Special Relativity and the Universe Postulate
MobyDikc
Universe Postulate
There is one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial
conditions
Mind Postulate
The mind is a self-referential axiomatic sub-system of the universe
Measurement Postulate
Measurements such as distance, duration, and mass are statements of
the mind
Relative Measurement Postulate
Measurements at high speeds vary between minds, a phenomenon known as
length contraction and time dilation
Special relativity fails the first postulate. Here's why:
If the universe's laws include space-time, then the initial conditions,
the inputs that special relativity requires to calculate length
contraction, must contain relative velocity, which are the measurements
of an observer. If the initial conditions are the measurements of an
observer, then the measurements cannot include information about other
observer's outside the original observer's lightcone. Therefore, in
order for the laws of special relativity to predict relativistic
measurements for every observer in the universe, a unique set of
initial conditions is required for every observer.
Which contradicts postulate number 1: there is supposed to be one
universe with one set of laws and one set of initial conditions.
There might be some new and interesting way to modify space-time so
that a single set of inputs predicts relativistic effects for every
observer, but that has yet to be created and there is a perfectly good
reason to think that it will never be created: special relativity
describes a static universe in 4 dimensions where the past, present,
and future are defined together, not a universe whose state is
constantly progressing from the initial state according to the laws.
Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally
incompatible.
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136918931.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Exercise:
Write a letter to Peter Lynds and ask him whether he also
thinks that there really is no Life After Visual Foxpro.
Dirk Vdm
shahul.s...@gmail.com
it we move faster than light then we go backwards in time. so the
question arises: if i kill my past then hw do i live my futur.
the is theory then tells us tht they r infint universes each having
there own laws of nature.but the law still fails to explain that in
some universes the laws may be different. so then y would these laws
allow us to enter there universe .
the question reamins
MobyDikc
Exercise:
Stop acting like a child.
Tom Roberts
> Any problems with the following argument:
Yes. It is plain and simply wrong.
> [...]If the initial conditions are the measurements of an
> observer, [...]
They aren't. The observer must exist to make measurements, and the
initial conditions must come before that.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
MobyDikc
But it is also true the initial conditions must express relative
velocity, otherwise we would be unable to calculate length contraction
to satisfy the relative measurement postulate.
How do the initial conditions express relative velocity, without an
observer?
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136922314.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Exercise:
stop asking people to treat you like a child ;-)
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
That's a valid question.
The initial conditions must contain relative velocity otherwise you
couldn't complete the calculation for length contraction and you'd fail
to predict relative measurements.
So what you begin with must already have an observer.
Are you disagreeing that space-time hypothesizes an observer? What
happens instead? Does special relativity "predict" an observer as a
result of a calculation?
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136927254....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136922314.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > MobyDikc wrote:
> > > > > Any problems with the following argument:
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It is plain and simply wrong.
> > > >
> > > > > [...]If the initial conditions are the measurements of an
> > > > > observer, [...]
> > > >
> > > > They aren't. The observer must exist to make measurements, and the
> > > > initial conditions must come before that.
> > >
> > >
> > > But it is also true the initial conditions must express relative
> > > velocity, otherwise we would be unable to calculate length contraction
> > > to satisfy the relative measurement postulate.
> > >
> > > How do the initial conditions express relative velocity, without an
> > > observer?
> >
> > Exercise:
> > stop asking people to treat you like a child ;-)
>
>
> That's a valid question.
No, it is an exercise.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
MobyDikc wrote:
[snip philosophical garbage]
>
> Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally
> incompatible.
...and since special relativity hasn't been falsified, your theory is
crap.
By the way, did you ever read D'Inverno?
MobyDikc
> "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136927254....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136922314.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > MobyDikc wrote:
> > > > > > Any problems with the following argument:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. It is plain and simply wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > > [...]If the initial conditions are the measurements of an
> > > > > > observer, [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > They aren't. The observer must exist to make measurements, and the
> > > > > initial conditions must come before that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But it is also true the initial conditions must express relative
> > > > velocity, otherwise we would be unable to calculate length contraction
> > > > to satisfy the relative measurement postulate.
> > > >
> > > > How do the initial conditions express relative velocity, without an
> > > > observer?
> > >
> > > Exercise:
> > > stop asking people to treat you like a child ;-)
> >
> >
> > That's a valid question.
>
> No, it is an exercise.
A universe based on special relativity uses the equation L1 = L0 sqrt(1
- v^2/c^2) to calculate length contraction.
That v is velocity. In special relativity only relative velocity is
allowed, which is a measurement done by an observer.
In order to use space-time to predict relativistic effects there must
be an observer to supply a measurement.
Der alte Hexenmeister
> Any problems with the following argument:
>
>
>
> Universe Postulate
>
> There is one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial
> conditions
Yes, there is.
There is one universe ... by definition of "universe" and definition of
"one".
... with one set of laws... vague. How many laws are there in the set?
What if we combine two sets of laws and call that one set of laws, as we
might combine one set of apples and one set of oranges into one set of
fruit?
... and one set of initial conditions... not a postulate. Presupposes a
pre-primitive postulate, the universe had a beginning.
So you want:
Postulate 1) The universe exists. Self-evident and undeniable, therefore a
postulate. We cannot sensibly argue about it.
Postulate 2) The universe began. -- questionable. Therefore not a
postulate.
I do not have a definition of "begin", either, since that must involve a
definition of "time". Postulates are statements I am unable to argue about.
Postulate 3) A universe has laws. --- but what are they? Finding out is
called "science".
I may temporarily suspend my non-belief in your hypothesies to allow
you to continue and see where it leads, but remember that I do not accept
your statement as a postulate. It is your hypothesis.
Nor can you fault me for doing so, since you are challenging Einstein's
hypothesis for the same reason. He didn't provide a self-evident, undeniable
proposition.
What is self-evident and undeniable is the principle of relativity, which he
correctly states and then challenges.
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a
conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative
motion of the conductor and the magnet".
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
That is undeniable. The rest we can argue about.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
"Einstein does not play dice." -- God
Der alte Hexenmeister
How can a child cease to behave like a child?
If the child has its little temper tantrums, send it to bed early.
If the peeing puppy pisses on your leg, ignore it or kick it in the gooleys.
Or castrate it, it is spermless anyway.
--
Der alte Hexenmeister ist:
Sorcerer Androcles Dumbledore, Headmaster, hogwarts.physics
school for zauberlehrlings.
"One muggle's magic is another sorcerer's engineering"
"Einstein does not play dice, he cannot be me." -- God
Bill Hobba
Classical physics is generally assumed value definite and non contextual.
Such is not the case in QM - but it does not require an observer either:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
Bill
Bill Hobba
Nope - it is a measurement relative to a coordinate system. An assumption
of the theory is coordinate systems can conceptually exist independent of if
it is being observed or not. Remember classical systems are assumed both
value definite and non contextual ie all properties exist independent of
observation.
>
> In order to use space-time to predict relativistic effects there must
> be an observer to supply a measurement.
>
Nope. Study the principle of general covariance then repost. It basically
expresses the very self evident idea that objective reality exists
independent of coordinate systems. If you wish to doubt that - fine. But a
science forum is not the place to discuss it.
Bill
Bilge
I'll let you answer that: Have your postulates solved any problems
that weren't already solved? If not, then what does that tell you about
your postulates?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136930445....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
He sold it on the Used Books market.
Mint condition - unused beyond page 3.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
> MobyDikc:
> >Any problems with the following argument:
>
> I'll let you answer that: Have your postulates solved any problems
> that weren't already solved?
I'm suggesting that the postulates uncover a new problem with special
relativity.
> If not, then what does that tell you about your postulates?
That if you can find no other problems with my argument, the postulates
pose a new problem for solving, and may require more postulates.
Did you read my argument and find no other issues with it?
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136997685....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bilge wrote:
> > MobyDikc:
> > >Any problems with the following argument:
> >
> > I'll let you answer that: Have your postulates solved any problems
> > that weren't already solved?
>
>
> I'm suggesting that the postulates uncover a new problem with special
> relativity.
Postulate: Mike Helland is an armchair philosopher.
I'm suggesting that the postulate uncovers a problem
with Mike Helland's personality.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
<snip>
> > That v is velocity. In special relativity only relative velocity is
> > allowed, which is a measurement done by an observer.
>
> Nope - it is a measurement relative to a coordinate system.
<snip>
Ok.
Removing the idea of an observer from special relativity, my original
statement should now read:
If the universe's laws include space-time, then the initial conditions,
the inputs that special relativity requires to calculate length
contraction, must contain relative velocity, which are measurements. If
the initial conditions are measurements, then the measurements cannot
include information from outside the lightcone.
This doesn't have any affect on the argument as a whole.
MobyDikc
"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that
the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the
right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the
philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the
physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental
concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that the
waves of doubt can not reach them; but, it can not be right at a time
when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as
they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to
seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply
surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the
theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more
surely where the shoe pinches."
- Einstein
Talk with me. What do you say?
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1136998513....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk,
>
> "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that
> the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the
> right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the
> philosophizing?
You are no philosopher.
You are a Foxpro programmer annex armchair philosopher.
You talk through the wrong orifice.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
I simple "no" would have sufficed.
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137000282.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk,
>
> I simple "no" would have sufficed.
Sure, but you have proven not to understand a simple "no",
so I decided to gave a more elaborate one.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
You decided that instead of conversing with me you'd much rather write
your opinion of me in a public forum. Repetitively.
Original.
*rolls eyes*
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137002187.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
http://www.pc-parents.com/images/IMG_3559%20web.jpg
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
Explain the relationship between space-time and the universe.
Eric Gisse
MobyDikc wrote:
> Bilge wrote:
> > MobyDikc:
> > >Any problems with the following argument:
> >
> > I'll let you answer that: Have your postulates solved any problems
> > that weren't already solved?
>
>
> I'm suggesting that the postulates uncover a new problem with special
> relativity.
Have you ever read any books on relativity?
>
>
> > If not, then what does that tell you about your postulates?
>
> That if you can find no other problems with my argument, the postulates
> pose a new problem for solving, and may require more postulates.
>
> Did you read my argument and find no other issues with it?
We go through this every few months. You read some random article, and
you spew some bullshit in sci.physics that has no physics, just
philosophy. You are asked again and again what your latest philosophy
solves, and you eventually go away just to repeat the cycle a few
months later.
John Kennaugh
>Any problems with the following argument:
>
>
>
>
> There is one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial
>conditions
>
>Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally
>incompatible.
>
I came to that conclusion by an entirely different route:
A S
B-->v
As A and B coincide they see a flash from source S. Relativity requires
that in A's FoR light must leave S at c relative to S. In B's FoR
relativity requires that light leaves the source at c-v relative to S.
As light leaves the source at different speeds for A and for B but
arrives at the same time it must set off at different times. The only
possible physical interpretation of this is to assume that the relative
motion of A and B puts them in separate universes. In A's universe A is
stationary w.r.t the ether and all light travels every which way at c
and as the source is stationary light will leave it at c. In B's
universe B is stationary w.r.t the ether and all light travels every
which way in his universe at c. The source is moving relative to the
ether so light leaves it at c-v and of course because they are in
different universes there is no reason why the event at S should not
take place at different times nor why in B's universe A's clock is going
slower while in A's, B's is going slower.
If you are only interested in doing the maths then you call A's ether
filled universe 'A's FoR' and B's ether filled universe 'B's FoR' and
ascribe to these mathematical abstractions the same physical properties.
If you ask how these physical properties arise you will be informed that
the actual physical space mapped out by these mathematical abstractions
contains nothing physical which could account for any such properties.
As every FoR defines common physical space, then even if it did contain
something physical which has physical properties it is hard to see how
these properties could be FoR specific - so again you need a separate
universe for every FoR containing something physical which will
constrain light to travel everywhere at c.
Einstein never did come up with a physical interpretation of his theory.
His best effort was to suggest that the concept of the ether did not
need to imply a FoR stationary w.r.t it. He proposed a 'mobile ether'
which every observer naturally finds himself stationary w.r.t. Had he
lived in 2006 he could have put forward my parallel universe theory and
very probably got away with it. Hasn't Hawking suggested that for every
universe which has black holes there must be one which doesn't - or
something like that. Something about black holes implying multiple
universes.
--
John Kennaugh
"Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes
from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters,
we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137013661.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk,
>
> Explain the relationship between space-time and the universe.
Ask this one to explain it to you:
http://www.indiangiftsportal.com/myshop/images/products-big/kidrkh008-b.jpg
and then compare it with the tripe John Kennaugh must
have fired at you. I'm sure the three of you will get along
just fine :-)
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
You're unwilling to address the philosophical foundations of physical
theory because such thoughts are taboo here.
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137019980....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dirk,
>
> You're unwilling to address the philosophical foundations of physical
> theory because such thoughts are taboo here.
Helland, philosophical foundations of physics are best
discussed by those who know what physics is about.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
> You are asked again and again what your latest philosophy
> solves, and you eventually go away just to repeat the cycle a few
> months later.
I'd like to discuss some things rather than proclaim that I have new
solutions.
MobyDikc
Which is why I pose my questions to you.
What is the relationship between space-time and the universe?
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1136929499....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>> > That v is velocity. In special relativity only relative velocity is
>> > allowed, which is a measurement done by an observer.
>>
>> Nope - it is a measurement relative to a coordinate system.
> <snip>
>
> Ok.
>
> Removing the idea of an observer from special relativity, my original
> statement should now read:
>
> If the universe's laws include space-time, then the initial conditions,
Are you assuming the initial conditions are classical? - QM has cast strong
doubt on the initial conditions of the universe being classical.
> the inputs that special relativity requires to calculate length
> contraction, must contain relative velocity, which are measurements.
The principles classical mechanics is built upon (namely value defiteness
and non contextuality) assumes such exists independent of measurement.
> If
> the initial conditions are measurements, then the measurements cannot
> include information from outside the lightcone.
Initial conditions are not measurements - they are objective values assumed
to exist independent of measurement or measurement context by value
defiteness and non contextuality.
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137020538.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Try this one:
http://cremesti.com/krasiva/photos/Italy/Loren_Sophia/sophia327.jpg
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
> Dirk,
>
> You're unwilling to address the philosophical foundations of physical
> theory because such thoughts are taboo here.
Then see what actual philosophers have to say about it:
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
Start doing the science then you will be in a position to delve into and
understand the philosophy. For your previous question 'Explain the
relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not. Get
that knowledge then you can have a stab at it and be in a position to
understand a reply by someone like Dirk. But once you understand the
physics the answer to the question is quite trivial - the answer being, as
far as the physics is concerned, it is a meaningless irrelevant question to
begim with ie as the philosopher above said 'Scientific explanations are
logically only sufficient, not necessary, to the phenomena. This means that
they are enough to explain something about what we are seeing, but that
logically they are not the only possible explanation and they do not explain
everything about what we are seeing'
As the great philosopher Wittgenstein (himself a quite respectable scientist
before he became a philosopher) said:
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Bill
Bill Hobba
If you were to actually go away and study the physics you will recognize
your proposals are silly because they do not satisfy the basics of a
scientific theory ie to make (non trivial) predictions that can be tested.
Bill
Eric Gisse
Discussion implies that both sides understand what is being discussed.
You are yet to demonstrate you understand relativity.
So until you actually *understand* relativity, you should stop talking
about it.
Spaceman
> Discussion implies that both sides understand what is being discussed.
> You are yet to demonstrate you understand relativity.
Dear Eric Gisse,
You are one that says if a clock shows a different time on it than another
clock
of the same type that that proves time changed?
You are a person that lacks any demonstration that you know
what science is, so you best stop the discussion now.
You lack the "science of measurement" in your entire understanding of
anything.
Bilge
>> MobyDikc:
>> >Any problems with the following argument:
>>
>> I'll let you answer that: Have your postulates solved any problems
>> that weren't already solved?
>
>
>I'm suggesting that the postulates uncover a new problem with special
>relativity.
Fine. I assumed that's what you were suggesting when I asked you
what problems your postulates solved. That means you should be able
to predict some effect which demonstrates this problem you are
suggesting and the resolution of the problem in terms of your
postulates.
>> If not, then what does that tell you about your postulates?
>
>That if you can find no other problems with my argument, the postulates
>pose a new problem for solving, and may require more postulates.
>
>Did you read my argument and find no other issues with it?
I read your argument, but saw no point to your postulates. You can
clear that up real easily by providing an example for which relativity
gets the wrong result which is fixed by the addition of your postulates.
That is the only relevant issue.
Eric Gisse
Spaceman wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137023401.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Discussion implies that both sides understand what is being discussed.
> > You are yet to demonstrate you understand relativity.
>
> Dear Eric Gisse,
> You are one that says if a clock shows a different time on it than another
> clock
> of the same type that that proves time changed?
More or less.
> You are a person that lacks any demonstration that you know
> what science is, so you best stop the discussion now.
Looks like you haven't changed.
Just because science says something *you* don't like or understand,
does not mean that the science is flawed.
>
> You lack the "science of measurement" in your entire understanding of
> anything.
Say, spaceman. Its been awhile - do you still have a problem with
(-1)*(-1) = 1 ?
Spaceman
>
> Spaceman wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1137023401.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Discussion implies that both sides understand what is being discussed.
>> > You are yet to demonstrate you understand relativity.
>>
>> Dear Eric Gisse,
>> You are one that says if a clock shows a different time on it than
>> another
>> clock
>> of the same type that that proves time changed?
>
> More or less.
So, you have lost the science of measurement.
You have no science any more.
>
>> You are a person that lacks any demonstration that you know
>> what science is, so you best stop the discussion now.
>
> Looks like you haven't changed.
>
> Just because science says something *you* don't like or understand,
> does not mean that the science is flawed.
I am not saying the science of measurement is flawed,
It is the "stuff" you think is science, that is in fact flawed
because you ignore the science of measurement to keep
your "sci-fi" science kicking around.
Tom Roberts
> MobyDikc wrote:
>>Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally
>>incompatible.
Only when you don't understand relativity. <shrug>
> I came to that conclusion by an entirely different route:
> A S
> B-->v
> As A and B coincide they see a flash from source S. Relativity requires
> that in A's FoR light must leave S at c relative to S. In B's FoR
> relativity requires that light leaves the source at c-v relative to S.
> As light leaves the source at different speeds for A and for B but
> arrives at the same time it must set off at different times. The only
> possible physical interpretation of this is [...]
Your attempt to argue by exhaustive enumeration is WOEFULLY inadequate.
In particular, you omitted the possibility that spacetime is locally
Minkowskian, AS WE OBSERVE.
[You probably don't observe that, but that merely reflects
your lack of knowledge and illiteracy in the subject.]
Both of you need to stop wasting your time posting nonsense to the
internet, get a textbook, and STUDY relativity. There is no shortcut.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
MobyDikc
> Initial conditions are not measurements - they are objective values assumed
> to exist independent of measurement or measurement context by value
> defiteness and non contextuality.
Given any law you want, and any initial condition you want, show me how
you calculate length contraction without mesaurement.
Show the equation you'll use, and the inputs, and the result.
I don't see how it can be done without knowing relative velocity, which
is a measurement.
MobyDikc
I'm just asking questions. Your hostility to that is frightening.
MobyDikc
> I read your argument, but saw no point to your postulates. You can
> clear that up real easily by providing an example for which relativity
> gets the wrong result which is fixed by the addition of your postulates.
> That is the only relevant issue.
So what seems to be a logical issue with special relativity is not
relevant because there is no empirical issue.
That's an effective method of not having to think critically about what
you know.
Nice talking to you.
MobyDikc
> For your previous question 'Explain the
> relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
> indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
> Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not.
Try me.
I'm not sure why any person of science would find value in hiding their
opinion from me.
Even if I don't understand it, you'd be putting your opinion on the
matter out for the group to see, and it is open for discussion.
Dirk Van de moortel
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137083522.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
> > For your previous question 'Explain the
> > relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
> > indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
> > Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not.
>
>
>
> Try me.
>
> I'm not sure why any person of science would find value in hiding their
> opinion from me.
Because you have shown not to be interested in anything
anyone explains to you. You are only interested in spewing
nonsense. Try using a new fake name - start all over once
more. I bet it won't take more than 10 messages before
you are exposed as Helland again.
Dirk Vdm
MobyDikc
> > Bill Hobba,
> >
> >
> > > For your previous question 'Explain the
> > > relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
> > > indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
> > > Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Try me.
> >
> > I'm not sure why any person of science would find value in hiding their
> > opinion from me.
>
> Because you have shown not to be interested in anything
> anyone explains to you.
You believe that because it is convienent for you.
Keep thinking of excuses not to tell me the answer to my question.
That's a far easier task than coming up with an answer and putting your
neck on the line by actually stating it.
Its been nice talking to you.
Eric Gisse
Spaceman wrote:
[snip]
You snipped the one question I really wanted you to answer: Do you
Spaceman
I don't have a problem with it it all Eric,
As I have stated before, I can work it both ways.
you seem to not even grasp the simple numberline experiment
I had posted about it.
You are close minded, I am open minded.
That is the "problem" I see.
:)
again for laughs.
what is the answer for
a*a while looking at the line below?
a | | | | | | | | | 0 | | | | | | | | | b
a^2?
If so.
how would you get the - number to change sides of the number line.
Can't you see that logic at all?
Or are you only here to not see openly?
Do you even get it at all?
Or are you too close minded to even try?
Eric Gisse
That is all I wanted to know - you still don't understand basic
algebra.
Spaceman
Actually I do and I could easily just type the answer you want.
I know the basic answer you would come up with,
It is you that can not figure the logic problems answers like above.
Too bad you won't even try, that means the brainwashing you have
recieved is too intense for you to even start to break it.
Bilge
>
>> I read your argument, but saw no point to your postulates. You can
>> clear that up real easily by providing an example for which relativity
>> gets the wrong result which is fixed by the addition of your postulates.
>> That is the only relevant issue.
>
>
>So what seems to be a logical issue with special relativity is not
>relevant because there is no empirical issue.
There are no logical issues. (1) It was proven long ago that if
hyperbolic geometry is inconsistent, then so is euclidean geometry,
(2) The universe operates according the logic nature uses, not the
so-called logic you would like nature to use. Your disregard for
empirical evidence in favor of your own personal implementation of
the universe, is illogical.
>That's an effective method of not having to think critically about what
>you know.
I'll have to take your word for that, since I'm used to critical
thinking. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't be pissed off about
the critical thinking I employed while reading your post.
Eric Gisse
Nope. The rules of algebra completely elude you. I bet showing you some
complex algebra would be fun.
The complex number "i" is defined as the principle value of the square
root of -1. Or, i = sqrt(-1)
i^1 = i
i^2 = -1
i^3 = -i
i^4 = 1
If you really think you understand how algebra works, you should be
able to find the roots of this simple polynomial equation: x^2 + 9 = 0.
There are no real-valued solutions, but there are two complex
solutions. Bonus: Can you explain to me why when a polynomial has a
complex root, the cojugate of the root is also a solution?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1137104922....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think it would be needlessly and viciously cruel.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> Nope. The rules of algebra completely elude you. I bet showing you some
> complex algebra would be fun.
Nope, It would be a waste, since you refuse to do any logic problems.
why would I bother doing complex algebra if you can not grasp simple
logic anyways and refuse to even try it?
the rules don't elude me.
they logic of breaking the rules yet being logically correct elude you.
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
>> Initial conditions are not measurements - they are objective values
>> assumed
>> to exist independent of measurement or measurement context by value
>> defiteness and non contextuality.
>
>
> Given any law you want, and any initial condition you want, show me how
> you calculate length contraction without mesaurement.
The Lorentz transformations that predict length contraction use quantities
the objectively exist independent of measurement or measurement context by
value definiteness and non contextuality..
>
> Show the equation you'll use, and the inputs, and the result.
>
> I don't see how it can be done without knowing relative velocity, which
> is a measurement.
Relative velocity between coordinate systems exists independent of
measurement by value definiteness and non contextuality. Try to think a bit
more clearly before posting in future - in particular think about what value
definiteness and non contextuality mean. Most people recognize those hidden
assumptions that follow from the idea an objective reality exists
independent of measurement applies without being told it - for some reason
you do not.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
>> For your previous question 'Explain the
>> relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
>> indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
>> Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not.
>
>
>
> Try me.
All right - what is space-time.
Bill
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:f_Axf.104004$DS1.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> I think it would be needlessly and viciously cruel.
I think it is amazing how the subject is always changed when you "experts"
get stepped on by my simple logic that apparently you can not understand,
or just don't want anyone else to try to understand it.
Tis sad you still hide behind your "spacetime" curtain.
Spaceman
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:rjBxf.214742$V7.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> All right - what is space-time.
An outright destruction of the science of measurement, created to allow
a complete wall to be built that has slowed down science to almost a
standstill.
OR is it an area-second?
maybe a meter-day?
no, gotta be a mile-year.
Space-time is a sci-fi word to the real physical science that should be
happening today but is not because of such a word.
Bill Hobba
I did. I clearly stated the assumptions being made. Yet your responses
showed a clear inability to grasp the obvious and trivial consequences of
value definiteness and non contextuality. Such evidences the fact Dirks
approach is valid in your case.
>
> Its been nice talking to you.
So in a few weeks/months time you will start a whole new sequence of posts
demonstrating exactly the same misconceptions and go though the same silly
dance again? What will you do in the interim to improve your knowledge?
Will you actually purchase a book on SR, study it, and post with questions?
I suspect not. BTW the answer to my question of what the space-time of SR
is is a flat 4d manifold with a -++++ or +---- signature. But to understand
that answer you need to do a bit of study - study you seem loath to do.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:9vqdnS0rCocPf1ve...@comcast.com...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:rjBxf.214742$V7.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> All right - what is space-time.
>
> An outright destruction of the science of measurement, created to allow
> a complete wall to be built that has slowed down science to almost a
> standstill.
Wrong. Repeat SR 101. If remedial lessons fail suggest examination by
metal health care professional.
Bill
Spaceman
> Wrong. Repeat SR 101. If remedial lessons fail suggest examination by
> metal health care professional.
Wrong
you should repeat science (gradeschool)
Find out how clocks work and what the function of a clock is for.
then work on finding the clocks malfunction instead of just accepting
this most stupid "time changed rate" cause..
It is the biggest loss for physics so far today.
Eric Gisse
You are still an idiot. You still do not understand algebra, much less
relativity. I could go through detailed explanations about how
multiplication is a rotation in the complex plane, but you will have
none of it because you, as i said, are an idiot.
Spaceman
Thanks for the proof I needed to prove you have no clue about
the science of measurement and are afraid to actually discuss it at all.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>[snip]
>
>You are still an idiot. You still do not understand algebra, much less
>relativity. I could go through detailed explanations about how
>multiplication is a rotation in the complex plane, but you will have
>none of it because you, as i said, are an idiot.
>
idiot you've in mind?:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
donsto...@hotmail.com
idiot you've in mind?:-)
*******************************
Isn't polysemy wonderful? We need more chaos in the Universe.
Bill Hobba
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:xFBxf.214758$V7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Wrong. Repeat SR 101. If remedial lessons fail suggest examination by
>> metal health care professional.
>
> Wrong
> you should repeat science (gradeschool)
> Find out how clocks work and what the function of a clock is for.
To display something we call time. You seem to have forgotten it. Maybe
your problems go deeper than I thought. Perhaps reputing kindergarten will
help - finger painting I have heard can work wonders. Once that is mastered
maybe basic science can be attempted.
Bill
Spaceman
>
> "Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
> news:d7ednajzHJz...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
>> news:xFBxf.214758$V7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Wrong. Repeat SR 101. If remedial lessons fail suggest examination by
>>> metal health care professional.
>>
>> Wrong
>> you should repeat science (gradeschool)
>> Find out how clocks work and what the function of a clock is for.
>
> To display something we call time. You seem to have forgotten it.
Too bad you still don't grasp th problem with clocks.
Oh wait.. you just refuse to even try..
aha!
figures
The brainwashing is just too much for you to break.
weak minded people always seem to be that way.
Bill Hobba
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137104922....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Nope. The rules of algebra completely elude you. I bet showing you some
>> complex algebra would be fun.
>
> Nope,
Funny - that is about what everyone thought you would do. You are so
predictable.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Spaceman" <Real...@comcast.not> wrote in message
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:f_Axf.104004$DS1.6...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>> I think it would be needlessly and viciously cruel.
>
> I think it is amazing how the subject is always changed when you "experts"
> get stepped on by my simple logic that apparently you can not understand,
A person who is the only one that understands their logic has a name - it is
the same name given to flat earthers who also are the only ones that
understand their logic.
Bill
Sue...
MobyDikc wrote:
philosophy snipped :o)
Special relativity and the universe postulate are fundamentally
incompatible.
Incomplete or open ended is probably a better descripion.
SR is abstract enough you almost need a argument against
the Pythagoras relation to say it is incompatable.
Forgive me if I overlooked and snipped that argument. :-)
<<
The Lorenz gauge is obtained by the choice of the gauge function which
gives
http://en.wikipedia.org/math/4/f/a/4fa1adc115bee97328d6094e679f1350.png
(equation}
This gauge is *incomplete*, in the sense that there is a residual
gauge freedom. This can be seen by examining the constraint that this
gauge puts on the gauge function ψ(x,t). However, the gauge degrees of
freedom propagate at the speed of light. In special relativity this is
a covariant gauge.
Note that this gauge is known after the Danish physicist Ludwig Lorenz
and not after H. Lorentz. >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Note that combining time with each of the spatial axes, imbues
the imaginary space with a greater degree of freedom than
Euclidean space. (also *imaginary* but requiring no sqrt -1 )
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
Where the time dependent Maxwell's equations don't apply:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
(there are easily testable situations)
Then there *may* be a compatability problem.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Sue...
The Ghost In The Machine
<Real...@comcast.not>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:31:12 -0500
<CYedneiHvZZeaVve...@comcast.com>:
And (-4) * (-4) = what, again?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bilge
>> > > For your previous question 'Explain the
>> > > relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an
>> >
>> > I'm not sure why any person of science would find value in hiding their
>> > opinion from me.
>>
>> Because you have shown not to be interested in anything
>> anyone explains to you.
>
>You believe that because it is convienent for you.
From your responses, the fact that you aren't interested in what
abyone tells you, is self-evident.
>Keep thinking of excuses not to tell me the answer to my question.
No one is obligated to answer your question. You posted some statements.
If you want anyone to be interested in your statements, then it's up to you
to answer questions so that what you have to say is interesting. So far,
what you've said amounts to claiming that there is a logical error in
relativity. That is false unless the same logical fallacy applies to
ordinary euclidean geometry.
>That's a far easier task than coming up with an answer and putting your
>neck on the line by actually stating it.
Which is apparently the reason you would rather digress on issues
other than the ones in your post. Whether you are right or wrong is
a totally separate question of whether or not someone else is willing
to jump through your hoops until you think you've found a logical
error to argue about.
MobyDikc
> So far,
> what you've said amounts to claiming that there is a logical error in
> relativity.
More to the point, I argued that special relativity is incompatible
with the universe postulate.
That could mean there's a logical error in the universe postulate. Or
it could mean I'm not thinking about how special relativity is related
to the universe correctly.
Which is why I'm asking.
How are they related? Is space-time supposed to be the universe itself?
Or is space-time a subset of the universe some how?
Or are space-time and the universe comlpetely unrelated?
Is anyone reading this willing to take a direct stab at the questions,
rather than rationalizing why the questions shouldn't be answered?
MobyDikc
> "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137083522.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bill Hobba,
> >
> >
> >> For your previous question 'Explain the
> >> relationship between space-time and the universe.' to have an answer (or
> >> indeed to mean anything) you need to know what space and time are first.
> >> Your writings have shown as far as physics is concerned you do not.
> >
> >
> >
> > Try me.
>
> All right - what is space-time.
A four dimensional model of events in the universe.
PD
MobyDikc wrote:
> Any problems with the following argument:
>
>
>
> Universe Postulate
>
> There is one universe with one set of laws and one set of initial
> conditions
>
This postulate is not likely to be borne out.
PD
MobyDikc
That was my conclusion too.
What I'm really interested in is if my argument that space-time itself
forbids the universe postulate makes sense.
Can you comment on that?
MobyDikc
> The Lorentz transformations that predict length contraction use quantities
> the objectively exist independent of measurement or measurement context by
> value definiteness and non contextuality..
Value definiteness appears 115 times on Google, and no where on the
wikipedia or scienceworld.
Using common sense, velocity is a ratio between distance and duration.
Those are measurements.
If the idea of value definiteness is to override common sense in this
case, you should be able to provide a definitive cite on the matter and
show that it is a commonly accepted notion.
In any case, this is all just so I understand. If you're right and I'm
wrong, then my overall point is strengthened.
I suggested that calculating a complete universe requires that you have
a unique set of initial conditions for every observer in the universe,
so that a the effects of length contraction and time dilation can be
calculated for every observer in the universe.
You're saying that not only do you need initial conditions for every
point in space-time where there is an observer, but also for every
point where there is no observer.
And since space-time is a continuum, that means an infinite number of
more calculations would be required to calculate a full universe based
on a space-time.
I thought points where observers were would be all that's necessary, to
satisfy the requirement of making all the predictions. But technically,
you are right, and even more is necessary.
In the end, you only strengthen the argument that a space-time based
universe requires more than a single set of initial conditions. You
need a unique set for every point in space-time, based on what you're
saying.
Sue...
Suppose you and I are viewing the edge of
a plywood panel.
I say it is a stick because all I see is a stick.
You say it is a panel because you are smart.
We walk to another position and you say:
See stupid girl. It is a panel.
I start up my chain saw, cut the part
off that I saw, aim the chain saw at your
navel ask you if you see a stick.
I am sure you'll agree. :-)
Sue...
and
Sue...
<< There might be some new and interesting way to modify space-time so
that a single set of inputs predicts relativistic effects for every
observer,...>>
The near-field solutions for Maxwell's equations do this nicely.
See:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
They are incorporated in SR by rreference.
Sue...
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
Eric Gisse
MobyDikc wrote:
> Bilge,
>
>
> > So far,
> > what you've said amounts to claiming that there is a logical error in
> > relativity.
>
>
> More to the point, I argued that special relativity is incompatible
> with the universe postulate.
I find it interesting that you claim SR is incompatable with your
philosophy. You don't show any sign of understanding SR, or any sign of
being capable of making predictions with your "universe postulate".
In fact, I have never seen you make any predictions using any of the
philosophy you babble about.
>
> That could mean there's a logical error in the universe postulate. Or
> it could mean I'm not thinking about how special relativity is related
> to the universe correctly.
>
> Which is why I'm asking.
>
> How are they related? Is space-time supposed to be the universe itself?
> Or is space-time a subset of the universe some how?
>
> Or are space-time and the universe comlpetely unrelated?
>
> Is anyone reading this willing to take a direct stab at the questions,
> rather than rationalizing why the questions shouldn't be answered?
It would help greatly if you learned GR.
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
>> The Lorentz transformations that predict length contraction use
>> quantities
>> the objectively exist independent of measurement or measurement context
>> by
>> value definiteness and non contextuality..
>
>
> Value definiteness appears 115 times on Google, and no where on the
> wikipedia or scienceworld.
I gave you a reference to it - you obviously did not read it. Such behavior
is not a good indicator off intersect is genuineness intellectual discourse.
Here it is again:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/#escaping
'(VD) All observables defined for a QM system have definite values at all
times. VD, however, is motivated by a more basic principle, an apparently
innocuous realism about physical measurement which, initially, seems an
indispensable tenet of natural science. This realism consists in the
assumption that whatever exists in the physical world is causally
independent of our measurements which serve to give us information about it.
Now, since measurements of all QM observables, typically, yield more or less
precise values, there is good reason to think that such values exist
independently of any measurements - which leads us to assume VD. (Note that
we do not need to assume here that the values are faithfully revealed by
measurement, but only that they exist!) We can concretize our innocuous
realism in a second assumption of noncontextuality: (NC) If a QM system
possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently
of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is
eventually measured. This means that if a system possesses a given property,
it does so independently of possessing other values pertaining to other
arrangements. So, both our assumptions incorporate the basic idea of an
independence of physical reality from its being measured.'
>
> Using common sense, velocity is a ratio between distance and duration.
> Those are measurements.
>
That is exaclty what the the assumtions deny - variables exist independat of
being measured. As the link says: 'So, both our assumptions incorporate the
basic idea of an independence of physical reality from its being measured.'
>
> If the idea of value definiteness is to override common sense in this
> case,
>
You are obviously very confused. The two assumptions result from the common
sense notion 'that whatever exists in the physical world is causally
independent of our measurements which serve to give us information about
it.' This is rarely stated because it is so obvious most people cotton onto
immediately However, some like you, just like those that can not understand
how a variable x can stand for an unknown in algebra, never get it. They go
on to claim that science has it all wrong and they are the only ones who has
seen the light. They claim for example people interested in science do not
have a proper philosophical base and can not answer philosophical questions.
Of course to those who to understand it such carry on in the face of what is
blatantly obvious has only one cause - the person concerned is simply not
educateable in the area concerned. And it is made worse by being unaware of
their inability and reaching the erroneous conclusion they have seen the
light all these supposed smart guys have not - in other words they are
'Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments '
http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html
Rest of junk snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
>
> "MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137178839.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Bill Hobba,
>>
>>
>>> The Lorentz transformations that predict length contraction use
>>> quantities
>>> the objectively exist independent of measurement or measurement context
>>> by
>>> value definiteness and non contextuality..
>>
>>
>> Value definiteness appears 115 times on Google, and no where on the
>> wikipedia or scienceworld.
>
> I gave you a reference to it - you obviously did not read it. Such
> behavior is not a good indicator off intersect is genuineness intellectual
> discourse.
That should be - interest in genuine intellectual discourse.
Thanks
Bill
MobyDikc
Again, assuming you are right, that means I am wrong that only points
in space-time where an observer exist must the universe be calculated.
You are arguing that the universe must be calculated for everypoint in
space-time, not just where there is an observer.
Again, that means even more initial conditions, which is consistent
with the conclusion of my argument: space-time cannot calculate
relativistic effects for all observers in the universe with a single
set of initial conditions.
Bill Hobba
comments.
"MobyDikc" <moby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137178839.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
>> The Lorentz transformations that predict length contraction use
>> quantities
>> the objectively exist independent of measurement or measurement context
>> by
>> value definiteness and non contextuality..
>
>
> Value definiteness appears 115 times on Google, and no where on the
> wikipedia or scienceworld.
>
> Using common sense, velocity is a ratio between distance and duration.
> Those are measurements.
>
> If the idea of value definiteness is to override common sense in this
> case, you should be able to provide a definitive cite on the matter and
> show that it is a commonly accepted notion.
>
>
> In any case, this is all just so I understand. If you're right and I'm
> wrong, then my overall point is strengthened.
>
> I suggested that calculating a complete universe requires that you have
> a unique set of initial conditions for every observer in the universe,
> so that a the effects of length contraction and time dilation can be
> calculated for every observer in the universe.
>
> You're saying that not only do you need initial conditions for every
> point in space-time where there is an observer, but also for every
> point where there is no observer.
Yes.
>
> And since space-time is a continuum, that means an infinite number of
> more calculations would be required to calculate a full universe based
> on a space-time.
>
It is well known that even if you knew the initial conditions of the
universe and it was deterministic it is a practical impossibility to figure
out what it would be at any point in time. It is however an assumption of
determinism that such is in principle possible.
>
> I thought points where observers were would be all that's necessary, to
> satisfy the requirement of making all the predictions. But technically,
> you are right, and even more is necessary.
>
> In the end, you only strengthen the argument that a space-time based
> universe requires more than a single set of initial conditions.
> You
> need a unique set for every point in space-time, based on what you're
> saying.
Of course- to deterministically determine the universe from a deterministic
theory on needs the information about every point. That more or less
follows from the definition of deterministic. So?
Bill
MobyDikc
> Of course- to deterministically determine the universe from a deterministic
> theory on needs the information about every point. That more or less
> follows from the definition of deterministic. So?
I want to determine the universe, or more accurately, calculate an
entire universe.
If I'm going to calculate an entire space-time universe with
relativistic effects, I need to choose a coordinate system, gather
inputs for every object in the universe, and then use special
relativity to progress the state of the universe over time. But then
all the relativistic effects I've calculated are only relevant to the
coordinate system I chose.
If I wanted to calculate the relativistic effects of length contraction
and time dilation for an observer stationed somewhere else in the
universe, I'd need a separate set of calculations, because my current
set of calculations doesn't contain that.
This to me is saying that the state of the universe according to one
observer exists within a different logical system than the state of the
universe according to another observer.
According to my postulate, there should be a single system that
represents the state of the universe.
So, I conclude, that if special relativity is right, then the universe
postulate must be reformulated or replaced entirely.
Not that this is a earth shattering conclusion. I just want to know if
space-time by its definition makes a multiverse or equivalent notion
necessary.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Bill Hobba,
>
>
>
>> Of course- to deterministically determine the universe from a deterministic
>> theory on needs the information about every point. That more or less
>> follows from the definition of deterministic. So?
>
>
>entire universe.
>
>If I'm going to calculate an entire space-time universe with
>relativistic effects, I need to choose a coordinate system, gather
>inputs for every object in the universe, and then use special
>relativity to progress the state of the universe over time. But then
>all the relativistic effects I've calculated are only relevant to the
>coordinate system I chose.
Since there exists 1:1 transformation from any coordinate system to
any other coordinate system, calculating results in one of them is
equivalent to calculating results in all of them.
>
>If I wanted to calculate the relativistic effects of length contraction
>and time dilation for an observer stationed somewhere else in the
>universe, I'd need a separate set of calculations, because my current
>set of calculations doesn't contain that.
It certainly contains that, all you need is to apply the appropriate
transformation.
>
>This to me is saying that the state of the universe according to one
>observer exists within a different logical system than the state of the
>universe according to another observer.
>
since obviously you've no idea what you're talking about, what it is
saying to you is of little or no interest.
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba,
>
> Again, assuming you are right, that means I am wrong that only points
> in space-time where an observer exist must the universe be calculated.
>
> You are arguing that the universe must be calculated for everypoint in
> space-time, not just where there is an observer.
I am not arguing that at all. I am claiming the variables of a classical
theory exist independent of measurement or measurement context. That is
all. I also claim that if the universe was classical (and it is not) then
it is not possible to calculate what the universe is now from what is was
when it came into being by any means we currently know of. Such is well
known and not cause for any concern.
>
> Again, that means even more initial conditions, which is consistent
> with the conclusion of my argument: space-time cannot calculate
> relativistic effects for all observers in the universe with a single
> set of initial conditions.
It is well known as I stated above it is not possible to calculate the exact
time development of a classical system the size of the universe - so? Are
you saying SR claims otherwise (it doesn't)?
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba,
>
>
>
>> Of course- to deterministically determine the universe from a
>> deterministic
>> theory on needs the information about every point. That more or less
>> follows from the definition of deterministic. So?
>
>
> I want to determine the universe, or more accurately, calculate an
> entire universe.
What you want to do and what we know the world allows you to do are two
different things. I am discussing what physics tells us - not your
fantasies.
Rest snipped until above point toughly investigated.
Bill
>
Bill Hobba
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:GhWxf.33$45....@news.uchicago.edu...
I suspect at some time or another he has read some popularization of
relativity that talked about observers. From this he concludes relativity
is a theory about observers. He is not alone in that - I have seen plenty
of posters with that misconception. I have spelt out the exact assumption
classical theories make - the assumption of value defiantness and non
contextuality - assumptions that are so obvious to most people it is rarely
if ever spelt out. Which is why the Kochen-Speker theorem comes as such a
shock - QM simply does not conform to our usual preconceptions. But even
after it is spelt out in excruiating detail he still does not get it.
On a more serious note something occurred to me while penning these replies.
SR is a theory about space-time geometry that assumes a specific geometry
(Minkowski) independent of any measurement context. To me this is an issue
with QFT - there seems to be a fundamental incompatibility between QM in
which states are generally assumed to be the things that are definite. We
also assume something else - Minkowski geometry. The same with standard
QM - we assume Euclidian geometry independent of any measurement context.
To me this seems somewhat of a kludge - the central lesson of GR is that we
should not assume any particular geometry - the theory itself should
determine that. Should not QFT itself determine the background geometry
rather than having it inbuilt? String theory also has that problem. Or
maybe it is simply another clue we need a deeper theory? Is this the issue
LQG grapples with? Maybe I should learn more of the details of that theory.
Thanks
Bill
Schoenfeld
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
[...]
> Since there exists 1:1 transformation from any coordinate system to
> any other coordinate system, calculating results in one of them is
> equivalent to calculating results in all of them.
Suppose Alice falls into a Black Hole and once inside the horizon she
claps her hands 3 times. At what position/time will those hand clapping
events "map" in Bob's frame who is safely outside the horizon? You can
choose which ever system of coordinates and parameters you want..
I await with much anticipation your solution...
[...]
Bill Hobba
A reasonable answer. However actually making predictions requires something
a lot more precise. Can you flesh that out a bit?
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137197736....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The answer is Kruskal coordinates as has been explained to you time and time
again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal_coordinates
Are you unable to read or are you only capable of absorbing what suits you?
Bill
Schoenfeld
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137197736....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Since there exists 1:1 transformation from any coordinate system to
> >> any other coordinate system, calculating results in one of them is
> >> equivalent to calculating results in all of them.
> >
> > Suppose Alice falls into a Black Hole and once inside the horizon she
> > claps her hands 3 times. At what position/time will those hand clapping
> > events "map" in Bob's frame who is safely outside the horizon? You can
> > choose which ever system of coordinates and parameters you want..
>
> The answer is Kruskal coordinates as has been explained to you time and time
> again:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal_coordinates
Didn't think you could answer the question either..
> Are you unable to read or are you only capable of absorbing what suits you?
I simply asked a question, it was you who couldn't answer it..
Schoenfeld
hint: it doesn't map in Schwarzchild coordinates.
hint2: it doesn't map to a coordinate patch with real time in kruskal
coordinates..
If your world happens to populate the same universe that reality does,
chances are good your clock ticks real time..
Bill Hobba
Hint - the Scwartzchild singularity is gone in Kruskal coordinates so it can
be used to express both Alice and Bobs coordinates using the same system by
the very defection of what a coordinate system is. If you can not see
that - as Tom would say - shrug.
>
> If your world happens to populate the same universe that reality does,
> chances are good your clock ticks real time..
Experiments with planes and atomic clocks prove you wrong.
Bill
Schoenfeld
hint: that kruskal coordinate patch has *imaginary* time coordinate
(hint: it's not physical). In real time, Bob never observes Alice pass
through the horizon and can *never* map those events in real time.
> >
> > If your world happens to populate the same universe that reality does,
> > chances are good your clock ticks real time..
>
> Experiments with planes and atomic clocks prove you wrong.
You are most welcome to propose a clock that ticks imaginary time..
> Bill