|
Paradoxes
BE FOREWARNED! The subject of debating
paradoxes can be offensive by nature. Either side you are
on,
you have
the onus of trying to tell someone else that they believe something that is
illogical. Many people will take offense to that alone instead of realizing that it
is not their fault if they were misled. Additionally, because
the subjects are so subtle, the presenter of the argument must put
a lot of emphasis on points of illogic. This also seems
very inflammatory, but it is a necessary tool. With this
in mind, please take some of my side commentary as an
attempt at humor. If you take offense to someone being a smart-ass, then this area will
just piss you off ,and that's really not my intent. Do not believe that I am completely
unwavering in my beliefs and ask you to do differently. Please do bring up points of contention in
the discussion area. I enjoy the challenge and the opportunity to solidify the truth in my
own mind; whatever it is!
Unfortunately, paradoxes are a little
too subjective to be discussed in a purely factual manner because
it would not be a paradox worth discussion if there were hard evidence to
prove one way or the other. In this section I'm taking a break
from being entirely serious while we explore some pretty "funny"
aspects of relativity. After all, relatively speaking, the faster
you go the slower you move! In fact, I’m the fastest human
being on earth; Every move I make is very close to the speed of
light. It just so happens that the percentage of the speed of light
I’m moving at is just enough to slow me down to the point at which I
look like I’m moving at a normal speed from your frame of reference…
Why are paradoxes
important? Aren’t they just a case of laypeople, commoners and
other riff-raff not understanding the math??
When a grade school student encounters a word problem, they are supposed
to use their logic, rationale, and deductive reasoning to determine what math is required,
and how it is to be structured, to properly solve the
problem. If that student produces a perfect, beautiful and complex equation and it produces
reliable results as well as being mathematically flawless, is it the
correct answer? What if he uses a well known and
useful equation and solves it perfectly? Is it correct?
No, not necessarily. By examining paradoxes, we are critiquing the logic
and understanding of the problem that the originator of a theory used
to determine the math instead of the accuracy of the math itself. Unfortunately there
is a large community of people who do not separate the logic required to
formulate math from the math itself. There is a prevailing (and
irrational) belief that a correct equation is a correct answer.
Laypeople can actually be qualified to examine
pure logic but when a layperson recognizes a
fundamentally flawed concept, they are given a very generic answer, a brush
off, or the typical meandering unintelligible response so rife with
vagueness, condescension and artificial complexity, that the hearer is
supposed to just back down. This is a typical stratagem found in corporate
offices across the USA. As my scientific reference I’ll use the comic
Dilbert. Feel free to study it in depth if you are unfamiliar with
BS’onics.
In response to those generic answers I
will pose the following:
- 1) It's all in the Math? I can
build a mathematical model
of absolutely anything and everything in it will work perfectly as described in that
model. Here’s the important part though: Just because the model works and will produce
the same outputs for the same inputs does not mean that it is reflective of reality. One
such mathematical model of this type is called “Toy Story”. (This piece of reference
material can be found at the media library known as blockbuster)
I argue that the math used is, more often than not,
very tenuously connected to reality.
It
is similar to
saying that we both came to the answer of 7 and
it does not matter if I used 6+1 and you used 4+2+1. You could,
from one perspective, say that 4+2 is equal to 6 and therefore unnecessary, but seen from an
accounting(GAAP) perspective the folly is revealed. If this thought process was followed in an
accounting system then you'd find that when you need to make
calculations in the future they could very well be wrong though
sometimes they would be right.
-
- 2) Experimental Data? The very nature of experimental data has become a
slippery slope since the inception of relativity. The
interpretation of that data should not be given the same validity
as the data itself. Unfortunately, as I provide elsewhere in these pages,
there are many cases of experiments that are performed horribly wrong or
the instrumentation is terribly inaccurate: Hafele-Keating is one of
my favorites… The interpretations of experiments ever since the advent
of relativity have become completely one-sided in nature. The Sagnac Effect
which proves Aether (disproves relativity) is purportedly interpreted
using general relativity or they arbitrarily add a universal reference frame ("proper
time") which is exactly what Aether is!
|
