Special Relativity Theory Violates the Causality Principle

[shuba]

Calling all cranks! Video conference begins in 12 hours, and *you*
can join. I think you'll be prompted to download the FuzeMeeting
app, just follow directions when it starts and you'll be in. A
question and answer session will probably follow the presentation
per usual practice.

http://www.worldnpa.org/site/event/?eventid=547

For interested non-cranks (and others), a two-page paper with the
same name as the video conference and this usenet post is available
as the first listing of this impressive collection of gibberish.

http://www.worldnpa.org/site/member/?memberid=1860&subpage=abstracts

It is worth sharpening one's skills by figuring out in which
places this paper runs off the rails into crankland. As an
illustrative exercise, draw two proper spacetime diagrams of the
scenario, one from the initial rest frame and a second from the
rest frame of "rocket #1" after its acceleration ceases.


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message news:k4o33l$n7c$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

=============================================

<yawn>

Fuck off, shithead shuba. You are a stupid cunt with your improper

head up your proper arse.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[rotchm]

Yes, I checked the papers... WhoaH! A zillion errors. That dude really does not understand SR. I think I will watch that presentation in replacement of my Saturday morning comics :)

On Friday, October 5, 2012 9:56:08 PM UTC-4, shuba wrote:
> Calling all cranks! Video conference begins in 12 hours, and *you*

...
> http://www.worldnpa.org/site/event/?eventid=547
...

> For interested non-cranks (and others), a two-page paper with the

...

[truth...@prodigy.net]

Androcles really knows better but he is not applying himself. Acceleration and relativity definately produce a violation of Causality. I pointed this out to you all long ago when I exposed same from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe and Fabric of the cosmos examples. He exposes the violation of Causality but didn't have the wit to realize it. Also, Einstein if really "the greatest human ever to have existed" would have also realized it when he got into GR, and actually should have realized SR was nonsense when he initially came up with lack of simultaneity and sought the real truth which I have told you about previously....no time dimension exists.


Spirit

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

<truth...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:0fe48bc6-d277-4453...@googlegroups.com...

Androcles really knows better but he is not applying himself. Acceleration and relativity definately produce a violation of Causality. I pointed this out to you all long ago when I exposed same from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe and Fabric of the cosmos examples. He exposes the violation of Causality but didn't have the wit to realize it. Also, Einstein if really "the greatest human ever to have existed" would have also realized it when he got into GR, and actually should have realized SR was nonsense when he initially came up with lack of simultaneity and sought the real truth which I have told you about previously....no time dimension exists.


Spirit

=================================================

 

We write before we think because no time dimension exists. Spirit really knows better but she will not be applying herself yesterday.

[Alfonso]

On 06/10/12 02:56, shuba wrote:
> Calling all cranks! Video conference begins in 12 hours, and *you*
> can join.

What is the problem? Causality is a philosophical assumption of
Classical philosophy. Theoretical physics began rejecting classical
philosophy around 1920. The classical assumption was that an effect (a
change) must have a cause preceding it - the two being linked by a
physical process. The nature of science was, according to this
philosophy, to try and understand the physical process. A "theory" was
an attempt to describe this physical process.

The new philosophy on which physics is now based rejects the
causality of classical philosophy so the fact that SR violates it, which
it does, is irrelevant.

"Strict, time-ordered deterministic causality through a unique set of
physical states is abandoned." PD

The new philosophy is accurately described as follows:

"....the most that human beings can aspire to is to make models of the
world -- we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really
doing. We can only make models and test them." Tom Roberts

Understanding reality is no longer a part of physics. A theory is no
longer required to describe a physical process - it is simply a
mathematical model. The criteria for acceptance solely that it provides
accurate prediction in its domain of applicability. SR is a mathematical
model - or as Einstein described it a "principle theory" - same thing.

Those you call cranks are simply people who have not understood the new
philosophy, or cling to the classical philosophy - which is
understandable as it still underpins most other science.

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that the change took place
without debate and does not appear in the time line of the history of
physics. It was a take over started by Heisenburg Schrodinger et al. One
is taught how physics developed from Galileo until Einstein with the
assumptions of classical philosophy seemingly an integral part of
physics itself then suddenly you have Einstein being declared a genius
when according to that same classical philosophy he hadn't done much -
at least as far as SR is concerned.

Lorentz's theory is a classical theory. It puts forward an explanation
in terms of Maxwell's aether - why measuring rods get shorter when they
move w.r.t the aether. Their length being dependent on their absolute
speed w.r.t the aether. Einstein objected to that description but
totally failed to come up with an alternative. Some vague handwavy stuff
about "an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's" but no one took it
seriously.

The new philosophy didn't require an explanation, in fact an explanation
of the old type was considered a futile attempt to understand reality
cluttering up physics. The new philosophy said we can never actually
know what nature herself is really doing.

Many in this NG are confused because the philosophical basis of physics
past and present is not included in a course in physics and without it
the history of physics makes no sense. Classical philosophy was largely
intuitive so tends to correspond with everyday ideas of what makes
sense. Instead of explaining the change in philosophy to students, they
are told that "it does make sense - but is counter-intuitive".

Alfonso

[shuba]

Extreme crank Alfonso wrote:

> What is the problem?

No problem here, must be on your end. Did you run into difficulties
attempting to draw the spacetime diagrams?


---Tim Shuba---

[Poutnik]

shuba from t...@sh.uba
posted Sun, 7 Oct 2012 12:14:17 +0000 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to my knowledge
causality principle would be violated in SR
only in case if SR allowed information interchange
by speed faster than vacuum light speed.

What is not the case.

--
Poutnik

Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.

[shuba]

Poutnik wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong, but according to my knowledge
> causality principle would be violated in SR
> only in case if SR allowed information interchange
> by speed faster than vacuum light speed.
>
> What is not the case.

Yes, I agree. Since we are discussing special relativity, I would
add the phrase "in any set of locally inertial frames" to avoid
possible complications. The new consideration introduced by special
relativity for causality is that for a physical process at event A
to send a signal or otherwise influence something at event B, these
two events must be timelike separated in spacetime. This statement
is invariant, and the time-ordering of the two event cannot switch
by changing frames. That was the reason I suggested drawing or
thinking about the spacetime diagrams, as they show that the author
of the paper is clearly in error in his conclusion. For that
matter, it also debunks much of Alfonso's uninformed cobbling
together of various unrelated sound bytes of fact and fantasy.


---Tim Shuba---

[shuba]

shuba wrote:

> The new consideration introduced by special
> relativity for causality is that for a physical process at event A
> to send a signal or otherwise influence something at event B, these
> two events must be timelike separated in spacetime.

Or lightlike separated, of course, for signals traveling at c.


---Tim Shuba---

[Spirit of Truth]

>We write before we think because no time dimension exists. Spirit really knows >better but she will not be applying herself yesterday.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Only current existence exists, Androcles. All the universe exists, with continually changing positions of it's contents in the only "Time" that exists....one forever moment of NOW.

>On Monday, October 8, 2012 7:34:10 AM UTC-7, shuba wrote:
> shuba wrote: > The new consideration introduced by special > relativity for causality is that for a physical process at event A > to send a signal or otherwise influence something at event B, these > two events must be timelike separated in spacetime. Or lightlike separated, of course, for signals traveling at c. ---Tim Shuba---

Shubs, and all the rest who try to understand this SR falsity and make comments here. The current existence of any Observer will have effects changing to causes in their NOW.....far far away. Same cannot happen and does not exist. SR's "info transfer" is a simply a false cop-out to subsume your knowingness.

Spirit

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Spirit of Truth" <truth...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:9c2d5fbe-57d6-4dd3...@googlegroups.com...

==========================================

Your idle words don’t convey any meaning.

I look out of my window, I see a brick in a wall and I say “That brick only exist now”.

I look at the tree, it has green leaves although some are tinged with yellow as this is

October and I say “That leaf only exists now”. Well whoopee! What am I supposed to

do with this fabulous intelligence?  When tomorrow becomes now, and it will, the leaf

will change and the brick will not. I shall say “That brick is still in the wall as it was

yesterday, but that leaf has fallen from the tree”. And you will say “Only now exists”

as if that had any significance to anyone or anything besides you. So I say again

to your pronouncement, “So what?”

So come on, tell us. Did the brick exist yesterday? Will it exist tomorrow? Why

does it only exist now and what meaning does that convey? “Tomorrow never

comes”, is that it? I’ve got new for you. Today is the tomorrow you worried

about yesterday, and this progression we call time is called a dimension whether

you say it exists or not. “A forever moment of now” is as meaningless as a

long wait.