Gigasoft wrote:It would not be possible to argue that autism is causing every single physicist on Earth to make the mistakes in their reasoning, all in the exact same manner so that everyone happens to recognize each other's math as valid.
But there is a condition called theory-induced blindness which can be found in play in >99% of people when they allow beliefs that they're emotionally attached to to override reason. This can be seen in religion and politics, but also in science with this very specific case where people buy into Einstein's theories in order to display their superiority over people who haven't: it has a strong attraction, and when you test believers and find all manner of holes in their thinking on the issue, it confirms that they aren't motivated by any desire to test its validity, but just to wear it as a badge.
so in this case he would have been counting himself as rational in the very area that he has problems in.
The problem you have there is that I pin down exactly what those problems are and prove the case for each and every one of them. You simply refuse to accept correct mathematics whenever it conflicts with your belief in STR because you use STR as your means of testing STR rather than testing it without that bias by using mathematics. All the evidence is here on display for all to see and test for themselves using their own mind.
Frames are ordered sets of linearly independent vectors in a vector space. They always have been. You're making up your own silly definition that has nothing to do with anything.
You're the one rewriting history. Frames started out as hypotheses as to what the space fabric is doing relative to the other content of the system. You're trying to turn them into something more abstract for the purpose of obfuscation in the hope that you can spin your way out of this. The existence of the term absolute frame which predates STR demonstrates that I'm using and describing frames in the longest established way, while you are the one perverting them.
You replaced a statement about speed being measured in an inertial frame with a statement involving some odd concept of "relative speed" that you made up, because you think the physicists' definition of relative speed is "incompetent", and proceeded to pretend to have disproven the original statement.
I didn't make any odd concept up: I used the standard definition of relative speed outside of the shackles of the theory that binds all your thinking, and again that standard definition predates STR. You're displaying time and time again that you do not know this subject. Worse though, what would it matter if I was using new terms to look at this when I've shown a way of reanalysing MGP in a non-naive manner which reveals that it shows that absolute speeds exist? Mathematics isn't restricted to doing what the bonkers rules of STR allow, but is free to analyse physics independently of any specific theory, and here we see something extremely clear come out of that more intelligent application of mathematics to the issue: the light pulse passing all the material of the ring in one direction takes less time to do so than the light pulse passing all the same material in the opposite direction, so it has to have a higher speed relative to that material. To suggest that I have some kind of mental disability on the basis that I recognise this mathematical fact while you reject it is not a good advert for your side. There is no disability involved here beyond the propensity of people who believe in a theory to blind themselves to any facts that don't fit their beliefs. It's clear and stark, and everyone reading this who isn't controlled by the theory should be able to see that.
You're denying the universe the ability to run events, and yet it clearly does run them.
I never said that. I am saying that if you view the universe as a simulation, some sets of events will have been simulated in increasing x0 order for some frame, while others will not. There are also sets of events that will have been simulated in increasing x0 order according to every frame, namely those that aren't spacelike separated.
I only provided frames from frame A to frame B in my simulation of the double twins paradox, but a program of that kind could be written to consider extreme frames in which none of the action after the planets pass each other ever happens. You might try a frame in which an event that occurs soon after the planets meet after a thousand years of running the simulation, but all we have to do is pick a more extreme frame and we can delay that event for a million years of running the simulation, and a yet more extreme one can delay it for a quintillion years; we can go on doing that infinitely, so if the simulation tries to run things by all frames, it will maintain all events in a both happened and not-happened-yet state forever. It's the same with an actual universe - it can't pander to every frame, but has do co-ordinate the action using just one of them. Again this is something that everyone whose thinking isn't shackled by the theory can look at and test by running my simulation and then changing frame to see how some of the happened events have to unhappen. It's clear and stark, but theory-induced blindness prevents you from seeing it because you cannot contemplate being wrong. Those who are not so afflicted though should have no trouble seeing that you are wrong though: they only have to look at the evidence and play with the program, stopping the action with the counter at a value like 360 or 550, then click on the "-" or "+" button and hold down the return/enter key to repeat the action many times to change through a series of intermediate frames between frame A and frame B and back while watching events happen and unhappen on the screen. That's STR's contradictions on display for all who allow themselves to see them.
What mathematical facts? There is no math involved.
Two light pulses passing the same material in different lengths of time having different average speeds relative to that material while they are local to it - how is that not mathematics? Any decent mathematician will tell you that it most certainly is mathematics and that it provides a mathematical fact which you don't want to accept because it conflicts with the rules of your mind virus.
All you have is a bunch of made up arbitrary redefinitions of words and false attributions of statements to people.
No; that's your spin and obfuscation as you desperately try to wriggle out of something where you've been shown to be plain wrong. I've shown you precisely what mathematics can do with this case to resolve the issue and prove that absolute speeds must exist. There are huge numbers of people who object to this because they have carelessly allowed their thinking to be shackled by a theory, but I'm showing you mathematics, and it's correct mathematics. Which of the following statements do you object to?
(1) Both pulses of light going round the ring pass all the same material.
(2) One pulse of light passes all that material in less time than the other (and is seen to do so by all possible observers).
(3) When two things pass the same length of material in different amounts of time, one necessarily has a higher speed relative to it than the other.
(4) The material is the same length in both directions. (Warning - if you want to object to this, consider multiple laps where the two pulses meet up after a whole number of complete rotations of the ring with one of them having passed all the material of the ring more times than the other. Any games you try to play with length contraction varying on different parts of the ring in most frames will fail.)
The options you have here are to play obfuscation games with (3) and (4). With (3) you can play games by changing frame for each measurement to make the relative speed c, then break fundamental rules of mathematics by mixing the results from an infinite number of different frames to add them all up and get the answer c for the speed the light pulses pass all the material in both directions, and then you can assert that your result must be mathematically valid because STR asserts that it is, but it's mathematically wrong regardless. With (4) you can make the arguments so bulky that it takes tens of thousands of words to discuss it fully and so you wear people down to the point that they never find out that you're wrong, although a simulation of it could be written to resolve it and automate the measurements, making millions of them, so I might write that some day, although people will then claim its done wrongly but will never write their own to demonstrate a supposedly better way but which would have to include errors to generate a different result.
and they're deeply misguided because what they know to have happened, there are other naive observers elsewhere denying that those things can have happened
Wrong. It is easy to see that if an observer knows an event to be in his past, then no other observer that is spacelike separated from the first can know the event to be in their future, no matter what their rest frames are.
You've missed the point. When in the double twins paradox one of the rockets is reunited with its planet, that becomes a time for the people there to declare that the event has definitively happened, but for people on the other planet and rocket, that event remains in a state of happened and not-yet-happened, so for your simulation running on the idea of maintaining such contradictory states, the event that has supposedly definitively happened has not definitively happened, and when all frames are taken into account, that event will never have definitively happened because there will always be extreme frames for which the matter is never settled. To imagine that a universe that runs on such mad physics is simpler than one that runs the action under the governance of a single frame is plain wrong. The universe makes things happen, and once they've happened they have definitively happened regardless of when observers in the universe see proof of that. It cannot make them unhappen, and it isn't going to keep them all permanently in a state of both happened and not-yet-happened.
STR depends on infinitely more complexity than LET to account for the same action
How so?
I've just shown you how so.
All it does is impose a symmetry on the laws of physics. How does that entail introducing complexity?
It requires events to be governed differently by an infinite number of frames all at once instead of just having one frame govern the action, so STR is infinitely more complex than LET.
It also explains things that LET cannot, such as the decay times of fast muons.
That is baseless propaganda which you've been taught to regurgitate mindlessly. The functionality of the muon is slowed by its high speed of movement through space just like a moving light clock, so it takes longer to decay, while the observed decay times are in exact agreement with the predictions of LET. Why do you allow propaganda to warp your mental model of reality in that way? Why don't you stop and question the validity of the disinformation that you've being taught to take on trust and just believe? You're allowing yourself to be used as a tool.
______________________________________________________________________
Octocontrabass wrote:DavidCooper wrote:A lot of this is not about observable differences in measurements,
If there's no observable difference between special relativity and aether theory, it doesn't matter which one is correct. You should talk to a psychiatrist about why you have such strong feelings about something that doesn't matter.
It does matter. If it didn't matter, STR would not be making unjustifiable claims about its imagined superiority over LET when LET is actually simpler by running on rational mechanism instead of magic ones. Why are STR's unjustifiable claims so worthy of defending while LET's rational rival claims are worthy of rejection? Why is that bias so important to you? You're running a very unscientific algorithm. The psychiatrist should be looking at why you build your mental model of reality out of magical components instead of rational ones. Moreover, I've shown that absolute speeds can in principle be pinned down in an expanding universe: those clocks passing each other would, had they been created just after the big bang, be providing measurements that reveal their absolute speeds.
