OSDev.org

DavidCooper wrote:

linguofreak wrote:In the twin paradox, the travelling twin is not an inertial observer!

I replaced him with clocks C and D to remove the acceleration and demonstrate that acceleration does not provide you with the way out you think it does.

The acceleration is a property of the trajectory, not of any object, except insofar as the object follows that trajectory. But whether or not any single object follows the trajectory, the physics of any situation in which some causal chain propagates along that trajectory will be determined by the proper time along the trajectory, and thus by the acceleration associated with the trajectory.

DavidCooper wrote: The simulation has its iterations dictated by proper time which is very much a property of the physics being simulated,

You do *not* need to (and, if you're going to get physically consistent results *cannot*) run a constant amount of proper time per object per iteration. You do need to be able to calculate the amount of proper time that has advanced for each object over the course of an iteration, but that does *not* need to be constant. Observers inside the simulation have no way of measuring simulation time, their experience of time will be according to how the physics of the simulation proceeds, *not* according to how many iterations have passed or how much real-world time has elapsed. If you pause the simulation for a million years, move it to another computer, and restart it where it left off, their experience of time will still be continuous and uninterrupted. If you start running the simulation at twice the time resolution at a certain point, they will not suddenly feel time slow down just because only half as much time is passing on each iteration.

so the model drives the simulation and provides its time. The result of that event-meshing failures. The GTR simulation is very simple, so if you think you can write a properly constructed simulation that doesn't produce an event-meshing failure while running that trivially simple scenario with one object spending time closer to a black hole than the other, show it to me. Dozens of leading physicists have failed to do so (or point to any existing simulation that can do it) throughout the ten years I've been asking them to point to such a simulation. They simply don't have one. If you're trying to pass off a pseudo-GTR simulation as GTR (which is what they actually use as they have no mathematical alternative) where the proper time of the object closer to the black hole ticks slower than the proper time of the other object in order to keep them in sync under the governance of absolute time, then that's not GTR, and to claim that it is GTR is fraud.

What you call pseudo-GTR is the correct way to simulate things *if* you're clear on what the quantities involved are and how they are represented within the simulation. If you confuse the advance in *coordinate time* over one iteration with the rate of *proper time* for objects *within* the simulation, then you *will* misinterpret your results.

It's not so much that anybody involved here doesn't understand the physics, it's that you don't know how to interpret the quantities involved in a SR/GR simulation and consequently have some weird ideas of the surrounding metaphysics.

DavidCooper wrote:The relevant measurements are frame-independent. If you have a problem with that one, try the Sagnac experiment instead which has observers not going round with the apparatus.

Do you mean this experiment, where Sagnac himself provided a diagram showing the observer firmly attached to the spinning apparatus?

DavidCooper wrote:this is all about intelligence, correct/incorrect application of intelligence, and people's propensity to override it in the most extraordinary ways when reality and their beliefs are in conflict.

I agree.

DavidCooper wrote:

Solar wrote:David, there is no subtle way to put this. You have painted yourself into a corner and now you're biting everyone trying to show you the way out of there. You are not right. You are arguing from a limited and flawed understanding of the subject matter, and instead of trying to find your problems and fixing them, you are attacking everyone not "on your side".

It's bizarre that you can come to that conclusion when I've proved my case in multiple ways and set it all out so that anyone competent can check the facts.

No you have not. There is a world of difference between throwing in some wild claims and then appeal to "it's obvious", and actually and precisely phrasing what it is you're claiming. In a scientific discussion, others need to be able to quote chapter and verse of your paper for proof or falsification, without having to engage in endless (and obviously pointless) discussions with you.

That's why I keep repeating, if you are making a scientific claim that goes so much against established knowledge, you have to formalize it. At this point, virtually everything you have written in this thread is already a futile effort, because no-one is to take this seriously or read through all of it.

Unless you formalize your claim, what you're doing here is just trolling.

DavidCopper wrote:I'm also not the one with a limited understanding of the subject, unlike establishment physicists who have an incorrect understanding of the maths of relativity.

And the arrogance, hubris, and quite frankly, self-delusion in that statement is not immediately obvious to you?

DavidCooper wrote:

I.e., you are doing exactly what you are accusing the others of.

And how do you come to that conclusion? I don't tolerate contradictions, but they do.

"I claim they are all wrong, and of course they are, because I say so."

Dude. Seriously.

DavidCooper wrote:Do you imagine that I'm suffering from theory-induced blindness due to my trust in the most fundamental rules of mathematics (which relativity breaks while also depending on them)?

Prove it.

Provide us with the self-contained string of logic in a formal context. Explain yourself at length, with all the precision you can muster. Talk to an auditorium, explaining your thesis -- not to a chatroom / forum. In a way that does not leave it unclear when you're referring to SR or GR, when you're referring to an inertial frame of reference or not, which part of which experiment you are referring to exactly (you know, footnotes and references and such).

At this point, you're a drunken dude at the pub. Try being an actual physicist for a change, so we can start taking you seriously.

DavidCooper wrote:

Write. A. Paper.

What for? They refuse to publish what they consider to be heresy. They are a cult that rejects correct science whenever it conflicts with their ideology. This can only be done from the outside.

"From the outside" still does not relieve you from the rigors of putting your claims into coherent writing (as opposed to incoherent rambling). This is not about "getting published", this is about providing something others can refer to ("...the seminal work by Cooper (2023), which turned our understanding of space-time on its head. His genius solution for the Foo equations in section 4.2 of his paper completely solved the Bar problem...").

Again: Right now, you're just a conspiracy theorist ("they are a cult...") rambling in some random forum. Without a paper to prove either that you're a genius or a nutcase, you'll always remain a rambling conspiracy theorist.

DavidCooper wrote:They are already in clear statements without accusations and slurs, and where are all the imagined "that is not what I meant" things that you speak of?

DavidCooper wrote:"Spacetime is just an ideology..."

"I call it mad because it's broken beyond all possible repair."

"Don't be so trusting of majorities who are suffering from theory-induced blindness."

That's just the accusations and slurs from your first post.

DavidCooper wrote:All of it has been tested repeatedly on experts, and the language is precise.

Then you will have no problem properly referencing it.

DavidCooper wrote:People's failure to interpret precise language is not a fault with the wording.

Well, if one person says "this is precise" and everyone else says "no it ain't"... well, perhaps the fault is with the wording.

DavidCooper wrote:When I point out where theory-induced blindness is in play, that is not a slur or accusation: it's a pointer to a place where a fact is being rejected and it is the explanation for that fact being rejected.

No. It is an empty claim, because you are not pointing out to either the place nor the fact, nor are you providing an explanation. You are literally just waving your hand and saying "they're wrong (obviously)".

And I am asking you to point out the place, the fact, and the explanation, in a scientific manner.

Which you keep refusing to do. Because it's so much easier to just vent, isn't it?

DavidCooper wrote:

Either you end up with something that might actually hold some water in a peer review, or you actually realize where you went wrong.

Arguments are either right or wrong and they do not need to be blessed by a church to be right. When a church is in charge of science and is misusing its position, you have to tear it down from the outside by showing the public what that church is determined to stop them seeing.

So what you're saying here is, all those scientists who have written down their arguments, and had other scientists check their logic, all out in the open where everyone can see (and reference) it all, don't need to be actually proven false, as long as you can mobilize enough of a mob believing in what you preach from the hill (without actually going to the rigors of putting your claims in a provable / falsifiable form)?

I know which one of those sounds like a "church" to me.

DavidCooper wrote:

This endless "no, you are wrong" without actually making any falsifiable point because you don't properly specify the scope of your statements is not scientific.

I have shown multiple disproofs of relativity which are fully clear for people who look at them honestly. You're not doing that because you are motivated by a drive to conform to the mainstream instead of checking the facts and accepting what mathematics actually requires.

Not a single person here went "oh yea, he's right". But several people obviously studied in the field have pointed out not one, but several flaws in your arguments, as far as there actually are arguments in between all those accusations and rambling. Yet instead of addressing the issues and coming up with a clearer picture, you dismiss them all as "dishonest" and "not checking the facts".

Which makes me think you could benefit from seeing professional help. This is not meant as an insult, but a geniune concern for your mental health.

And, honestly, I would still like to see that paper. Because while I am unwilling to sieve through multiple pages of rambling, I would quite like to read something that challenges such a well-researched and well-proven model as Relativity. Abstract, Introduction, Method and Materials, Results, Discussion and Conclusion. Then the peer review (in this case, most likely us here), defending the paper, addressing the issues, coming up with a better paper.

And I promise you, if you can prove Relativity to be false, if you can make it as obvious as you claim, you'll be a star in no time...

Solar wrote:Unless you formalize your claim, what you're doing here is just trolling.

I have put more than enough here to prove my case multipally, and your inability to see that does not overturn the fact that I have done so.

And the arrogance...

Mathematics is arrogant, but rejecting it on the basis that you find that distasteful is unwise.

"I claim they are all wrong, and of course they are, because I say so."

No, it's because mathematics says they're wrong.

Prove it.

I already have done. There's no point in repeating what's already been proved further up.

At this point, you're a drunken dude at the pub. Try being an actual physicist for a change, so we can start taking you seriously.

You're the drunk at the pub, completely unaware of what what you're arguing about.

Again: Right now, you're just a conspiracy theorist

I provide proofs to back up my claims. I cannot force anyone to recognise a correct proof, so don't blame me for the failure of others.

That's just the accusations and slurs from your first post.

Really? Calling an ideology mad is a slur? Accounting for people rejecting correct proofs is theory-induced blindness - a technical description from Kahneman which is not a slur.

Well, if one person says "this is precise" and everyone else says "no it ain't"... well, perhaps the fault is with the wording.

But more likely it's because they don't want what's said to be true, so they claim it's imprecise when it isn't. There's nothing imprecise about any of it, and those who know the field should be embarrassed if they cannot follow its precision.

No. It is an empty claim, because you are not pointing out to either the place nor the fact, nor are you providing an explanation. You are literally just waving your hand and saying "they're wrong (obviously)".

I pinned that label directly to a series of specific errors which people were making. You're just denying facts, but the facts are all there up the thread for people to check.

And I am asking you to point out the place, the fact, and the explanation, in a scientific manner.

Which you keep refusing to do. Because it's so much easier to just vent, isn't it?

What's the point in repeating what's already been done just because you deny what has been done further up the thread? You're trying to rewrite history.

So what you're saying here is, all those scientists who have written down their arguments, and had other scientists check their logic, all out in the open where everyone can see (and reference) it all, don't need to be actually proven false, as long as you can mobilize enough of a mob believing in what you preach from the hill (without actually going to the rigors of putting your claims in a provable / falsifiable form)?

Again you're completely misrepresenting what's further up the thread, most likely because you failed to understand it. If you have trouble following an argument due to lack of knowledge, you should ask for further explanation instead of denying that the argument does what it claims. You're just running on willful ignorance and assumptions from your own bias.

Not a single person here went "oh yea, he's right".

That's the norm everywhere - people don't want to comment as they know they'll be attacked and insulted too. But the proofs are there for them to see, and they can observe how you ignore and misrepresent them. They can see what's going on here, and you can't stop them knowing.

But several people obviously studied in the field have pointed out not one, but several flaws in your arguments,

Imagined flaws. You don't destroy a proof by making invalid objections to it. It might fool the ignorant, but the maths stands regardless.

accusations and rambling

You're the one engaging in accusations and rambling as you're the one refusing to do the work to understand what's being said. I don't know how you even think you're contributing anything.

Which makes me think you could benefit from seeing professional help. This is not meant as an insult, but a geniune concern for your mental health.

Oh, of course. You can't be bothered trying to understand what's being said, but you magically know who's right and who needs a psychologist. Sure.

And, honestly, I would still like to see that paper. Because while I am unwilling to sieve through multiple pages of rambling,

You've already demonstrated that you have no such inclination to try to understand any of it. You have rejected precise scenario after precise scenario after precise scenario demonstrating the places where STR and GTR break.

And I promise you, if you can prove Relativity to be false, if you can make it as obvious as you claim, you'll be a star in no time...

You can promise that all you like, but the evidence is that you're wrong: people will just go on rejecting correct proofs until they die out and are replaced by more rational generations brought up by mathematical AGI.

Anything else that comes up here, the answers to it are higher up the thread and don't need repeating. Those without an agenda who look will find.

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere...

Quite clearly it can't be Lorentz invariant and there is no way to make it so. Any expansion of space destroys STR, though STR is already mathematically broken even without going that far; it's just easier to show it when measurements pin down absolute speeds, and that would certainly happen with the clocks created just after the big bang.

Well, that wasn't hard.

The Lorentz invariance requirement can be expressed as .
A first order expansion around the identity gives:

From now on I'll omit the spacetime coordinate, and I will restrict myself to two dimensions for simplicity. In terms of explicit indices:

This gives the following three equations:

A possible solution is this, which seems to do the job:

Gigasoft wrote:

Quite clearly it can't be Lorentz invariant and there is no way to make it so. Any expansion of space destroys STR, though STR is already mathematically broken even without going that far; it's just easier to show it when measurements pin down absolute speeds, and that would certainly happen with the clocks created just after the big bang.

Well, that wasn't hard.

The Lorentz invariance requirement can be expressed as...

I don't know what you think you've demonstrated, other than that if you can't express your thoughts in ordinary language that anyone can follow, you haven't understood it. It's also rambling (i.e. not short enough to fit into a tweet) and vague (contains variables rather than specific precise values), so Solar should be duty-bound to reject it too. But maybe you can turn it into words and understand it, at which point it will be revealed to everyone where you went wrong, or that it's irrelevant. Here's your big problem:-

With clocks J, K and L where K has been sitting at rest in its local space fabric for nearly 14 billion years, its timer records nearly 14 billion years passing since it was created shortly after the big bang. Clocks J and L are passing K in opposite directions at 0.866c relative to it. There they are for a moment all together at a single location, but J and L have only registered nearly 7 billion years going by, revealing their absolute speeds. Let's add clocks I and M which are moving past at 0.99c and which record only 1 billion years passing since they were created. For a moment, all five clocks are together at a single location where we get a frame-independent comparison of their timings which all possible observers are forced to agree on. For the equal validity of all frames, the results we get with clocks J, K and L should be the same as the results we get with clocks I, J and K, and also with K, L and M. They aren't though. For STR to hold up in our universe, you need those results to match up, so you need to show how you going to manufacture that.

You need all five clocks to read nearly 14 billion years. Now let's run the twins paradox in parallel with these clocks, so we'll put clock A in with clock K such that they're comoving. We put clock C in with clock J such that they are together and comoving. We put clock D in some distance away from clock L but have them comoving such that clock D passes clocks A and K later than clocks C, I, J, L and M do. Clocks C and J have to tick at the same rate as each other. Clocks D and L have to tick at the same rate as each other. We also have clock B leaving clock A to travel with clock C until they encounter clock D, then it accompanies clock D back to clock A. Clocks J and L are ticking twice as often as they should be though, so we have a twins paradox result where timing A (the time recorded by clock A while clock B is away from it) is equal to timing B (the time recorded by clock B while it is away from clock A) instead of timing A being twice timing B. So, you've broken the twins paradox.

How do you escape from that? You try to have clocks A, B, C and D behave the way they're supposed to in the twins paradox, and the result is that you force clocks I, J, L and M to tick slow, but because they came from far away and will return to being far away again, you can assert that somehow they've still managed to count up nearly 14 billion years by the time they pass clock K even though they're ticking slow. Solar will already have classed this as rambling and vague, but it's actually mathematics done rigorously and with precision, and now we have to take it further, which will tax him beyond his patience, making it incomprehensible to him, but you cannot set out a proof without setting out the entire proof. We can add in more clocks which pass clock K at 0.866c in the same two opposite directions as clocks J and L, but earlier, and we can have as many of those as we need such that we can produce a zigzag path around clock K all the way back to the big bang. These clocks are collectively trying to time the age of the universe, but they're ticking at only half the rate of clock A. The first of them registers time t before it encounters the second one which is moving the opposite way. The second one agrees with that timing and has counted up 2t by the time it encounters the next clock moving the same way as the first one. Again, both agree on 2t, though clock K says 4t by this point. And on we go with our clocks doing their zigzag collective timing adding another t to the total and having the total agree with the timing the next clock has on it when it starts its zig or zag.

Solar isn't going to like this as it's more "rambling", but we can add still more clocks by having lots of other clocks like clock K which are sitting at rest in their local space fabric, but spread out across the universe along the line we're using for all the action. Each of those additional clocks has a host of other clocks passing it in opposite directions at 0.866c and collectively making the same zigzag timings for the age of the universe around their equivalent to clock K. Having carried out there role for one of these equivalents to clock K (doing a zig or zag past it), they go on to perform the same role for the next clock equivalent to clock K. We can tie them into this action such that there's never any moment when they aren't doing a zig or zag for one of these K-like clocks, in in doing this we prove that they are forced to tick at half the rate of clock K throughout their entire existence, which means they cannot have ticked up more than 7 billion years by the time they reach clock K.

This is complex, but it's how mathematics allows us to pin things down and reveal truths which the naive and the willfully ignorant are determined not to dig deep enough down to find, which is why I have to do it for them.

DavidCooper wrote:I don't know what you think you've demonstrated, other than that if you can't express your thoughts in ordinary language that anyone can follow, you haven't understood it. It's also rambling (i.e. not short enough to fit into a tweet) and vague (contains variables rather than specific precise values), (...). But maybe you can turn it into words and understand it, at which point it will be revealed to everyone where you went wrong, or that it's irrelevant.

Guys, he is just trolling.

Maybe, but I'd still like to know which of Sagnac's experiments disproved relativity.

kzinti wrote:Guys, he is just trolling.

I sure hope so (for his sake), but I am afraid he's dead serious.

I don't know what you think you've demonstrated, other than that if you can't express your thoughts in ordinary language that anyone can follow, you haven't understood it.

What do you mean? It's called maths. The thing you learn in school. Which step of the derivation do you find hard to follow?

Which brings us back to the topic.

Some people just don’t understand mathematics.

DavidCooper wrote:
With clocks J, K and L where K has been sitting at rest in its local space fabric for nearly 14 billion years, its timer records nearly 14 billion years passing since it was created shortly after the big bang. Clocks J and L are passing K in opposite directions at 0.866c relative to it. There they are for a moment all together at a single location, but J and L have only registered nearly 7 billion years going by,

Correct.

revealing their absolute speeds.

Incorrect.

Revealing their speeds relative to the average speed of the matter in the universe.

Let's add clocks I and M which are moving past at 0.99c and which record only 1 billion years passing since they were created. For a moment, all five clocks are together at a single location where we get a frame-independent comparison of their timings which all possible observers are forced to agree on. For the equal validity of all frames, the results we get with clocks J, K and L should be the same as the results we get with clocks I, J and K, and also with K, L and M. They aren't though. For STR to hold up in our universe, you need those results to match up, so you need to show how you going to manufacture that.

STR does not hold globally (only locally) in any situation where GTR holds and gravity is relevant. In any situation that includes the big bang, gravity is relevant.

This applies to other situations than the big bang. If a black hole forms in a given spacetime, clocks that are in reference frames comoving with the black hole will observe the black hole to be older than clocks moving with respect to the black hole.

How do you escape from that? You try to have clocks A, B, C and D behave the way they're supposed to in the twins paradox, and the result is that you force clocks I, J, L and M to tick slow, but because they came from far away and will return to being far away again, you can assert that somehow they've still managed to count up nearly 14 billion years by the time they pass clock K even though they're ticking slow.

Nope, they will have measure shorter times since the Big Bang.

Solar will already have classed this as rambling and vague, but it's actually mathematics done rigorously and with precision, and now we have to take it further, which will tax him beyond his patience, making it incomprehensible to him, but you cannot set out a proof without setting out the entire proof. We can add in more clocks which pass clock K at 0.866c in the same two opposite directions as clocks J and L, but earlier, and we can have as many of those as we need such that we can produce a zigzag path around clock K all the way back to the big bang. These clocks are collectively trying to time the age of the universe, but they're ticking at only half the rate of clock A. The first of them registers time t before it encounters the second one which is moving the opposite way. The second one agrees with that timing and has counted up 2t by the time it encounters the next clock moving the same way as the first one. Again, both agree on 2t, though clock K says 4t by this point. And on we go with our clocks doing their zigzag collective timing adding another t to the total and having the total agree with the timing the next clock has on it when it starts its zig or zag.

Solar isn't going to like this as it's more "rambling", but we can add still more clocks by having lots of other clocks like clock K which are sitting at rest in their local space fabric, but spread out across the universe along the line we're using for all the action. Each of those additional clocks has a host of other clocks passing it in opposite directions at 0.866c and collectively making the same zigzag timings for the age of the universe around their equivalent to clock K. Having carried out there role for one of these equivalents to clock K (doing a zig or zag past it), they go on to perform the same role for the next clock equivalent to clock K. We can tie them into this action such that there's never any moment when they aren't doing a zig or zag for one of these K-like clocks, in in doing this we prove that they are forced to tick at half the rate of clock K throughout their entire existence, which means they cannot have ticked up more than 7 billion years by the time they reach clock K.

Yup, any clock zigzagging around another clock in this fashion will accrue half the proper time of the second clock.

Octocontrabass wrote:Maybe, but I'd still like to know which of Sagnac's experiments disproved relativity.

Exactly like MGP, the Sagnac experiment proves that the light going one way round a ring passes it at a higher relative speed to the local material of the ring than the light going round in the opposite direction. You attempt to escape from that by insisting that observers go round with the ring, but there is no such requirement, and I'm quite sure there were always people there observing who were not doing so. The crucial measurements are frame-independent in any case, so your attempted escape is futile.