Relativity and Modern Morality

[Gerard]

CCC wrote: Gerard, you say that there are still problems you see in SR that you have not been able to resolve yet. Would you mind running through a list of them, quickly? I'm not sure which, if any, of the things you mentioned earlier in this thread you now consider resolved.

Besides, it'll help to give a bit more structure to the discussion from this point onwards.[/quote]



Gerard: Certainly!

1. My paradox of two astronauts approaching each other in empty space, for which JT provided analysis, remains unresolved (to my mind). The difference in their ages will depend upon whose perspective we calculate from (which means, of course, that their motion is reciprocal); however, when we try to resolve this by adding a third observer, we see that the state of motion of this observer determines the difference in their aging, and there is only one state of motion such that the motion of the twins is reciprocal. This tells me that relativity is not a reliable guide for time dilation, because it cannot make any absolute claims, yet the traditional twin's paradox makes the claim that one of the twins has aged more from every perspective, and this is an absolute claim. This might be accounted for by referring all motion to acceleration, but this is not what is done in Relativity, as Cinci has consistently shown. For, if that were the case, then we would not take into account the motion of the twin's space ship (in the traditional Twin's Paradox) once it had stopped accelerating. Yet, in keeping with SR, we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. This tells me that SR implies an aether, according to which the travelling twin is moving...of course, Cinci will never admit this, nor will he admit the observer dependence of SR. Hence, the paradox remains unresolved.

I think all of my problems with the physical theory relate in some way to this paradox. It it were resolved to my satisfaction, I would stop causing Cinci so much distress. My philosophical ideas have been taken on by Oz, and I must say that I've actually experienced something of a revolution of my thinking...I no longer see determinism as an a priori necessity for rational thought!

I think the discerning mind can see the relationship between my paradox above and modern morality, and, of course, I'm always up for discussing that as well.

[cincirob]

Gerard: I see. You worry that someone may read my paper, then skip to the end of our debate and, seeing that I am still arguing, assume that my knowledge/opinion has not evolved at all, and, being seduced by my eloquent didacticism, might uncritically accept erroneous information? Ok. The reason I haven't 'updated' my paper is because it's what got our debate started, and I didn't want to pretend that it had started differently than it did. However, in order to account for both of these considerations, I will write a disclaimer and place that at the beginning of my paper. Sound good?

cinci: Nobody who understands relativity is going to be seduced by your "eloquent didacticism". They are just going to think you don't know what you're talking about. My discussion of the paper is for your benefit. My point is that if your conclusions are based on a lot of bad ideas, then they are probably incorrect. It seems to me that you think otherwise. That's Ok, but it doesn't seem logical and, as I see it, a philospher is pretty much lost without logic.
*************************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: I see. You worry that someone may read my paper, then skip to the end of our debate and, seeing that I am still arguing, assume that my knowledge/opinion has not evolved at all, and, being seduced by my eloquent didacticism, might uncritically accept erroneous information? Ok. The reason I haven't 'updated' my paper is because it's what got our debate started, and I didn't want to pretend that it had started differently than it did. However, in order to account for both of these considerations, I will write a disclaimer and place that at the beginning of my paper. Sound good?

cinci: Nobody who understands relativity is going to be seduced by your "eloquent didacticism". They are just going to think you don't know what you're talking about. My discussion of the paper is for your benefit. My point is that if your conclusions are based on a lot of bad ideas, then they are probably incorrect. It seems to me that you think otherwise. That's Ok, but it doesn't seem logical and, as I see it, a philospher is pretty much lost without logic.
*************************************

Gerard: Of course. I thought you were concerned about people who didn't already understand the theory. If we have already discussed my bad ideas, what difference would it make whether or not I edited my paper? I've already told you I've been editing my own version, based partly on this conversation, so why should I have to edit the version on this website?

[cincirob]

Gerard: Of course. I thought you were concerned about people who didn't already understand the theory. If we have already discussed my bad ideas, what difference would it make whether or not I edited my paper? I've already told you I've been editing my own version, based partly on this conversation, so why should I have to edit the version on this website?

cinci: I don't care whether you edit your paper. My point is that you haven't "editted" your thinking.
************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: Of course. I thought you were concerned about people who didn't already understand the theory. If we have already discussed my bad ideas, what difference would it make whether or not I edited my paper? I've already told you I've been editing my own version, based partly on this conversation, so why should I have to edit the version on this website?

cinci: I don't care whether you edit your paper. My point is that you haven't "editted" your thinking.
************************

Gerard: I respectfully disagree.

[cincirob]

Gerard: I respectfully disagree.

cinci: Well of course you do. But I'll agree when you stop saying relativity is paradoxical. By the way, I just did a thing for CCC and JT on the twin paradox on the "Disproof of Relativity" thread. Give it a read and tell me what you think.
*******************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: I respectfully disagree.

cinci: Well of course you do. But I'll agree when you stop saying relativity is paradoxical. By the way, I just did a thing for CCC and JT on the twin paradox on the "Disproof of Relativity" thread. Give it a read and tell me what you think.
*******************************

Gerard: I read it before I saw this message, and I must say, I was flattered by the reference. I have no problem with your logic in that post; however, this is exactly what I see as paradoxical in Relativity...so we both see the same evidence, but we are somehow drawing different conclusions (i.e. I see the 'shortcoming' as paradoxical, and you do not)...unless I misread your post.

[cincirob]

Gerard: I read it before I saw this message, and I must say, I was flattered by the reference. I have no problem with your logic in that post; however, this is exactly what I see as paradoxical in Relativity...so we both see the same evidence, but we are somehow drawing different conclusions (i.e. I see the 'shortcoming' as paradoxical, and you do not)...unless I misread your post.

cinci: You need to adopt something like the philosophy of the Alcholics Anonymous prayer: God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

The thing you need to accept is that relativity really is the way things are. It isn't one of the things you can change. What is the philosphical meaning of "reality has a shortcoming"? I don't understand that concept. Can you explain it?
*********************************

[Gerard]

Gerard: I read it before I saw this message, and I must say, I was flattered by the reference. I have no problem with your logic in that post; however, this is exactly what I see as paradoxical in Relativity...so we both see the same evidence, but we are somehow drawing different conclusions (i.e. I see the 'shortcoming' as paradoxical, and you do not)...unless I misread your post.

cinci: You need to adopt something like the philosophy of the Alcholics Anonymous prayer: God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference.

The thing you need to accept is that relativity really is the way things are. It isn't one of the things you can change. What is the philosphical meaning of "reality has a shortcoming"? I don't understand that concept. Can you explain it?
*********************************

Gerard: You yourself have often asserted that theories are constantly upgraded; also, you admit that there is something missing from Relativity (i.e. it is not a unified theory). Your description of Relativity as being absolutely, unquestionably, fundamentally, "the way things are," strikes me, therefore, as a strange and untenable position. Further, you should keep in mind that this forum is exactly the place to air one's naive skepticism. I understand that it would be illogical indeed for me to attempt to publish any of my statements about Relativity and expect any scientist to take me seriously. Nevertheless, my doubts remain. Should I pretend that these doubts don't exist? Should I hide my skepticism, and fear to tread on internet forums? If you, or anyone else, has no interest in what I have to say, or if my ignorance is intolerable (which, I concede, would be understandable), all you have to do is stop reading and responding to me. If you want to help me, simply making dogmatic statements and appeals to authority are pointless. I appreciate the many comments of yours, which have been sincere and honest attempts to explain Relativity to me. As for these kinds of comments, they are useless.

[cincirob]

Gerard: You yourself have often asserted that theories are constantly upgraded; also, you admit that there is something missing from Relativity (i.e. it is not a unified theory).

cinci: Just because we don't know how to unify it doesn't mean it isn't unified and maybe it doesn't unify at all because that's the way nature is. Your positin here is about as observer dependent as one can get. The unifiers want it to be quantum mechanical...maybe it ain't. But our not knowing whether is unifiable doesn't doesn't change any of the things we do know.
*******************************************

Gerard: Your description of Relativity as being absolutely, unquestionably, fundamentally, "the way things are," strikes me, therefore, as a strange and untenable position.

cinci: I didn't say absolutley, unquestionably, fundamentally "the way things are". What I said was that things you question like the twin paradox outcome is the way things are. My point is that you are saying that established facts are somehow paradoxical. The facts include the knowledge that relativity predicts thes thing with great precision. What rational logic do you use to say these things are paradoxical?
*********************************

Gerard: Further, you should keep in mind that this forum is exactly the place to air one's naive skepticism. I understand that it would be illogical indeed for me to attempt to publish any of my statements about Relativity and expect any scientist to take me seriously. Nevertheless, my doubts remain. Should I pretend that these doubts don't exist? Should I hide my skepticism, and fear to tread on internet forums? If you, or anyone else, has no interest in what I have to say, or if my ignorance is intolerable (which, I concede, would be understandable), all you have to do is stop reading and responding to me. If you want to help me, simply making dogmatic statements and appeals to authority are pointless. I appreciate the many comments of yours, which have been sincere and honest attempts to explain Relativity to me. As for these kinds of comments, they are useless.

cinci: I don't have a problem with your doubts about relativity but I object to you fobbing off what I say a dogma or appeals to authority. Most of the things I say about relativity I can derive for you from basic principles and back up with physical experiments. Yet you continue to say you believe that aether theory is a more attractive model. Aether theory has no experimental support, no theory that makes any prediction different than relativity if whatever branch of it you think is better makes any testable predictions at all, and nothing but an unfounded belief that it exists...that, my friend, is dogma. The only reason to believe aether is because somebody thinks it exists and that is appeal to authority.
******************************************

[CCC]

You reduce matter to mere space and time by reducing matter to worldlines on spacetime diagrams.

...what on earth does one do with a spacetime diagram without any matter marked on it? That's just a blank piece of paper.

[CCC]

CCC wrote: Gerard, you say that there are still problems you see in SR that you have not been able to resolve yet. Would you mind running through a list of them, quickly? I'm not sure which, if any, of the things you mentioned earlier in this thread you now consider resolved.

Besides, it'll help to give a bit more structure to the discussion from this point onwards.



Gerard: Certainly!

1. My paradox of two astronauts approaching each other in empty space, for which JT provided analysis, remains unresolved (to my mind). The difference in their ages will depend upon whose perspective we calculate from (which means, of course, that their motion is reciprocal); however, when we try to resolve this by adding a third observer, we see that the state of motion of this observer determines the difference in their aging, and there is only one state of motion such that the motion of the twins is reciprocal. This tells me that relativity is not a reliable guide for time dilation, because it cannot make any absolute claims, yet the traditional twin's paradox makes the claim that one of the twins has aged more from every perspective, and this is an absolute claim. This might be accounted for by referring all motion to acceleration, but this is not what is done in Relativity, as Cinci has consistently shown. For, if that were the case, then we would not take into account the motion of the twin's space ship (in the traditional Twin's Paradox) once it had stopped accelerating. Yet, in keeping with SR, we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. This tells me that SR implies an aether, according to which the travelling twin is moving...of course, Cinci will never admit this, nor will he admit the observer dependence of SR. Hence, the paradox remains unresolved.

I think all of my problems with the physical theory relate in some way to this paradox. It it were resolved to my satisfaction, I would stop causing Cinci so much distress. My philosophical ideas have been taken on by Oz, and I must say that I've actually experienced something of a revolution of my thinking...I no longer see determinism as an a priori necessity for rational thought!

I think the discerning mind can see the relationship between my paradox above and modern morality, and, of course, I'm always up for discussing that as well.

Alright. As to the travelling twins problem; if you have two twins travelling towards each other, what you need to do is to start out defining, very precisely, in space and time, the moment at which each twin is a certain age.

There's a point to bear in mind here; you can't use distant events as time references. That is to say, as long as the twins are not in the same place, you can't define twin one's age when twin 2's clock reads 12:00. You have to define the time reference for each twin with a local event.

As an example; let us assume that the twins are going to study a supernova. The supernova happens at the point where they eventually meet. You can define their ages at the time that the light from the supernova reaches each twin (light hitting the twin's retina is a local event; we assume that each twin is facing the right way at the time), as long as you know the distance from each twin to the supernova. (Distances change between reference frames, so you have to define the frame you're measuring in, too; probably simplest to use the frame of the supernova, and define the twin's speeds relative to that frame).

Right. Once you've defined the starting conditions, very thoroughly and without contradiction, then you will find that every single reference frame will give you the same result for the ages of the twins when they meet up (some conversion of starting conditions will probably be required; that's where the Lorentz transforms come in). Feel free to check up on this; or provide a set of starting conditions and I'll show the results from a few frames if you like (just please keep the twins and their destination in a straight line, because otherwise the math gets a lot more complicated). Not all frames will agree that the light from the supernova hit both twins at the same time, of course...

I'm not entirely sure how this relates to modern morality, but I'm pretty sure of the maths.

[CCC]

Such maltreatment of matter and its interactions is standard with Einsteinian thinking - thinking that one has explained everything merely by editing out what is vital and reducing the remainder to a series of mutually inconsistent predeterminations e.g. as in JammyTown's clever analysis of three twins (triplets) separated for space flights to test time dilation. Starting with the triplets returning from their journey and being equally old on return, he extrapolates backwards to show that, despite the initial stipulation, the triplets had to have been born at different times! Once again, SR and GR refute the premises on which they were based - hence these theories are nonsense and have no part whatsoever in genuine scientific endeavor!

Alright... this seems to refer back to the analysis way, way back here. In every reference frame, he gets the same reading for the clocks at the end of the race; if the triplets were born at a time of 0:00 in each frame, then all three frames agree on the age of the triplets at the end of the race, and on the time on all three clocks at the end of the race.

Admittedly, if they're each born in different spaceships and such distant locations then they're not exactly triplets... which implies that they were born well before the experiment and transported to their spaceships.

[cincirob]

Gerard: My paradox of two astronauts approaching each other in empty space, for which JT provided analysis, remains unresolved (to my mind). The difference in their ages will depend upon whose perspective we calculate from (which means, of course, that their motion is reciprocal); however, when we try to resolve this by adding a third observer, we see that the state of motion of this observer determines the difference in their aging, and there is only one state of motion such that the motion of the twins is reciprocal. This tells me that relativity is not a reliable guide for time dilation, because it cannot make any absolute claims, yet the traditional twin's paradox makes the claim that one of the twins has aged more from every perspective, and this is an absolute claim. This might be accounted for by referring all motion to acceleration, but this is not what is done in Relativity, as Cinci has consistently shown. For, if that were the case, then we would not take into account the motion of the twin's space ship (in the traditional Twin's Paradox) once it had stopped accelerating. Yet, in keeping with SR, we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. This tells me that SR implies an aether, according to which the travelling twin is moving...of course, Cinci will never admit this, nor will he admit the observer dependence of SR. Hence, the paradox remains unresolved.

cinci: I will comment here on the unerlined statements above in order:

1. This comment is inaccurate. JT showed that the end result was the same in all cases but that the process for getting was different.

2. JT's claim was no less absolute. The twins aged the same amount in each case.

3. The introduction of an aether here is nonsequitor; not being able to grasp relativity, you simply defer to the only other theory you've heard of. Aether theory cannot resolve your questions.

4. The twin paradox has been tested physically in the Haefele-Keating experiment and the clocks aged at different rates in accordance with relativity. Observers travelled with the eastbound clocks, with the westbound clocks, and with the earthbound clocks. All observed the same difference in the clocks at the end of the experiment. Observer dependence is not an issue. Observers only enter the scenarios because explanations of the phenomena are made anthropomorphic to simplify them.

5. No matter how many times you say it, there is no paradox. If it is a paradox because you can't figure it out, then you are claiming observer dependence and you are the observer. In other words, your inability to grasp the significance of what nature does not mean that nature is paradoxical. That would be observer dependence at its very worst.

6. Here is the bottom line. The question "What is the relative age of the twins?" only has a unique answer when the twins are colocated. This is because relative velocity and distance influence the passage of time. When they are colocated every observer in the universe will agree on their ages including those in relative motion in any direction, at any speed, accelerating or not, or in any other condition you can think of. Only with relativity can you resolve what each of those observers will see but in each and every case, relativity will lead you to the correct and only unique answer to the question. No other theory can improve on this situation. There simply isn't a unique answer to that question unless the twins are colocated. If you can't accept that the universe works that way, that's your problem. There is no verifiable theory that tells you that it works any other way. So you have no grounds to say it is paradoxical; you can only say in honesty and reasonable logic that you don't understand it and perhaps, like many other, you simply don't like it. The universe doesn't care what you like just as it didn't care that Einstein didn't like the inherent randomness in nature.

As my wife used to tell my son when he would get self-indulgent, "It's not all about you."
************************************

Gerard: I think all of my problems with the physical theory relate in some way to this paradox. It it were resolved to my satisfaction, I would stop causing Cinci so much distress.

cinci: I'm perfectly comfortable with my position on relativity so I'm not in distress. The fact that you can't accept relativity should be causing you distress.
****************************************

Gerard: My philosophical ideas have been taken on by Oz, and I must say that I've actually experienced something of a revolution of my thinking...I no longer see determinism as an a priori necessity for rational thought!

cinci: Relativity is as deterministic as was Newton's theory; that is, knowing the initial conditions of a problem at some point allows you to determine how things will proceed into the future. Quantum mechanics holds that this determinism can be violated; for instance, the location of an object may deviate from its expected position randomly. But the likelihood of this is inversely proportional to the mass of the object. For a mass like a human body, the probablity of a great change in location of this nature is vanishingly small. There is no particular realtionship between determinism and rational thought.
******************************

[Gerard]

CCC wrote: Gerard, you say that there are still problems you see in SR that you have not been able to resolve yet. Would you mind running through a list of them, quickly? I'm not sure which, if any, of the things you mentioned earlier in this thread you now consider resolved.

Besides, it'll help to give a bit more structure to the discussion from this point onwards.



Gerard: Certainly!

1. My paradox of two astronauts approaching each other in empty space, for which JT provided analysis, remains unresolved (to my mind). The difference in their ages will depend upon whose perspective we calculate from (which means, of course, that their motion is reciprocal); however, when we try to resolve this by adding a third observer, we see that the state of motion of this observer determines the difference in their aging, and there is only one state of motion such that the motion of the twins is reciprocal. This tells me that relativity is not a reliable guide for time dilation, because it cannot make any absolute claims, yet the traditional twin's paradox makes the claim that one of the twins has aged more from every perspective, and this is an absolute claim. This might be accounted for by referring all motion to acceleration, but this is not what is done in Relativity, as Cinci has consistently shown. For, if that were the case, then we would not take into account the motion of the twin's space ship (in the traditional Twin's Paradox) once it had stopped accelerating. Yet, in keeping with SR, we continue to calculate time dilation for the travelling twin even after he has stopped accelerating. This tells me that SR implies an aether, according to which the travelling twin is moving...of course, Cinci will never admit this, nor will he admit the observer dependence of SR. Hence, the paradox remains unresolved.

I think all of my problems with the physical theory relate in some way to this paradox. It it were resolved to my satisfaction, I would stop causing Cinci so much distress. My philosophical ideas have been taken on by Oz, and I must say that I've actually experienced something of a revolution of my thinking...I no longer see determinism as an a priori necessity for rational thought!

I think the discerning mind can see the relationship between my paradox above and modern morality, and, of course, I'm always up for discussing that as well.

Alright. As to the travelling twins problem; if you have two twins travelling towards each other, what you need to do is to start out defining, very precisely, in space and time, the moment at which each twin is a certain age.

There's a point to bear in mind here; you can't use distant events as time references. That is to say, as long as the twins are not in the same place, you can't define twin one's age when twin 2's clock reads 12:00. You have to define the time reference for each twin with a local event.

As an example; let us assume that the twins are going to study a supernova. The supernova happens at the point where they eventually meet. You can define their ages at the time that the light from the supernova reaches each twin (light hitting the twin's retina is a local event; we assume that each twin is facing the right way at the time), as long as you know the distance from each twin to the supernova. (Distances change between reference frames, so you have to define the frame you're measuring in, too; probably simplest to use the frame of the supernova, and define the twin's speeds relative to that frame).

Right. Once you've defined the starting conditions, very thoroughly and without contradiction, then you will find that every single reference frame will give you the same result for the ages of the twins when they meet up (some conversion of starting conditions will probably be required; that's where the Lorentz transforms come in). Feel free to check up on this; or provide a set of starting conditions and I'll show the results from a few frames if you like (just please keep the twins and their destination in a straight line, because otherwise the math gets a lot more complicated). Not all frames will agree that the light from the supernova hit both twins at the same time, of course...

I'm not entirely sure how this relates to modern morality, but I'm pretty sure of the maths.

Gerard: Yes, JT and I did this. What has yet to be done is for someone to provide a reason why we should choose a particular reference point in a particular state of motion over any other point in any other state of motion. I suppose I should include in this a query as to why this frame needs to be local.