific community." Thanks for clarifying that the "experts needed" template does not actually invite expert opinion, as it is negated by the "content fork" exclusion of actual criticism. You also clarified how each of my citations do not meet the "mainstream" criteria for inclusion in Wiki articles, i.e., that they are not mainstream, therefore not "legitimate criticisms." There is no way around that "Catch 22" until Wiki policy changes to allow actual criticism of relativity via citing non-mainstream sources, none of which are presently allowed. Thanks for your time.LCcritic (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Got your message on my talk page, but with no reference to my reply above. I'm still quite confused by the complicated labyrinth which is Wikipedia and remain quite lame as to where to put my replies and contributions, i.e., which "talk" page for criticism of relativity with so many different related articles and subsections... and which "user, talk" page (mine or yours) is appropriate. You say that you are not a huge fan of philosophy. I see it as very relevant. For instance, relativity is clearly based on Einstein's philosophy in which he explicitly denies the statement, "The physical world is real," calling it "senseless," and acknowledges that, ..."The natural sciences deal with the 'real', but I am nonetheless not a realist." (Letter to Eduard Study, 9/25/'18.) For him, and for all of relativity, observation/measurement IS reality, there being none independent of same. But, as we both know, physical objects (like Earth) do not change dimensions with differences in frames from which they are measured. This is the argument from realism, which is not even allowed in Wiki's coverage of relativity. No non-mainstream criticism allowed! Regarding philosophy relevant to general relativity, "spacetime" is assumed as an entity which is curved by mass and which then "tells objects how to move." (Wheeler, I think.) But relativity theorists ignore the ontology (branch of philosophy) which asks, "What is space; What is time; and what is spacetime?" What kind of science insists that the above happens without a thought to what kind of entities they are and how that curving and guiding works? "It's all in the math/geometry" is not an answer. Nor are the concepts of non-Euclidean geometry as constituting a model which ignores "the real world" it is supposed to model. If this reply belongs on my 'talk' page, I am sorry, and you may rather answer there if you are interested in further conversation. LCcritic (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Editors have different preferences regarding talkpage correspondence and discussion here is fine. Garamond Lethe pointed out here the requirement for secondary sources. I agree that Einstein's words were certainly consistent with him being an idealist, or at least an opportunistic instrumentalist, but sometimes people give different and diametrically opposed accounts of what they believe during their life, so it may take more than just this one quote to be sure, and from a policy perspective, its an interpretation that needs to come from a secondary source. That said, philosophy seems too preoccupied with pigeon-holing ideas, nevertheless, I've a huge advantage over any criticisms of relativity, because I have figured out why the vacuum light speed appears to be invariant when it's not (thus far though, I've not even attempted to publish what I've discovered, but you can perhaps understand why). -Modocc (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
"vacuum light speed appears to be invariant when it's not" Sounds interesting, could you mail me your idea? Paradoctor (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I prefer discussing my idea here on my talk page, although it may take me a few days to sort through and review my old files which contain my work so that I can upload these and write about my discovery. -Modocc (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to question whether Einstein meant what he said in the quote I cited, i.e., that the statement, “The physical world is real” is “senseless,” and “The natural sciences deal with the 'real', but I am nonetheless not a realist." So you said, “...so it may take more than just this one quote to be sure, and from a policy perspective, its an interpretation that needs to come from a secondary source.” To be sure he meant what he said requires more quotes and an interpretation from a secondary source... as Wiki policy?? Hard to believe! “I am not a realist” requires no “interpretation” or further quotations. And what realism is, which he clearly denies, is well defined: Wiki’s Philosophical Realism, opening statement: “Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality, or some aspect of it, is ontologically independent of our *conceptual schemes*, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.” (my * emphasis.) Also, from Wiki’s Realism (Philosophical): “Philosophical realism: belief that reality exists independently of observers.” From Encyclopedia Britannica: “Realism, in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them.” Quoting Godel from “A remark about the relationship between relativity theory and idealistic philosophy”: “Following up the consequences [of the relativity theory, particularly of the general one] [...] one obtains an unequivocal proof for the view of those philosophers who, like Parmenides, Kant, and the modern idealists, deny the objectivity of change and consider change as an illusion or an appearance due to our special mode of perception. (p. 202)” This is an argument claiming “unequivocal proof” that, as Einstein believed, there is no objective reality, but rather reality depends on “our special mode of perception." So much for an objectively (nearly) spherical Earth, since according to special relativity it’s diameter gets shorter (in the direction of travel) the faster an approaching observer goes! I am very interested in your reply to all of the above and your perspective on variable lightspeed. LCcritic (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I also said above that "I agree that Einstein's words were certainly consistent with him being an idealist, or at least an opportunistic instrumentalist, but sometimes people give different and diametrically opposed accounts of what they believe during their life, so it may take more...". I stated all this because it's still not clear to me whether or not Einstein thought of himself as an instrumentalist or not, and according to the article on idealism "...it is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental..." and whatever mental states we have need not be part of measurement in the same way that apparent motion of the stars has nothing to do with the way we think (how one moves or not certainly, but not how inebriated one might be, whilst imagining a hitchhikers guide, :-)), yet idealists would still be in agreement with Godel. Anyway, neither your analysis or mine are peer-reviewed. In fact, even though I'll be presenting some of my unpublished work here soon, we cannot put any of it in an article unless it gets published. -Modocc (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The Philosophy of Science article opens with, ‘The philosophy of science is concerned with all the *assumptions*)...,” (my *) and the Philosophy of Physics subsection opens with, “Philosophy of physics is the study of the fundamental, philosophical questions underlying modern physics...” The “Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity article, subsection, Philosophical Criticisms, opines (though editors are “not allowed opinions,”) “It was characteristic for many philosophical critics that they had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity,[A 32] which lead to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter.” (The philosophical “heart of the matter”, realism vs idealism is not allowed.) Nowhere in Wiki’s “coverage” of criticisms of relativity and/or its philosophical *assumptions* is the most basic philosophical challenge, that from realism, allowed. The reason, of course, is that all criticisms of relativity are non-mainstream, so therefore, by Wiki policy, not allowed. The *assumption* that there is no objective reality independent of observation (Einstein’s philosophy) prevails without even allowing a “real" philosophical criticism from realism. I have read many dozens of criticisms of relativity over the years, and all such critics have this one thing in common: They (we) all know that relativity is an ”intellectual property” (not to say ‘dogma’ outright) which allows no criticism whatsoever and calls all critics cranks and crackpots (and worse) having “insufficient knowledge,” etc. This is most obvious in Wiki’s iron-clad policy, which will not even allow the philosophy of realism in its (pretend) “philosohical criticisms” sections. Enough hammering on it for my part. You seem to be the only one here who cares, anyway. Everyone else seems content with the mainstream version of a curved metaphysical entity, "spacetime" (?? with no ontological examination,) and physical objects that shrink, depending on how you look at them! LCcritic (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on it...

It's now Christmas! Per Paradoctor's request, and my response I have been reviewing and preparing my papers for publication, and I'm still not finished, ugh, but I will post here again when I am. In addition, I'll also be spending more of my time this holiday with my family than anything else, so have a Merry Christmas and New Year! --Modocc (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Take your time, there is no WP:DEADLINE. ;) Merry Consumas! Paradoctor (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad there is no deadline because other duties have kept me preoccupied, but I'm sure to make some progress on this in the near future. -Modocc (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Atheism illustration3.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Contractions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Continued from here.) "intrinsic to spacetime and matter" is so broad that it applies to everything. The problem is whether contractions is due to a physical change in the rod. Since contraction can be induced by merely accelerating the observer, there is obviously no change in the invariants describing the rod, its physical state. But if you accelerate the rod instead, the observer will still see contraction, despite the observer undergoing no physical change. So, if neither observer nor rod "cause" contraction, where does it come from? Solution: their relative motion changes, which means you need to consider the relationship between both physical systems to find the change. That's pretty abstract, but still physical, and has measurable consequences, i. e. contraction. So, yes, the pole will fit into the barn. Which then explodes from the impact of a relativistic projectile, but progress requires sacrifices. ;) Contraction is real, but is not due to a change of state of the rod. The mind boggles, but Einstein don't care. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps your conclusion that the state of the rod is unchanged can be backed up with citations? That the rod fits is because of proper distances which involve the non-simultaneity of events and not simply the lengths that are not invariant and would not allow a fit without the proper distances being involved. Moreover, when particles are accelerated they gain energy and their DeBroglie wavelength contracts as required by the Plank relation increasing their inertia. In other words, their physical state does change. -Modocc (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The change you refer to is an artifact of the choice of reference system. How do you explain the presumed state change of the rod in the case where the observer is accelerated? Paradoctor (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Physical state changes simply occur if an object is accelerated. Thus if the observer is accelerated, the coordinate system or reference frame map changes of course, and their local state changes. -Modocc (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
But the rod isn't acccelerated, hence there is nothing capable of changing its physical state. So, if contraction is to be due to a physical change of the rod, what causes that change? Paradoctor (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In the problem example, it's measurably contracted not contracting, according to relativity. There was no change in its state, either stated or implied by the author. Thus if we are at rest with the rod and deaccelerate to frame S, we have to use the new map of the rod. -Modocc (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
So there is "no change in its state". If you admit that, then what are we discussing? This was what I said from the beginning. Paradoctor (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I've only stated that there is no change in state when an object is not being accelerated. If an object is being accelerated that is a horse of a different colour. You started out claiming contraction is not a physical change at all, or it is not intrinsic, or it's in some abstract relation, or that it's merely an "artifact", and I happen to disagree on all these points, so bring a citation please. --Modocc (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to sort out what seems to be a confusion of words, lest we talk in different directions. Numbering a few simple statements might be helpful.
a) The observer is accelerated, the rod not.
b) The rod is accelerated, the observer not.
c) After acceleration, the rod is contracted for the observer in both cases a) and b).
d) "Physical state" is a set of invariants describing an object, the measures of which are independent of the observer.
e) Before acceleration, the rod is in the same physical state SA in both cases.
f) After acceleration, the rod is in the same physical state SB in both cases.
g) In case a), there is nothing that could influence the physical state of the rod, as no forces act on it.
h) Accepting e), f) and g) implies that SA=SB.
Do we both agree to these statements and definitions?
Paradoctor (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, with a correct model d) is true, but it is a nonstarter with relativity (for me at least) since length contraction measurements, clock rate measurements and relativistic mass depend on the observer and you are excluding these by fiat. With classical theory, the invariants are simply event simultaneity and spacial distances. It's a far simpler paradigm to work with when it comes to d). -Modocc (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"fiat"? That these are not invariants is an inescapable consequence of accepting relativity theory. Are you telling me you reject relativity?
"classical theory" Aren't you forgetting minor stuff like energy, impulse, angular impulse, electric charge and whatnot?
"simpler paradigm" The same could be said for the classical elements as opposed to the periodic table of today. Paradoctor (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Aye, the number of objects under consideration is somewhat arbitrary, but classically these are also invariants and yes rest energies and total charge are invariants too. Thanks for reminding me of that seemingly minor stuff. Yes, I have no problem with rejecting relativity and its pseudoEuclidean spacelike abstractions, because I can show why the vacuum light speed only appears to be an invariant when it is not and I will be submitting this proof. Modocc (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm looking forward to that. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Miraculously, I found a statement by Paradoctor (in the dispute resolution debate) which should help clarify that length contraction should not be understood as actual physical contraction of objects (or distances between them.) "Please note that I'm not talking about proper length, which is a physical property, and does not undergo contraction." There you have it. I am sure we can all agree that Earth's diameter would not contract as measured by observers/frames approaching at relativistic speeds. That leaves relativity's dictum, about "no preferred frames", i.e., that "all frames are equally valid" in dire need of being discarded and no longer taught in 'relativity school' or in Wikipedia articles. So at rest with an object is (should be) the "proper" frame from which to measure anything. In lieu of that, the Lorentz transformation formula is legitimately applied to correct for the difference between "apparent length" (measured from/at high speeds) and actual, physical, "proper length", which is always intrinsic to the object, stays the same, and is independent of variations in observational frames. Ps, the dictum that "length is not invariant" must also be discarded, though basic to SR's worldview. LCcritic (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, proper length is invariant. Didn't you know that? Perhaps you can have a look at the opening sentences of the lead of our article Proper length. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If Modocc or DVdm still wish to engage you on their or your user talk pages, that is their choice. Pester anyone else, you cross the line. This is my final warning to you. Paradoctor (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Paradoctor, I knew that. So how does that long pole fit into the short barn again? SR insists on having it both ways, "length is not invariant" because length depends on variations in measurement... and "proper length is invariant." LCcritic (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Point in question: "length" and "proper length" are different measures measured by different processes. If this didn't occur to you, you either didn't read or didn't understand the definitions of these terms in relativity theory. (Redacted) Paradoctor (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Please refactor per WP:AGF and wp:npa (and I'll remove this reminder if you do). I would imagine that LCcritic overlooked DVdm's signature and thought the unindented posts were one. --Modocc (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
AGF extends only so far, and I don't consider stating facts falling under NPA, WP:CIVIL is much closer here. But since you requested it, I'll comply. No need to remove your note, as far as I am concerned.
BTW, the indentation is correct. If you wish to have it handled differently here, just say so, no problem. Paradoctor (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about there being different processes. As an example, suppose the barn doors don't have to close or open, but the openings are enmeshed with continuous laser beams. According to the paradigm, the entry beams will be interrupted by rods of different proper lengths simultaneous, only if their lengths coincide because they have different velocities with near zero velocity being inclusive, and although relative motion does distinguish length from proper length, the measurement method doesn't seem to differ appreciably. Modocc (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Hein? The very fact that different proper lengths result in the same length measurement unequivocally shows that the two are different beasts. The crucial difference is that proper length is always measured in a system in which the rod is at rest. Here, and only here, do the two measurements coincide. Put differently, "normal" length measurements lack determination of a factor that is required for measurements of the proper length: relative speed. Again, this is the same situation as in the angular diameter model. Add information about distance and orientation, and you can determine the proper diameter, as opposed to merely the angular one.
"Near zero" is simply not true, not if γ is not very close to 1. For γ=2, you need . Paradoctor (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant that the rods' lengths coincide and fit within the barn at the same time, but they enter/leave at different speeds (in the barn's frame of reference). -Modocc (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but how does that change anything I said? That their lengths are the same despite having different proper lengths has the same reason as with the rods and the barn: relative motion. The barn is just a fancy rod. Replace the barn with a rod, and instead of closing the doors, clamp the ends together when they coincide. The implications are the same whethere you use two rods or two billion: One instant, they all line up, the next: BOOM.
"barn's frame" Not necessary to specify, the fact that there is relative motion is independent of the (inertial) frame of reference, only it's magnitude changes. Paradoctor (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't change anything you said. In fact I agree with it for the most part. For the angular diameter analogy, the measure is a proper angle and not a length, so its not like the situation for apparent motion which is fictitious, but the measure's of lengths and angles don't ever coincide thus it's not a perfect analogy. I'm just saying that it's not obvious that at the instant they are together that any of them have proper length until the big bang. --Modocc (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"have proper length" Erm, they do. You can measure it at any time please.
"proper angle" There is no such thing. Try to define a procedure for determining it. Like sound pressure, there is no non-arbitrary way of defining a standard. Paradoctor (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
By proper angle, it was just a figure of speech in the sense that it is the correct angle measured for a given geometry, I meant nothing else other than that. Aye we can take measurements, but if the big bang is a dud because the rods' speeds are nearly zero, it could take too long to distinguish between them. Modocc (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"nearly zero" There, we are in the classical realm, and length contraction is no longer an issue. This has no bearing on the issue. I think it's best we wait for the real beef you have with relativity. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, thus I'll be closing this discussion. :-) -Modocc (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Predicting the absolute rest state.

"When the clock rates of identical clocks as a function of velocities are compared, a maximum frequency will be measured. Therefore, if an observer or observers traveling different velocities compare their logs of astronomical events, they can determine the unique inertial reference frame M in the limit of maximum identical clock frequency. The CMB rest frame is a candidate for M and identical clocks at rest in M will always have the fastest clock rates possible." "Premise 1. The rest state of M, the inertial frame of the universe's maximum identical clock rates, is the absolute rest state for all matter."

I have considerable reformatting and editing of the rest of my work to finish so I'll be posting more at a later date. I do hope to have this prediction and more published in a mainstream science publication, but this is still a work in progress and comments are welcome. -Modocc (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"maximum frequency" You are aware that frequencies, and with them this extremum, depend on the observer? I. e., the clocks that go fastest are those observed to be at rest in the observer's frame. Nothing unique about that, I'm afraid. Paradoctor (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahhhh, I see I'll have to be much more explicit regarding frequencies to avoid any unnecessary confusion with my presentation, to avoid rejection; which is precisely the reason why I am posting this for constructive feedback. :-) To elaborate, all frequencies are simply a ratio of two event numbers, so we might have 10 ticks of one clock to 5 ticks of another clock. Moreover, since its known that event numbers are invariant, so are their ratios and these ratios can always be compared. So the event numbers of two clocks aboard different ships with different velocities can always be compared against each other and although the number of their clock ticks can be made arbitrary slow, the clock rates cannot be made arbitrarily fast because I claim that there is a natural maximum limit when the clocks are at rest in M. Modocc (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Um, when clocks be can run arbitrarily slow in relation to others, then that suffices to remove any ratio limit, no need to make them arbitrarily fast.
Those "event numbers" and their ratios, how are they defined? If they involve simultaneity between distant events, they are pretty much guaranteed not to be invariants. Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
We can play a song/clock with a hundred beats and compare it to a different song/clock which is played with say fewer, more or the same number of beats. Regardless if they are simultaneous or not the existence of such actual events are unique and reference frame invariant (for both the Galilean and relativistic paradigms). As observers, we can measure these events, compare their relative velocities and determine which are faster than others. For instance, my computer has a fixed clock rate, but I bet should I send it into space and deaccelerate to a location m such that it is rest in frame M it will do calculations faster than it can now, because, max(CPU(x)/CPU(m)) = CPU(m)/CPU(m) > CPU(earth)/CPU(m) because m's clocks run the fastest such that CPU(earth) < CPU(m), where CPU(x) is the number of CPU events recorded at location x. Your first point is good to bring up, because, I had assumed here that clocks at rest in M are my standard. If we use any other accelerated clocks as our standard such as clockrate(m)/clockrate(earth), then the measured frequencies are inverted and are greater, but then I would have to claim that frequencies for M are the lowest frequencies relative to those nonstandard clocks. Either way, [however, because we use calibration scales (see below)] my CPU's clock rate will always be faster when at rest in M such that CPU(x) <= CPU(m). To be clear, there is nothing special about our own velocity, so we can expect that our clocks actually do run slower than others in the universe, but I claim that there is a limit to how much faster we can make our clocks run. -Modocc (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
For example, the factor CPU(m)/CPU(earth) is used to convert frequencies from CPU(m) time to CPU(earth) time which preserves their ranking even though their values differ. --Modocc (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
"measure these events, compare their relative velocities" Whoah Nellie! Events do not have velocities, and talking of measuring them is almost as nonsensical. Apparently you mean ticks of a moving clock when you talk of "events" here. Each such tick amounts to an event, that is correct. And the number of ticks of a given clock between two particular events on that clock's worldline is invariant, yes. The problem is, how do you compare tick counts on different worldlines without bringing simultaneity into play? The worldlines of two clocks will coincide in at most one event, if at all.
"it is rest in frame M it will do calculations faster than it can now" Nope, that's not what relativity says. If you accelerate it out of your rest frame, you will see it's clock rate decrease, the computer will slow down, not up. If you wish to establish otherwise, you'll have to show it. Either by experiment, or by providing a valid argument from acceptable premises deviating from those used to build relativity. Merely stating that "my CPU's clock rate will always be faster when at rest in M" is merely an unsubstantiated claim.
"there is a limit to how much faster we can make our clocks run" Right, and it occurs for γ=1, when the clock is at rest wrt the observer. Paradoctor (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I blurred the line between events and motion, but you interpreted what I meant correctly. The worldlines that exist depend on which paradigm is valid, thus your understanding that I cannot speed up our clocks is falsifiable by experiment. Like I said, send a clock to position m in space such that it is at rest with M (the CMB rest frame is likely) and if it it is determined that its rate does in fact speed up (because astronomical events will appear to occur relatively slower to the probe as it approaches the absolute rest state), my prediction is validated. Is relativity falsified by that alone, perhaps not, but it would validate that the Galilean invariant model that I'm working on is correct. Modocc (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
"relativity falsified by that alone, perhaps not" Yes it would, it is a straightforward consequence of the Lorentz transformation that moving clocks go slow, not fast.
So far, all you have said amounts to "I have a theory, and it predicts a unique reference frame in which clocks run faster than in any other frame." So, what is the theory? How does this theory explain, e. g., increased particle lifetime/masse/impulse in accelerators, Kennedy-Thorndike, Ives-Stilwell, Haefele-Keating, the color of gold, and so on? Paradoctor (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it could be argued that since our Earth has a history such that it may already have been accelerated relative to the CMB rest frame, we (and the same can be said of all other bodies) are the slower aging twin of the twin paradox. Yes, I'm completely aware of the physics involved. But as you can see, it's imperative that I present my completed work as clearly, succinctly, robustly and as error-free as I am able, along with examples so the reader understands what I'm talking about and all that takes considerable effort on my part and I'll be presenting what I've managed to work out at a later date. -Modocc (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. Ripe victims taste better. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Galilean space and time

Modocc, if you want a Galilean model of space and time you need not make one up yourself, just look at Lorentz ether theory. This gives all the experimental results of SR but in Galilean space and time. The catch is that the postulated aether has no properties at all except that of making space and time look like the spacetime of SR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

His theory was falsified, nor did he create my model and I don't believe I'm not sure if Lorentz predicted how we would go about measuring M of the absolute rest state. In any case, my model, although Galilean in conception, is entirely different from his, thus I'm anticipating that we will be making new falsifiable predictions with new insights from it. Modocc (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
LET has not been falsified; it makes exactly the same predictions as SR. In LET the absolute rest state is in undetectable. Any new theory will have to explain the many experimental results that are consistent with SR. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought you meant models such as Lorentz's and others, but if by LET you mean Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory, then yes that test theory has not been falsified. Thanks for bringing that up, :-), for contrary to belief, it's not actually an adequate test of relativity, and I promise you that it will become crystal clear why this is the case when I'm prepared to more fully present my model. -Modocc (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
By LET I mean Lorentz ether theory. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, I understood what you meant by LET and had read the article, but I didn't express my understanding of your view very well. Thus, summing up, Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory has not been falsified yet, but will be, just as most other LET theoriesmodels have already seen the dustbin. Part of the scientific method is, of course, to think up and predict adequate models. Otherwise we would still be stuck in the stone age. -Modocc (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is only one LET. Test theories are not really falsified, they are use to show the degree to which real theories match experiment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, very good, there has been more than one Lorentz ether theory model. A test theory can most certainly be falsified, because two theories that always lead to the same generally wrong conclusions (even if they disagree with each other at some point) often have one or more garbage assumptions/premises in common that lead to similarly common unreal inconsistent solutions. In this case, the Standard Model. --Modocc (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I will leave you to your theories. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Acceleration and contraction

(Continued from here.)

"you are going to have to accelerate the larger one to get a fit" So let me get this straight. We begin with a long ladder and a brief barn which are initially at rest wrt each other. Then, the barn is accelerated, while the ladder lingers on. You say that in this situation, the ladder will never fit the barn, right? Paradoctor (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the hypothetical ladder paradox, which is what you are leading into here, I do know that the barn and ladder could still involve a hypothetical "fit" anyway because of relative simultaneity, however, mathematically, only the acceleration of objects can actually cause length changes within any given inertial frame, especially those we have already measured, as opposed to the hypothetical frame-dependent changes, and these measured length changes are in fact real and are in fact due to local accelerations (not reference frame changes), such as within particle accelerators or, hypothetically, with rockets. In other words, supermen cannot cause the universe to shrink, even though its suppose to measurably shrink anyway due to changes in coordinates (changes in reference frame) per relativity, nevertheless the acceleration and deceleration of objects do in fact produce significant length changes which have measurable effects in all frames. Modocc (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't quite make out your answer from your reply. 'could still involve hypothetical "fit" anyway' contains six different ways of saying "maybe, maybe not". Any theory of physics must be able to predict the outcome of the simple experiment described above: Will it fit, yes or no? Paradoctor (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"...could still involve hypothetical...". With philosophy and science, one learns to distinguish between fact and fiction. I've already pointed out that absolute simultaneity has not yet been refuted (see the article again for examples other than an inconsistent paradigm, the Standard Model, of it ever being refuted) by the standard of extraordinary claims. One might say there has been quite a few fish (red herrings) thrown my way, trying to prove otherwise.
"fit", yes that is a scare quote. When I say fit and not "fit", I mean that objects such as socks match exactly in spacial length, they fit and are essentially spacial duplicates of each other. With relativity, they "fit" piecemeal in spacetime hypothetically. No one has actually demonstrated the paradox so the theory its based on is falsifiable if the experiment is ever done.
When it comes to the two extraordinary claims of relative simultaneity and frame-dependent contractions that refute Galilean relativity, scientifically the burden of proof is on the proponents. Overall, as it happens, I'm perfectly aware of the paradigm's fish, its successes, and its short-comings and why its postulates happen to be wrong. However, its not the most important project that I'm working on at the moment. In fact, its actually quite low on my list of priorities. Modocc (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
"fit/"fit"/match": In the frame of reference the barn finds itself in after acceleration, is there a time such that, at this time, all parts of the ladder have cleared the front door, yet no part of the ladder has reached the back door?
"priorities": If I was you, I'd worry about the possibility of sharing Frege's fate. Just saying. Paradoctor (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already explicitly explained my terms, and you are sticking to yours, which is fine by me. Cheers. -Modocc (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Modocc/Archive_1&oldid=604759979"