Re: Non-Platonic geometry definitions
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2023 9:07 pm
That is a reduced claim and it is not the normal one. If you are working with sound in air and using s-frames instead of c-frames, you can make the same kind of switches with the action being described with the same equations. That's just the phenomenon of apparent relativity which can be found in play in both types of system. The STR interpretation is that if you are looking at three apparently identical systems moving at different speeds relative to each other along a straight line (for example, light clocks aligned with their direction of travel), the underlying physics of what's happening to them is identical due to the lack of absolute speeds. If you recognise that the underlying physics of what is actually happening is different, you're bringing in absolute speeds and departing from STR. In at least two of those light clocks the light pulse takes longer to travel the length of the clock arm in one direction than the other, and at least two of them have different proportions of time spent with the light moving in one direction (the same direction for each), but in STR that is heretical.That's not what I mean. Obviously, it is not true in general that you can switch coordinates and have a system continue to be described by the same equations with the new coordinates substituted in place of the old ones. SR tells you that you can, as long as the coordinate systems are both inertial.
False comparison. In space dimensions you can reverse your trip, but it doesn't work with time. Events happen once, and once they've happened they don't unhappen and then rehappen every time a mad physicist changes the frame he's using to analyse the action. If you're switching to a model where time doesn't run (such that you turn time into something more like a space dimension), you kill causation because no apparent effect can ever be caused by its apparent cause.You could just have him walking in circles around a room, muttering "The pill tray is before me! The pill tray is behind me! The pill tray is before me! The pill tray is behind me!" Same amount of crazy, less rocket fuel expended. What all this has to do with physics, only the gods know.
Nevertheless, you are overriding mathematics repeatedly in order to back broken models, and there has to be a rational explanation for why you do such an irrational thing. Different people are emotionally tied to different ideologies, so their lack of ties to some ideologies doesn't impede their ability to spot the faults in those, but their ties to other ideologies selectively overrides their reasoning when their bonds to those ideologies are strong.Let's see, I have had my face smashed with a rock, been threatened by gangs as well as been nominated for the US Terrorist Exclusion List for the crime of speaking against some of Einstein's fellow kinsmen (never even been to the US and have no relations with the country), so I really doubt that my unwillingness to address awkward questions is the issue here.
I'm not misinterpreting anything: I'm showing you the consequences of running broken models.This is about you deliberately misinterpreting everything and arguing against things that have never been claimed.
It isn't my silly two-dimentional time: it's the broken model's two-dimensional time where the fans of the model are blind to one of them, but where computer programs cannot be fooled. There is no simulation in existence that can run spacetime on its sole type of time without that second kind of time appearing. When you look at mode 1 of the STR program that shows event-meshing failures, or the GTR program that shows an event-meshing failure, in both cases when you advance objects at the rate of their unslowed proper time,Again with your silly two-dimensional time which is not a thing in SR.
you end up with events changing over an undeclared kind of time at single spacetime locations with one object arriving there first and another arriving there later. That's the fault of the model breaking due to the incompetence of its designers. If you try to avoid the event-meshing failures though and have all the objects that reach that spacetime location arrive at it simultaneously, then you have to advance them in such a way that some proper times tick slow, and if they tick slow, they aren't ticking out the full amount of time that's actually passing, so again you have two kinds of time in the model, one of which you've failed to declare. Your models are incompetent, and I'm not the one misinterpreting them.
I didn't remember writing that, but I see that you've taken that quote from the page I linked to (which I wrote 15 years ago) rather than from this discussion. It may be technically incorrect depending on how you define the term. I would certainly not use that wording if I wrote the page now as I doubt it is a correct usage. The point though is that if you are using mode 1 and change frame between frame A and B and back again, there is no reshaping of events, so that is invariant. In mode 2 though, events do unhappen and rehappen when you do this. That is not invariant, but saying that it's not Lorentz invariant may be incorrect. The unhappening of events though reveals the brokenness of the model and rules out mode 2 as describing the real universe, while mode 1 is ruled out by its event-meshing failures. The survivor is mode 3 which uses absolute time and an absolute frame.Why do you think the system is not Lorentz invariant? Whether a spacetime separated event has or hasn't happened yet isn't a measurable fact, and is merely a philosophical question with no effect on the physics.but you can also see that the Lorentz invariance has been lost: if you stop the action at any point and then change the frame of reference in this mode (for example, when the time counter reaches 360 or 550), events are changed as a result of switching frame, some events being undone while other events which hadn't happened before have suddenly happened.